Talk:Animal Liberation Front

Terrorist Group

They have been cited as a Terrorist group along with the ELF for the over $110 million of damages, threats, intimidation, instructions on bomb making being made publicly available. Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109shrg32209/html/CHRG-109shrg32209.htm I note a large cadre of ALF apologists, constantly rewriting this page to paint this terror group in a glowing innocent light and adding in various retorts and claims of "false flag" operations, which would be laughable if this group's activities were not so serious and life endangering. Its damned shameful and no better than those who defend neo nazi groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.56.14 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Engaging in ad hominem attacks and bad faith editing (see: WP:GF) is not a good way to build a case for your preferred version of the article, and ridiculous comparisons to neo-Nazis probably won't help, either.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nah you are absolutely wrong. ALF is fully justified in all its actions RJS001 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Voice of ALF

ALF is a leaderless group with no membership or staff roster, and "ALF" has traditionally been used as a "banner" or "tag" for labelling an action as being "part of ALF" or "for ALF". As such, "it" (meaning ALF) doesn't have a voice, an opinion, or a viewpoint. Only people do. I reverted several edits which had been made that changed the ALF "voice" in the article. This is incorrect. ALF doesn't promote anything; only individuals (who might associate themselves with ALF) can promote, act, speak or have an opinion. Normal Op (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you really want to be technical, no organization has a voice, only the people do. People who share the same opinions just use organizations to help promote their opinion, but that would be too tedious to constantly explain. While some organizations are leaderless and decentralized, that doesn't mean they're voiceless. Is BLM voiceless? Was the Occupy Movement voiceless? Of course not. In the ALF's case, it has spokespeople. It has a code, a philosophy, and it even has press offices! That is not a voiceless organization. We probably wouldn't even have this article if it was truly voiceless. Mariolovr (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to voice as in voicebox on a human, but closer to Writer's voice. An organization with no people, one that is just a loose collection of ideas/ideals, has no "voice". The actors associated with the organization can speak in a voice. The Wikipedia article needs to be written to keep that clear. I presume that's why ALF and similar organizations created a "press office" so they could actually "speak" in the voice of the organization. But that's not what's happening here in those edits you had changed. Those ideas/utterances were not from a "press office". Normal Op (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ARM content

I removed some content about the actions on the ARM since it wasn't about the ALF, but this was reverted because discussion was wanted due to the size of the content removed. So, any reason why this content should be on this article instead of the ARM article? Mariolovr (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a section explaining the interrelationship between ALF, ARM and JD. There is this document [1] that might explain further why the MARS poisoning event is in the ALF article. Normal Op (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm talking about the paragraph of other events that happened later and were attributed to the ARM. Mariolovr (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what you're referring to. I only looked at the edit history, saw what you had deleted (and another editor reverted). It's the paragraph starting "From 1983 onwards". Normal Op (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ugh! I hate these ALF articles. I see I got the wrong paragraph. It's all gibberish to me. These organizations "claim" this and that, and these are all history, so ignore my MARS explanation. I don't have enough brain cells left today to devote to this. Normal Op (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's all good. This article needs some work. So do you think the actual paragraph belongs in the ARM article instead?

There's no reason a paragraph couldn't be in more than one article. I'm not inclined to read all that history just to answer whether it's ARM or ALF. It might well be both since these orgs often had a lot of crossover/overlap. Normal Op (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Should a paragraph on apples be used in an article about oranges? Also, if you're going to edit an article's content, you have a responsibility to at least read it. Mariolovr (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Normal Op (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That has to do with taking breaks. It is not justification to not understand what you're editing. Mariolovr (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

FBI source

File:Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide Part 01.pdf is not a useful addition to the article, especially as it was included in this edit. We could reasonably summarize the content it has on ALF and include it as a reference, but we would need to be careful about using straightforward statements that hew to the primary source.

As it is, the image displayed is entirely unhelpful, and it's not accurate to say (as the caption currently does), that the FBI "associates the ALF with domestic terrorism", as the document itself is heavily hedged and never makes so broad a claim. Pinging Tryptofish, who recently reverted my removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a big deal to me, so I self-reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)