Talk:Animal Liberation Front/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Video

One of the images says that all ALF material is released to the public domain so does that mean videos like this one could be ripped and uploaded? gren グレン 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, because that one is based on ALF footage and was put together by PETA, which also releases its material into the public domain. A copy was uploaded here, although I've never managed to get this version to play, but I can play other ogg files. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Gren, see this ogg file, which is also in the Britches article. Crum375 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

ADL

I've removed the ADL opinion from the lead, because they're not a specialist or relevant source on this topic, and their views are therefore not particularly notable. We already have Homeland Security, so an additional non-specialist, non-law enforcement source from the same country isn't needed. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I agree the ADL quote isn't necessary, but what I meant about the same sources (in the edit summary) is that the ADL article uses many of the same sources throughout as the Wiki article, so in a way, they are very similar, so even if the ADL were more notable, the added content might not be. Bob98133 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist status

"The ALF was named as a "terrorist threat" by the United States' Department of Homeland Security in January 2005."

Does anyone know if or when it was given similar status in the UK (or any other country), and what that status is called. That sentence on its own would fit a lot better if it gave a bit more information. --Nathan (Talk) 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The ALF hasn't been listed as a terrorist threat in the UK as far as I am aware.-Localzuk(talk) 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Under British law (Terrorism Act 2000, 2006), no "eco-terror" groups are proscribed, [1] but there are plenty of reliable sources descibing their "terrorist attacks in the UK" [2] Rockpocket 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The ALF was listed as a terror threat long before this in the US. See http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm. Interestingly, this is before designating groups as terrorists became sexy post 9/11.--Dentate 12:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I just point out that that sources says that they are a special interest extremist group - not a terrorist group. They go on to say some of the acts committed by the ALF (and the ELF) constitute terrorist acts, but there does not appear to be a blanket 'they are a terrorist group' at that time. Unless I am missing something of course.-Localzuk(talk) 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia definition of terrorism is: "Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear". It would make perfect sence to modify the first sentence of the ALF description such as: "engage in direct terrorist action on behalf of animals". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayblanc (talk • contribs) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For us as editors to use a Wikipedia definition of a word, and then apply it to a group, would violate WP:NOR. If there is a reliable source that says that "group X is Y," we are allowed to include that, assuming it meets other requirements, such as WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. BTW, most wartime military raids against cities would fall under your definition. Crum375 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not "my" definition it was Wikipedia's. There are many other definitions (see for instance: [3] which includes definition from many countries). It's hard to see why ALF actions would not fall into them. Adding "terrorist" not therefore not change the neutrality of the article because it is a fact, given these definitions. Rayblanc (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, we can't just make up things, as that would violate WP:NOR. And you ignored my point that your definition would apply to many wartime raids against cities. Crum375 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wartime is obviously different, and, again, it is not "my" definition. Invoking WP:NOR seems hypocritical to me: this organisation uses the terms "terrorist actions" itself [4]! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayblanc (talk • contribs) 08:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is "wartime obviously different"? Do you have a reliable source that states that the definition of "terrorism" depends on whether it's used during war or peace? Crum375 (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The war/peace time argument is highly subjective. The ALF themselves may consider to be in a war, as a legitimate faction.Maziotis (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've already pointed you to numerous definitions of terrorisms but you keep a blind eye on them and hide begind Wikipedia rules. Why don't you try to demonstrate that ALF is not not involved in terrorist activities?Rayblanc (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The definition you gave me would also cover many countries who have engaged in bombing raids against civilians. In any case, we can't use a controversial definition and apply it to a group on our own, as that would be WP:OR. Instead we need to find reliable sources who say "group X is Y," and that's what we do in this article. Crum375 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The section related to terrorist linking gives you all you need...Rayblanc (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This group is a domestic terrorist group, I don't care how much the person who write the article sugarcoats it.--29 February 2008 Susan Nunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.60.4 (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read our applicable content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. If you believe some fact is true and relevant, find a reliable source that says it, and add it to the article with the reference. Crum375 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is stupid. The ALF is widely considered to be a terrorist group. One only has to look at what they do to see that. To compare them to a military organization is ridiculous because as a group of individuals they do not represent any government entity. They are an independent group of radicals who seek to force their beliefs on the rest of society through violence and acts of economic sabotage. This is terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.20.60 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is stupid to post unreferenced information to Wiki. You are welcome to define ALF or terrorism or any other terms as you like, but to post information to Wiki, it has to be referenced. At one time, the world was widely considered to be flat - but that didn't make it true. Bob98133 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how ALF isn't a terrorist group. The FBI and ATF have testified before Congress labeling them a terrorist group. [5] 66.25.60.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

As editors above have correctly pointed out, it is a matter of having proper sourcing. Unless I've missed it, there has not been an FBI etc. statement that ALF is a terrorist organization, and we should not go beyond that in the wording we use here. I have added material from the FBI that gives a more nuanced way of saying it, and I think that it certainly does help provide balance to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A different editor has objected to my introduction of that material. I have attempted to be sensitive to what might be that editor's concerns that the added material would make the lead needlessly lengthy and repetitious, by also deleting from the lead related material that is less direct in its characterization of the ALF, and that is also repeated lower on the page. I do think that material from the FBI, characterizing the FBI's view of the relationship between ALF and what the FBI terms "terrorists," is highly appropriate to the lead, and valuable for NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Should this be put into a vote or something? It seems to me that an editor shouldn't just have final say in this because his or her opinions don't match that of the FBI. Should we not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization because some people don't believe they are and it is not NPOV? 66.25.60.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for that. Please see also the section about the FBI quote at the bottom of this talk page. The way that we handle this isn't exactly through a vote as such, but as described at WP:Consensus. I hope that you and other editors will weigh in constructively to help me with this. If need be, there is also WP:RFC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You hope people will help you out, not the article? You have a nerve. This is trolling, pure and simple. You want to change that the ALF has been listed as a domestic terrorist threat by the Dept of Homeland Security (which I added), and insert instead that some asst deputy director of the counter-terrorist dept of the FBI said in a speech that they're vandals who harass the business community diff. Yet you paint ME as the person wanting to keep the terrorist allegation out of the lead? This is a stable lead. It is comprehensive. It includes the most important criticism, and it is FAR more important that they've been listed by Homeland Security. You have zero interest in, or knowledge of, animal rights. The only reason you're editing here and at the other AR articles is to troll me. Please grow up. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Tryptofish#Ingrid Newkirk page (early January). WP:NPA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition: Using violence against civilians to influence governmental process. Doesn't fit the definition of ALF since they don't attack civilians with the purpose of hurting the government. But since they were labeled as terrorists by some organization, it's fair to mention that in the article. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

FBI quote in lead

I have recently attempted to make an edit to the lead, providing a referenced quote from the F.B.I. about the F.B.I.'s view of the alleged terrorist status of the A.L.F. Another editor has objected to and reverted my edit, so I would like to try to explain my thinking here. I began my explanation in the Terrorist status section, above. I've also looked in this talk for the other editor's explanation, and either did not find it yet or missed it. I am not sure whether I understand that editor's reasoning, because the accompanying edit summaries centered upon false and bizarre personal attacks against me, rather than on the content of the edits. I began by noticing an ongoing history of mostly anonymous complaints in this talk that the page should call ALF terrorists, and responses by other editors (correct, in my opinion) that any such characterization needs to be sourced. I then found, on reading about it, that there appears not to be any sourced governmental claim that ALF is a terrorist organization, but, rather, that more nuanced language has been used. I found this source, and attempted to add it to the lead. I believe that it is an accurate and verifiable representation of what U.S. law enforcement actually says on the matter, and highly relevant to the page. Previously, the lead has contained two other sources about this matter: one from the SPLC, and the other from Homeland Security. Both of those sources are also repeated lower on the page. In addition, the SPLC source centers more on the complaint that right-wing groups are not monitored as closely as groups such as ALF, while the Homeland Security document is identified as a draft, rather than final, and therefore each seems to me to be a little weak for inclusion in this lead. In contrast, the F.B.I. source appears to me to be very valuable, and not otherwise reported on the page. At first, I added the F.B.I. material without deleting the rest, because I was hesitant to delete other editors' work. Subsequently, I thought that, perhaps, the other editor objected, reasonably I think, to having multiple similar quotes, so I attempted to add the F.B.I material while deleting the others, but that version also has been reverted. I do believe that the page would be improved by restoring my last edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to add a few more points. As to the lead being "stable," I think that depends upon consensus, which can evolve over time, and discussion. It is unclear to me what other editors think about how many sources there should be in the lead, because it seems that comments about that have been changing, but anything from one to three here would be fine with me. I don't have an issue about the number, but rather, about the quality and relevance. As for whether Homeland Security calls ALF a "terrorist group" or a "terrorist threat," we should report their choice of words correctly, but otherwise I do not think that affects the usefulness of that source to the lead. I think that Homeland Security and the FBI are both equally appropriate as sources for this purpose, and I have no objection to including them both. But I think that there is still a question about why the Homeland Security source cited, dating from 2005, is a "draft planning document." Surely it would be better to cite a final document, if it is available, and if it goes beyond "vandalism," then all the better. I still think the SPLC source is a little weak for the lead, because it does not reflect government positions, and is not principally about ALF. As for the FBI reference, I think the rank of its author is irrelevant, because the material is sourced from the FBI's official website, where it is clearly presented as representing the position of the Bureau as a whole. As for the fact that the FBI quote makes reference to the business community, well, that is what they say and we should report it, not pass judgment on it. I also think the quote is valuable, because it demonstrates the nuanced wording used, and because it balances the Ron Coronado quote at the start of the paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Some days have passed without further comment, so I hope that my explanations above may perhaps have satisfied the concerns that had been raised. I would like to suggest that the FBI quote be returned to the lead, without, for the time being, deleting any material that is there now. Recognizing that editors may still wish to comment, however, I will wait a bit longer before making the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I object. The Dept of Homeland Security designation of "domestic terrorist threat" is far stronger and is official. It has been in the lead for a long time. There is no valid reason to remove it in order to replace it with a far weaker statement. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. As I said, there is no need to remove the Homeland Security part (or the SPLC, for that matter). The Homeland Security source is described as a "draft planning document." Is a final document available for citing? (And the FBI statement is far from weak.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Having asked about whether there's a final document, I figured I should look for it myself. As far as I can tell, no such source has been made public, apparently because Homeland Security does not release threat lists to the public, as a matter of policy. In line with the comment above that the source now cited is "official," I thought about writing the lead to indicate that it is official diff, but concluded that doing so would be misleading diff. The fact that it would be misleading points up the weakness of that source for the purposes of this page. The source cited is a CQ news piece (ref 9 on the page now), primarily analyzing why right-wing groups were not included in a "draft planning document," rather than why ALF was. The source cited for the SPLC (ref 8 on the page now) similarly focuses on why the government did not pay more attention to right-wing groups. In contrast, the FBI source that I have recommended (ref 10 here) is an official statement from U.S. government law enforcement, addressed specifically to their view of ALF. Truly, that seems to me to be more relevant to the lead of this page, although I have no objection to adding it while retaining the material that is already there. (By the way, when I have referred in this talk to sources as being "strong" or "weak," I did not mean strong in their condemnation, etc., but rather to their usefulness to this page. I'm continuing to comment on this because I truly believe the page would be made better by adding the FBI material.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The above is too long to read. The Homeland Security designation is the one that needs to be mentioned in the lead. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
FBI is part of Homeland Security now, so I agree with Slimvirgin on this. Also, ALF is international, so adding another US reference makes the lead/article a bit US-centric. I haven't reread the article recently but relevant FBI quotes could be included elsewhere.Bob98133 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Bob for some very good observations. The idea of moving something down lower on the page is an interesting one, and may be a good way of "breaking the logjam," as it were. But I do want to correct one point: the FBI is not part of Homeland Security. They are independent organizations. To check the facts, please see this organizational chart from the DHS website, which does not show the FBI as part of the department, as well as United States Department of Homeland Security#Creation of DHS which says that it was decided to not incorporate FBI into DHS, and Joint Terrorism Task Force which also makes clear in the lead that they are separate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
With respect to the logic of the DHS draft document being such a "strong" source, please note the edit summaries in this diff, and this diff. (By the way, I do not feel strongly either way about the far-left politics category. Although ALF hardly seems far-right, I take the point that they are not necessarily political in the traditional sense either way.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FBI quote

Should a source providing the FBI's position on the ALF be added to the lead? Should the current Dept of Homeland Security and SPLC opinions remain? Please read this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Seeing how there is already a US quote from Homeland Security, and the FBI comment is already in the body text... given that the ALF was originally a UK phenomenon, and is still primarily a UK phenomenon, then instead of locating another US quote, if supplementary quotes are necessary in the lede to show just how 'bad' they are, then I would suggest a UK source condemning them should be used instead. Mind you, saying the ALF are the worst terrorist threat facing the country is pretty bizarre - but then I guess 'might kill somebody one day' is much 'worse' than Muslims blowing up 50 people on trains and buses. Mish (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mish for your help. If I may, though, I want to correct that it is the DHS quote that is repeated lower on the page (as is the SPLC quote, also from the U.S), not the FBI one. (And "showing how 'bad' they are" are your words, not mine.) A question not yet answered, but which could be very helpful to the matter at hand: how do editors feel the FBI quote compares, in value for the page, with the existing ones from DHS and SPLC? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That's OK. A few points. I do think a UK security quote is needed in the lede, given the focus on the US DHS & SPLC quotes. Problem is the UK quote is from 1998, and since the launch of an indigenous Muslim terrorist campaign no longer relevant (although given the atrocities carried out by the IRA before that, even then it sounds questionable). As for the SPLC quote, then out of the context of the SPLC quote further on it does seem an unbalanced representation of their statement, one which qualification through using the full sentence might go some way to addess "with frankly terroristic tactics similar to those of anti-abortion extremists." That makes it clearer what SPLC meant, which when unpacked with the comments about the DHS focus on this rather than white supremacist groups makes the context even clearer. I am looking for something more current from the UK, but it looks like there is little this century that makes them out to be as big a threat as the 1998 quote makes out. Between DHS and FBI comment in the lede, I would opt for the DHS one, as the FBI one discusses a range of groups, including ALF & ELF.(insert comment: by drawing a conclusion about the level threat posed by an aggregation of groups to a single group is synthetic, and fallacious, as it is form of arguing from the general to particular 'these groups together represent the biggest threat, therefore this one group represents the biggest threat' no it doesn't, it is part of that threat. Whereas the DHS cite is clearer - it is one group that has been added to a list of terrorist groups) Mish (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to RFC The FBI is America's premier national law enforcement agency; its position is quite relevant and belongs in the lead. That's no reason to remove the others, so long as the lead stays reasonably compact. RayTalk 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to RFC FBI + DHS + SPLC is three different US organizations, which places too much emphasis and detail on one country's position on the ALF too high in the article. RomaC (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Closing the RfC. I think the RfC has run for a long enough time, and I'm removing the tag for the bot. I thank the editors who took the time to respond. It seems to me that there is a trend of opinion that having three U.S.-based sources in the lead would be too many. It also seems to me that there is no consensus as to which one or two sources should be used. Absent a consensus for changing the lead, I am going to leave the lead as it is. If other editors decide to revisit the issue in the future, I would welcome it.

As some editors have suggested, I will instead add the FBI material lower on the page, in the "Listing as a domestic terrorist group" section. While there, I will also try to fix some other POV issues in that section. I was pleased (and a little amused) to see similar FBI sourcing added to the page on PETA.

That said, I still think that the best interests of the page are not served by this outcome. The SPLC cite in the lead is really from a non-governmental source complaining that other groups were not named as terrorists. It would be better to remove the SPLC, which is repeated lower on the page, and replace it with the FBI. In its present form, the page is not GA, much less FA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Front and the far-left politics

It is not disputed that DHS has classified ALF as a far-left political organization, and I am even opened to accept that this fact can be considered notable enough to be included in the article. This would still be a case of describing such classification, not assume it as it was done in the category section. DHS is not a reliable source for ideological classifications (?!) Even a scholar source, such as the department of political science of a university, would raise issues of bias in this matter. I think this is a clear case of (wp:neutral point of view). This has got nothing to do with "DHS being a good and trustworthy organization or not". Maziotis (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I have no real quarrel about the category. My concern lies more with sourcing in the lead, and you have, indirectly, substantiated a point I have been making about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
After reading the arguments, I think the category far-left politics should stand. I think you should pick either the fbi or the dhs source for the lead. -Zeus-u|c 05:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My impression has been they are anarchistic, but I am going back to the time when I first became aware of them when I lived in Bristol thirty years ago. I've not seen much since that suggests otherwise. The alleged structure sounds more anarchistic than far-left. Finding sources to substantiate that might not be so easy. If you have a reliable source that describes them as 'far left', then that does not justify describing them as such, but that they are described that way by XYZ. Mish (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This book, Terrorists or freedom fighters? By Steven Best & Anthony J. Nocella, published in 2004, says this on p.25 "The structure and philosophy of the ALF thereby has some key affinities with anarchism and radical feminism." then go on to point out the strict code of non-violence, etc. So, the desgnation of "far-left" is not actually born out by independent sources. Mish (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen the ALF described as "far-left" by a scholarly source, or self-described that way. It would be an odd thing to say, given that it's a leaderless resistance. No one knows who makes up the ALF's cells, because they operate anonymously all over the world with no central leadership. It's therefore not possible to say that they're "far-left," or anything else. So far as anyone can tell, they represent a wide variety of political opinion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin. It is unnecessarily confusing to try to attribute a political point of view to a leaderless group which has never espoused a traditional political ideology normally associated with left or right. Maybe instead of far-left, we could call them far-out - it would make as much sense. Bob98133 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The "far-out" made me laugh! I have to agree too, actually. They do seem more anarchistic than any particular place on the left-right scale. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Image questions

  • Regarding this, why is that image needed here? Wouldn't it make better sense to place it at Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group instead?
  • Regarding this, it looks like some images of ALF supporters were restored, which makes good sense, but some images of the aftermath of alleged ALF actions were not. Does that skew the POV of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The aftermath images were fair use and were therefore deleted by other admins. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome to re-upload them; they are here. You might be able to claim fair use, but you'd probably need to know who owned them, and if they're recent journalists' images, fair use is unlikely to be accepted. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the image history, which was very helpful. Also, thank you for adjusting the image size of the image mentioned in my first bullet point. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing

I'm half-thinking again of trying to get this up to FA standard; not necessarily to submit it, but so that it could be submitted in theory. So I may start going through it to tighten the writing, or add anything obvious that's missing, without making it too long. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. Given the failed GA review, archived in talk from October 2007, it will be necessary to address the POV concerns that were raised then. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There is very little relationship between a GA reviewer and what happens at FA. If you have POV concerns, please list them, bearing in mind that FA standards are high, and articles must be truly neutral -- meaning disinterested -- not swinging back and forth from one POV to another. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I do think the GA reviewer did a good job, and I'm all in favor of high standards. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

External links - too many links, and unbalanced

This section needs to be trimmed and show balance of POV.

Nevermind that the title of the section is "Further Reading", it is still an external links section. The section shows bias. The three books and two films listed are sympathetic to the cause of ALF, and no books or films critical of ALF are presented. The section of web links is also mostly sympathetic. There are too many links here as well. One quick way to trim this section is to only link to ALF once - currently the press office, the home page, and a few miscellaneous pages are all presented individually. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Agree that the ALF links could be consolidated and forum links dumped. If well researched books or films critical of ALF are available then I see no problem adding those. Since this topic is quite controversial, I think that a slight excess of ELs may be preferable to a deficit. While the FBI links and some others express an "official" POV, there may be many other anti-ALF refs that are just conservative commentary such as Rush Limbaugh which should be excluded. Thanks for discussing this prior to changing as there may well be other opinions which should be considered. Bob98133 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I won't edit this article. It's too much drama.
re: excluding random commentary like Limbaugh - I bet there are thousands of such links, and I advocate including none of them as external links. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I could not help but to notice your comment about "too much drama." Obviously, I understand what you mean. But I think it's very sad, and ultimately hurtful to Wikipedia, if editors are pushed out of editing certain subject areas because of the bad behavior of other editors who try to own those subject areas. I think the best solution is to keep on editing, to do so within policy at all times (no matter what those other editors do), and not to give in to bullies. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Trypto, for the encouragement. If you see my work on China issues, where I get attacked both sides for trying to stick to established agreements, you'd see I'm not afraid of being involved in drama and flaming issues. In this case, I just do not have the time right now to take a deep look at what is there, discuss trimming and additions, etc. You can invite me back if there is something to see or comment on. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Thanks. Good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

POV

Just passing through, but my general impression from the article's first paragraph is that it's still fairly biased from a leftist/ALF supporter's point of view. Especially the romanticized comparison to the underground railroad. While there may be similarities, the way the comparison is brought about it done in such a way as to give ALF members an image akin to that of Harriet Tubman. Anyway, good luck to those still trying to fix that issue. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree with you. For "those still trying to fix that issue", it gets kind of lonely. Too bad so many editors just pass through. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the way that it is phrased, in the lede, helps present ALF's view of itself. The subject of an article should be allowed to present their definition of who they are and what they do. It doesn't have to present it as fact or be refuted right there. The sentence says that "ALF volunteers see themselves..." Obviously, this perception isn't shared by all, which comes out in the article when other sources detail how they see ALF volunteers. The third ph of the lede addresses terrorism and makes it clear that not everyone agrees with ALF's self-assessment. I know that any changes to this article are hotly debated, but I think in this case, the existing text is not egregious. Bob98133 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Those are valid points, Bob, and the reason that I did not act on making an edit, even though I thought hard about it. I think a case could be made for moving it out of the lead and into the main text, because the lead still does a pretty good job of presenting ALF's self-view without it, so I wonder what other editors would think about that? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

England

This article is too much about England. You'd think the Animal Liberation Front is doing almost nothing anywhere else in the world. The Uk centric tone renders the article somewhat ridiculous. Gingermint (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


this article is laughably pov. it needs to be completely rewritten. 77.7.220.223 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What is ALF Notable For?

1. Trespassing 2. Breaking and Entering 3. Grafitti 4. Vandalism 5. Theft 6. Stalking 7. Harrassment 8. Arson 9. Being listed as employing terrorist methods 10. Being listed as a domestic terrorist organization

I wonder why this article does not seem to concentrate on this, but is pretty much a puff piece. "Underground railroad"? Please. Why are there images of animal research? I don't think ALF performs any animal research. I will be adding some reality to this article as time permits.Desoto10 (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm delighted not to be alone in arguing for this any more. It's important that any changes be well-sourced, and not go too far the other way, and I'm happy to back you up. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that just clearly differentiating what ALF says it is and what it actually does will be a step in the right direction.Desoto10 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

40 Countries?

What is this:

^ a b ALF cells are known to be active in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Canary Islands, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela. See "Diary of Actions": 1 & 2, Bite Back, February 21, 2009.

I could not find this information at either of the provided websites. Is the idea that the info is in the Feb. 21 issue of Bite Back? Maybe someone just looked at the alleged direct actions and listed the countries, or was there an actual listing by Bite Back?Desoto10 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, is Bite Back a reliable source for what ALF does? It seems as though anybody could send in a claim of "direct action" and get a cite in BB.Desoto10 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I read through the Bite Back lists that were referenced for two statements in the article about 40+ countries where ALF operates. Nowhere in the free versions of the magazines does it say that the list is of ALF actions, only that they are "direct actions". Someone apparently did a little OR and made a list of the countries that were represented in these lists. They say nothing about "clandestine cells" or "need to know" so I have taken these out of the appropriate sections. In addition, it seems as though these lists are not vetted or verified in any way. In other words, anybody can send in a contribution, whether it actually happened or not. If we are to give ALF "credit" for these acts, then we need some verification from independent sources that the acts were either claimed or shown to be carried out by ALF.Desoto10 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Violence and terrorism debate

CharlesMartel, re. removal of 12 year old quote: I agree that having an old quote like this doesn't make sense; however, it is notable how incorrect this expert's opinion turns out to have been. Since it is a recurring theme that ALF will eventually hurt people, perhaps it is notable to include that expert opinions about danger to human life from ALF have not materialized? Bob98133 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the passage in question, it strikes me that there are two parts to it: (1) a statement about ALF being the most serious threat, and (2) the prediction that there would soon be a death. Charles makes, I think, a valid point that the second part is now of dubious relevance, and it would be difficult to make Bob's interpretation clear without resorting to SYNTH. On the other hand, the first half of the statement seems to me to remain valid, and so I would suggest restoring that part, minus the prediction. I'm going to do that as a BOLD edit; please feel free to revert me if you disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I do think the shortened version is appropriate, because it shows an observer describing it as "the most serious", which is documentation of the subject's notability. (And, by the way, the passage really should not have been deleted as a "minor edit.") --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Trypto - no problem with your edit. However, if this guy is such an expert, why was he so wrong in the now-removed quote? My suggestion is that this guy is not an expert, simply an alarmist whose unfounded prediction failed to come true. Whether or not he is considered an expert by others, I would identify him as a prophet or psychic, and since he was 100% wrong during a 12 year period, I wonder about the value of the remaining quote. I think that it is simply an opinion by someone who has demonstrated his inability to form accurate opinions. Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The issue, of course, is not what you or I might think, but, indeed, what others think about his expertise. I clicked through to his bio page, and he is identified there as an expert on terrorism, about as clearly as anyone can be identified. As such, his assessment is encyclopedic, and the standard at Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether he is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I reluctantly agree. You would think at some point this guy would become a discredited expert, but I guess he wouldn't put that on his web site. Bob98133 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm going to make an effort to get this article up to FA status. I've been meaning to do it for years, so I'd like to finally get round to it. I've started removing repetition, tightening the writing, fixing the sources, making it less long-winded, less of a quote farm, and more MoS compliant. I'll also be expanding to try to bring it up to date (which means the 1996 onwards section will be rewritten) and rearranging material for flow. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I've wanted for some time to try to get this to FA status, and I've repeatedly stopped the effort because of your editing. I've even taken it off my watchlist at times. It won't gain FA status by being a repetitive quote farm with material like this. What does this even mean? "In 1993, ALF was listed as an organization that has "claimed to have perpetrated acts of extremism in the United States". Only claimed? And why the quote marks? No one is disputing that it carries out acts of extremism. That is, indeed, its purpose, which the entire article makes clear. Ditto with the rest of the material you keep inserting. Why the focus on repetitive quotes, why always the quotation marks, why always the same issue, why always the same quotes, why always the U.S.?
Please allow me to get the page in shape. It's very poorly written in places, very repetitive, a huge amount of history is missing, and it needs to be brought up to date, which will involve a lot of work. Once I have a first draft done, then we can discuss issues you feel are important and missing, and I'll be very receptive to anything that's reasonable and well-sourced. In fact, I am fairly sure you will not object to the final version. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just read through the above. I must apologize for the harsh tone, and I've struck through the first part of it. I'm speaking out of frustration, and of course it's entirely my own responsibility if I stop editing something, not anyone else's. The bottom line is that I'd like to see a well-written article with a three-dimensional history, but also one that isn't too long or repetitive. It's already inching toward having length issues, yet a lot of material is still missing, so the writing has to be tight and focused. Every word has to be made to count. I hope you'll consider letting me try to grapple with that as it gets expanded. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that last part. That makes all the difference, and I really appreciate it. Of course, I'll be happy to do that. Perhaps you would consider doing similarly in our recent talk at PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A problem in Philosophy of direct action

The Philosophy of direct action section features the following words: “The provision against violence in the ALF code has triggered divisions within the movement and allegations of hypocrisy from the ALF's critics.”.

The problem is that whatever follows the text doesn't have any allegations of hypocrisy or explanations as to how the provision has triggered the divisions within the movement. In other words, the first part says that because of the ALF being against hurting humans or animals there are disagreements on that within the movement and that some critics call the ALF hypocritical. The second part either speaks of the accusations of terrorism in general or vandalism, both of these things being unrelated to the first part. --Bloody Rose (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not copyvio link, but might still be unreliable

Someone added an external link in this edit but immediately tagged it as {{copyvio link}} for some reason. I removed the tags, but I think it still might not be a reliable source. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 22:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_Liberation_Front/Archive_3&oldid=1195176244"