Talk:Animal Liberation Front/Archive 2

message: Radical group hails Tegel blaze  Mathmo Talk 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NZ Herald article about ALF in NZ 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Under British law (Terrorism Act 2000, 2006), no "eco-terror" groups are proscribed,  but there are plenty of reliable sources descibing their "terrorist attacks in the UK"  Rockpocket 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's not "my" definition it was Wikipedia's. There are many other definitions (see for instance:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayblanc (talk • contribs) 08:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The section related to terrorist linking gives you all you need...Rayblanc (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: User talk:Tryptofish#Ingrid Newkirk page (early January). WP:NPA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist status 

message: The number has increased since March 2007 from 35 to 39, new countries inlude; Brazil, Greece, Malaysia, Romania. Source is the same; http://www.directaction.info. Updated Jan 2008.
Can this be updated?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untilallarefree (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of countries ALF are active in 

message: One of the problems with the article is that it seems at times to be just a list of attacks, plus a list of bad things people have said about the ALF — "They did this bad thing, then that bad thing, and someone said 'they're really, really bad,' while someone else said 'I know, they're awful!'"  
It's important to include details of attacks and criticism, but the narrative needs to flow too; it has to be a story, and not just a list of facts and quotes. It might therefore be a good idea to include a list of known actions somewhere, either at the end of this page, or if it's too long in a separate article. Or we could have a list of actions since (recent date) on this page, and the rest elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does, because we want people to read it. No one's going to read a list of "he said, she said." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are interested in it, they will read it. ImmunolPhD 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of claimed actions

message: Can anyone familiar with this organization tell me which of these two logos more closely resembles the "official" ALF logo? Or, if there is no official logo, which seems more appropriate? I have displayed each in large and small sizes. [edit: Or, of course, if neither will do, let me know how they could be modified.]
	
	
Thanks! MithrandirMageT 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one on the right is a bit thick and dark, I'd say. Probably something in between the two would be most accurate, although as it's usually spray-painted on walls, something less tidy would be best of all. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be hand-drawn, as if by a spray can. Maybe someone could do one in Paint?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALF Logo 

message: Intimidation and Violence v Direct action and attitude toward violence - I think that intimidation is more POV than direct action, but direct action is a catch phrase used by ALF so it might have some other embedded POV. I think it's better to keep direct action unless someone can think of a better word. Same thing for attitude about violence - that seems less POV than violence, which seems to imply that there is some, which there may or may not be, but still it should be neutral/NPOV as a section title.Bob98133 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intimidation v Direct Action

message: I'm a little confused here.  If, as the lead says, "The ALF is not a group with a membership, but an example of a leaderless resistance", then how does it make sense of talking about what the ALF does, says, or thinks as an organization?  There are comments attributed to ALF spokespeople...how can a group without a structure have a spokesperson?
Perhaps there are similar issues with Critical Mass, Al Qaida (no comparison intended other than amorphous nature of organization), and other movements without a standard for inclusion other than saying one belongs.  I'm wondering if it makes sense to say "The ALF did X" or "The ALF said Y", or if things should in all cases be attributed to "ALF activist."  That gets a little repetitious wording-wise and perhaps one can think of some synonyms...
This is a curiosity question.  I don't have a position, really.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has no leadership outside the Foundation, but we could nevertheless appoint a spokesperson, and the people choosing the spokesperson would likely be among the most active of Wikipedians. That's all it is here -- the most active maintain the websites, choose the spokespersons etc. But the fact remains that you could go out tonight and commit an action on behalf of the ALF, and if you were arrested, they would acknowledge and look after you in jail. That's the sense in which it's a leaderless resistance. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributing actions or statements to the ALF 

message: This discussion is still on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lantern_books. Major news sources are to be used as reliable sources in preference to secondary sources like Newkirk's book. It is especially salient that the AP article that appeared in the NY Times did not report this as a "rescue", but rather reported that ALF told them it was a rescue - ie: the AP reporter clearly does not trust the ALF as a reliable source. The NY Times article (from AP) does report it as a theft, however, so quotes are unnecessary because it comes from a reliable source. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AR, I think you are confusing RS and NPOV. The ALF is reliable for information about itself, e.g. for calling the animal removal "rescue". Yet, WP can't use that term unquoted because of NPOV considerations. Similarly, the university or even the NYT is reliable for calling the removal "theft", but we can't use that unquoted for the same reason. Crum375 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are confused to think that referring to a theft as a theft is a POV issue. Multiple major news sources chose to refer to this act as a theft, including the AP newswire, the NY Times edit of it, the Chicago Tribune, the head of the NIH, and multiple spokespersons for the university. Whereas it is fine for the ALF to be used as sources about itself, even that must be done WITH CAUTION as per WP:RS, and should not override the consensus of a broad number of major news sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any value judgment is POV. Calling an act "theft", cannot be used outside quotes, unless it is absolutely non-controversial, which would be extremely rare. You have here ALF claiming it was a "rescue," and the researchers claiming it was a "theft." Wikipedia itself must stay neutral, per WP:NPOV. If WP used the word "theft" with no quotes, it would mean, effectively, that WP's editors have decided to side with the researchers' POV, and are no longer neutral in this controversy. That would violate WP:NPOV, which is one of our most fundamental policies. Crum375 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a POV issue. Reliable sources reported that the ALF reported it as a rescue, and then the reliable sources called it a theft.  It is clear that the reliable sources do not themselves consider the ALF a reliable source, because they report what the ALF told them, and do not make the same claims as the ALF makes.  If you go and read the exchange at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lantern_books it should be very clear that this adheres to Wikipedia policy on RS and on the reliability of extremist groups as sources. That the POV of reliable sources and the ALF differs is not of any consequence unless the claim is put forth that the reliable source presents a non-neutral viewpoint on the topic of the ALF raid. And if you survey the reporting of EVERY major news source, I do not think you will find ANY that disagree. Theft is a perfectly neutral way to present this act.  An analogy might be if a rapist/murderer was not caught, and reported his crime to the news sources but referred to his act as a humane love sacrifice. Then multiple major news sources refer to it as a murder/rape. Is it then POV for wikipedia to refer to that event as a murder/rape? --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a value judegement unless it has actually been through the courts and someone has been found guilty of the crime of theft. We have been over this very issue before on the relevant article.-Localzuk(talk) 11:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Just another thought on this. There was a killing recently in the town where I live, which was widely reported by the media as a murder. However, after a few days it emerged that it was the result of a normal street fight and that was it. The people involved have now been charged with manslaughter. So far, however, neither have been convicted. Should that issue, if it were notable enough to have an article on here, be listed as murder? How about reporting that some sources state murder, and that people have been charged with manslaughter? Or should the judgement be made by the courts and then reported as such? -Localzuk(talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britches and Theft/Rescue 

message: I'm expanding this a little, and also trying to introduce a better narrative flow. This means I'll be moving material around, and some of it may disappear before I work out where best to place it. If you see this happening, it doesn't mean the material has gone forever. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation box, in the "structure and aims" section, is on top of two pictures and their descriptions, for some time. We have to figure out a way to sort that out.Maziotis (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent edits

message: I have reverted all the changes made to the intro due to the following:
#The restructuring so as to place the FBI information seperately to the SPLC info a) created a poor structure and b) introduced a bias into the intro. Rather than dealing with what the ALF is within the first few paragraphs we suddenly were dealing with them being said to be terrorist by the FBI - which to the average reader will simply leave them confused as they don't know what the ALF does yet.
#The removal of the Rod Coronado source removes any evidence to support the prior sentence. Rod Coronado is one of those people who say the ALF is non-violent. Also, the introduction of 'allege' is a leading word - it instantly provides an impression that what they say is untruthful.
#The removal of the Robin Webb quote removes any information about the leaderless nature of the ALF. Removing it reduces the value of the lead dramatically.
Please, before making such wide ranging, and in this case, damaging edits, can we discuss your proposals first? Otherwise this could quickly reduce into an edit war.-Localzuk(talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fundamentally disagree with #1.  If you look at the Wiki page that is a "list of designated terrorist groups" and click on the various articles linked within, you'll find that most of the articles mention that the group is a designated terrorist group within the intro, if not first sentence.  Stating such isn't "introducing bias."  It's a fact, and for many of us out here, much to your chagrin perhaps, that is the primary reason why the ALF is notable, i.e. because they are a designated domestic terrorist organization, and we don't see too many of those. 68.46.183.96 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Localzuk. The information about Homeland security is already at the end of the lead, there is no point having it nearer the beginning of the article or twice. I think it is fairly traditional for the lead in an article like this to define the topic prior to including outside opinions, as long as those opinions are considered elsewhere in the article. Let's try to remember that Martin Luther King, John Lennon, and many others were investigated by the US Government as terrorists, so just being named by a government agency is no subsitute for a legal process which considers one not-guilty until proven otherwise.Bob98133 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert 

message: I think we now have too many photos in the article and they are reducing the overall readability. Can we possibly trim a couple?-Localzuk(talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I have suggested to Tom that he use Commons as a repository for the ALF's free media he wishes to upload. We could then use those to either create a gallery or, better yet, use . Rockpocket 20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones were you thinking of, LZ? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main problems are the pictures of people in structures and aims. We don't need all 4 of them there really. And the other place would be the 2 in the supporters groups section - we only really need one there.-Localzuk(talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it any better now? I removed Steven Best, and moved one of the posters into the Philosophy section, which may get longer, so it will look less crowded with more text. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I also removed the press office image, and reduced the size of the others. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many photos 

message: The number has increased since March 2007 from 35 to 39, new countries inlude; Brazil, Greece, Malaysia, Romania. Source is the same; http://www.directaction.info. Updated Jan 2008.
Can this be updated?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untilallarefree (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of countries ALF are active in 

message: Radical group hails Tegel blaze  Mathmo Talk 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NZ Herald article about ALF in NZ 

message: One of the problems with the article is that it seems at times to be just a list of attacks, plus a list of bad things people have said about the ALF — "They did this bad thing, then that bad thing, and someone said 'they're really, really bad,' while someone else said 'I know, they're awful!'"  
It's important to include details of attacks and criticism, but the narrative needs to flow too; it has to be a story, and not just a list of facts and quotes. It might therefore be a good idea to include a list of known actions somewhere, either at the end of this page, or if it's too long in a separate article. Or we could have a list of actions since (recent date) on this page, and the rest elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does, because we want people to read it. No one's going to read a list of "he said, she said." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are interested in it, they will read it. ImmunolPhD 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of claimed actions

message: Can anyone familiar with this organization tell me which of these two logos more closely resembles the "official" ALF logo? Or, if there is no official logo, which seems more appropriate? I have displayed each in large and small sizes. [edit: Or, of course, if neither will do, let me know how they could be modified.]
	
	
Thanks! MithrandirMageT 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one on the right is a bit thick and dark, I'd say. Probably something in between the two would be most accurate, although as it's usually spray-painted on walls, something less tidy would be best of all. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be hand-drawn, as if by a spray can. Maybe someone could do one in Paint?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALF Logo 

message: Intimidation and Violence v Direct action and attitude toward violence - I think that intimidation is more POV than direct action, but direct action is a catch phrase used by ALF so it might have some other embedded POV. I think it's better to keep direct action unless someone can think of a better word. Same thing for attitude about violence - that seems less POV than violence, which seems to imply that there is some, which there may or may not be, but still it should be neutral/NPOV as a section title.Bob98133 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intimidation v Direct Action

message: I'm a little confused here.  If, as the lead says, "The ALF is not a group with a membership, but an example of a leaderless resistance", then how does it make sense of talking about what the ALF does, says, or thinks as an organization?  There are comments attributed to ALF spokespeople...how can a group without a structure have a spokesperson?
Perhaps there are similar issues with Critical Mass, Al Qaida (no comparison intended other than amorphous nature of organization), and other movements without a standard for inclusion other than saying one belongs.  I'm wondering if it makes sense to say "The ALF did X" or "The ALF said Y", or if things should in all cases be attributed to "ALF activist."  That gets a little repetitious wording-wise and perhaps one can think of some synonyms...
This is a curiosity question.  I don't have a position, really.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has no leadership outside the Foundation, but we could nevertheless appoint a spokesperson, and the people choosing the spokesperson would likely be among the most active of Wikipedians. That's all it is here -- the most active maintain the websites, choose the spokespersons etc. But the fact remains that you could go out tonight and commit an action on behalf of the ALF, and if you were arrested, they would acknowledge and look after you in jail. That's the sense in which it's a leaderless resistance. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributing actions or statements to the ALF 

message: This discussion is still on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lantern_books. Major news sources are to be used as reliable sources in preference to secondary sources like Newkirk's book. It is especially salient that the AP article that appeared in the NY Times did not report this as a "rescue", but rather reported that ALF told them it was a rescue - ie: the AP reporter clearly does not trust the ALF as a reliable source. The NY Times article (from AP) does report it as a theft, however, so quotes are unnecessary because it comes from a reliable source. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AR, I think you are confusing RS and NPOV. The ALF is reliable for information about itself, e.g. for calling the animal removal "rescue". Yet, WP can't use that term unquoted because of NPOV considerations. Similarly, the university or even the NYT is reliable for calling the removal "theft", but we can't use that unquoted for the same reason. Crum375 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are confused to think that referring to a theft as a theft is a POV issue. Multiple major news sources chose to refer to this act as a theft, including the AP newswire, the NY Times edit of it, the Chicago Tribune, the head of the NIH, and multiple spokespersons for the university. Whereas it is fine for the ALF to be used as sources about itself, even that must be done WITH CAUTION as per WP:RS, and should not override the consensus of a broad number of major news sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any value judgment is POV. Calling an act "theft", cannot be used outside quotes, unless it is absolutely non-controversial, which would be extremely rare. You have here ALF claiming it was a "rescue," and the researchers claiming it was a "theft." Wikipedia itself must stay neutral, per WP:NPOV. If WP used the word "theft" with no quotes, it would mean, effectively, that WP's editors have decided to side with the researchers' POV, and are no longer neutral in this controversy. That would violate WP:NPOV, which is one of our most fundamental policies. Crum375 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a POV issue. Reliable sources reported that the ALF reported it as a rescue, and then the reliable sources called it a theft.  It is clear that the reliable sources do not themselves consider the ALF a reliable source, because they report what the ALF told them, and do not make the same claims as the ALF makes.  If you go and read the exchange at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lantern_books it should be very clear that this adheres to Wikipedia policy on RS and on the reliability of extremist groups as sources. That the POV of reliable sources and the ALF differs is not of any consequence unless the claim is put forth that the reliable source presents a non-neutral viewpoint on the topic of the ALF raid. And if you survey the reporting of EVERY major news source, I do not think you will find ANY that disagree. Theft is a perfectly neutral way to present this act.  An analogy might be if a rapist/murderer was not caught, and reported his crime to the news sources but referred to his act as a humane love sacrifice. Then multiple major news sources refer to it as a murder/rape. Is it then POV for wikipedia to refer to that event as a murder/rape? --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a value judegement unless it has actually been through the courts and someone has been found guilty of the crime of theft. We have been over this very issue before on the relevant article.-Localzuk(talk) 11:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Just another thought on this. There was a killing recently in the town where I live, which was widely reported by the media as a murder. However, after a few days it emerged that it was the result of a normal street fight and that was it. The people involved have now been charged with manslaughter. So far, however, neither have been convicted. Should that issue, if it were notable enough to have an article on here, be listed as murder? How about reporting that some sources state murder, and that people have been charged with manslaughter? Or should the judgement be made by the courts and then reported as such? -Localzuk(talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britches and Theft/Rescue 

message: I'm expanding this a little, and also trying to introduce a better narrative flow. This means I'll be moving material around, and some of it may disappear before I work out where best to place it. If you see this happening, it doesn't mean the material has gone forever. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation box, in the "structure and aims" section, is on top of two pictures and their descriptions, for some time. We have to figure out a way to sort that out.Maziotis (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent edits

message: I have reverted all the changes made to the intro due to the following:
#The restructuring so as to place the FBI information seperately to the SPLC info a) created a poor structure and b) introduced a bias into the intro. Rather than dealing with what the ALF is within the first few paragraphs we suddenly were dealing with them being said to be terrorist by the FBI - which to the average reader will simply leave them confused as they don't know what the ALF does yet.
#The removal of the Rod Coronado source removes any evidence to support the prior sentence. Rod Coronado is one of those people who say the ALF is non-violent. Also, the introduction of 'allege' is a leading word - it instantly provides an impression that what they say is untruthful.
#The removal of the Robin Webb quote removes any information about the leaderless nature of the ALF. Removing it reduces the value of the lead dramatically.
Please, before making such wide ranging, and in this case, damaging edits, can we discuss your proposals first? Otherwise this could quickly reduce into an edit war.-Localzuk(talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fundamentally disagree with #1.  If you look at the Wiki page that is a "list of designated terrorist groups" and click on the various articles linked within, you'll find that most of the articles mention that the group is a designated terrorist group within the intro, if not first sentence.  Stating such isn't "introducing bias."  It's a fact, and for many of us out here, much to your chagrin perhaps, that is the primary reason why the ALF is notable, i.e. because they are a designated domestic terrorist organization, and we don't see too many of those. 68.46.183.96 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Localzuk. The information about Homeland security is already at the end of the lead, there is no point having it nearer the beginning of the article or twice. I think it is fairly traditional for the lead in an article like this to define the topic prior to including outside opinions, as long as those opinions are considered elsewhere in the article. Let's try to remember that Martin Luther King, John Lennon, and many others were investigated by the US Government as terrorists, so just being named by a government agency is no subsitute for a legal process which considers one not-guilty until proven otherwise.Bob98133 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert 

message: I think we now have too many photos in the article and they are reducing the overall readability. Can we possibly trim a couple?-Localzuk(talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I have suggested to Tom that he use Commons as a repository for the ALF's free media he wishes to upload. We could then use those to either create a gallery or, better yet, use . Rockpocket 20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones were you thinking of, LZ? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main problems are the pictures of people in structures and aims. We don't need all 4 of them there really. And the other place would be the 2 in the supporters groups section - we only really need one there.-Localzuk(talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it any better now? I removed Steven Best, and moved one of the posters into the Philosophy section, which may get longer, so it will look less crowded with more text. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I also removed the press office image, and reduced the size of the others. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many photos 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Under British law (Terrorism Act 2000, 2006), no "eco-terror" groups are proscribed,  but there are plenty of reliable sources descibing their "terrorist attacks in the UK"  Rockpocket 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's not "my" definition it was Wikipedia's. There are many other definitions (see for instance:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayblanc (talk • contribs) 08:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The section related to terrorist linking gives you all you need...Rayblanc (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: User talk:Tryptofish#Ingrid Newkirk page (early January). WP:NPA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist status 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Gren, see this ogg file, which is also in the Britches article. Crum375 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ADL