Talk:Animal Liberation Front/Archive 1

message: We need a reputable reference for the claim that the U.S. ALF has a relationship with PETA, otherwise we'll have to remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
*http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21
Is this any good?
:activist cash is one of the most screwed up astroturf sites ever. You can say "according to..."" but I wouldn't call that proof of anything. I want to know where activist cash gets their cash.
:::::Answer: donations from the general population, via such programs like the www.earthshare.org site. Martial Law 23:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Website/link is Earthshare. Martial Law 23:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They take all donations and give them to different environmental groups. Does this answer your question ? Martial Law 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PETA

message: Would it be worth mentioning the torture of Graham Hall by ALF members (or at least extremists who have acted in their name)? He was making an undercover documentary for UK Channel 4's Dispatches. They figured out what he was up to and set him up, kidnapped him (allegedly at gun point) and then branded his back with "ALF" in large letters. This is the first time I've even written anything on wikipedia and I'm pretty sure I'd mess things up if I tried to edit the page myself.
81.102.204.161 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 81, thanks for your comment. I was thinking of adding that here, or on the Barry Horne or Robin Webb pages. I remember that Hall was the person who set Webb up for Channel 4, and the result was the documentary shown on British television during Horne's 68-day hunger strike, but I also seem to remember there was a suspicion that Hall had set up the attack. Feel free to add something yourself. Write it in a neutral way and link to a source about it; others can clean it up if it needs it. And welcome to Wikipedia. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's generally accepted that the branding of Graham Hall was a hoax. He has served time for a series of burglaries and has been linked to other suspicious claims. It makes him money and the press are easy to sucker with lurid claims like this, especially when it gives them what they want to hear. See this post agreeing with this analysis from an anti-animal rights person, for example: http://www.animalrights.net/59825 212.56.100.9 23:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grahall Hall cannot be regarded as a credible source, and the police took no action in response to his claims. The incident was reported by one newspaper and the BBC, so we can report his claims, but we can't state them as fact. The most we can say is that he said he was branded. Spiny Norman, please stop editing so aggressively and consider discussing your changes on talk if other editors object to them. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You've written that he was kidnapped, as though that is fact. No one knows what happened to him; and the police found no evidence of a criminal attack, or at least none that they were able to pursue. Therefore, we say "he said he was kidnapped and branded." Why do you object to that? If you do object, we can make it more accurate still: he told police and reporters that he was kidnapped and branded." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (I hope) we've reached a compromise we can both agree is accurate.  He was branded and he told police he was kidnapped.  Right?  --SpinyNorman 05:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because he might have done it to himself. There's no evidence of third-party involvement. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're suggesting what, that he branded himself?  Or that he got someone to do it to him for...  for what reason?  Certainly not publicity, he was well known before this incident.  For money?  Because he's got a jones for skin-grafting?  --SpinyNorman 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There were suggestions of that, and we have no way of judging what's true. The main source seems to have been the Daily Mail ten days after it happened. The Mail story was then reported by the BBC and the police didn't pursue the issue. Do you have sources showing he was well-known before the incident? The strange thing was that C4 said he was a documentary filmmaker, but I believe he worked for them during the Dispatches program as a source. It's all a bit confusing, which is why we're best sticking to the tried and tested formula of A said X, and leave it at that. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I didn't even attempt to say that ALF had committed the act and made the distinction between being branded with the letters "ALF" and being branded *by* the ALF.  I assume you don't dispute the fact that he was branded with the letters "ALF"?  You know, I think this would go easier if you didn't assume that people who disagree with you are the enemy.  --SpinyNorman 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tidied the Hall section and added some sources. This describes the difficulty with Hall. I haven't added the details to the section, in part because it's not worth going into, and in part because it would look as though we were trying to discredit him, which would make it close to OR (creating a synthesis of established fact to build a case). SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham Hall 

message: * editors have of this page have stated that there exist current "targets" of the ALF here in North America.  For this reason, and because of links to terrorism, this article has been tagged with Security Risk template.
PeterZed 23:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may remove the tinfoil hat now. FCYTravis 03:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security Risk Template 

message: Added a note to the "actions" section on the grave-robbing incident in the UK last year. Also linked to BBC timeline.  Kayman1uk 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it, because the source you linked to didn't say who was involved. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiny Norman had to restore it, of course, just to be difficult. The fact is that no one has a clue who did this. I'm not aware of any news report linking it to the ALF. Please find a source before re-inserting. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is right there in the link.  These ghouls took credit for their desecration.  However, if you'd read carefully instead of engaging in your typical knee-jerk revert, you'd have seen that I specifically went out of my to not say that they had committed the criminal act but that they had merely taken credit for it.  To an extent, you are correct.  It is likely that the only people who know for certain who committed this vile act are the people who actually committed it and they're unlikely to have left any evidence behind.  However, just because it is unlikely that any of the scum who did this will be brought to justice, that doesn't mean the facts that are known shouldn't be reported here.  --SpinyNorman 08:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link does not support that the ALF had anything to do with this, and all animal-rights groups and known activists have condemned it. If someone did call in with a claim of responsibility, it was not "accepted" by the movement, and it could have been anyone at all calling in. This page is about the ALF, and what activists do using the name ALF. If you can find a source linking it to ARM, add it to the ARM page. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that the police searched where the person who claimed responsibility said she was buried, but they found nothing. Doesn't sound like a knowledgeable source. However, regardless of that, we're not here to secondguess sources, just to report what they say, so by all means add it to the ARM article. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Animal rights militants lying to the police?  Whatever next?   Oh, and you're absolutely right, this doesn't belong in the ALF article, but the ARM.  See how reasonable I can be when you're right? ;-)  --SpinyNorman 09:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you had read the source, you would have seen that it said ARM, not ALF. I can only repeat the request I've made of you on several talk pages now: please do some research before editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gladys Hammond 

message: The line Some governmental agencies and private citizens label the ALF "ecoterrorists", while supporters consider them more akin to "freedom fighters". has been added to the article. Can someone please provide information about which government agencies in which countries consider the ALF to be eco-terrorists. I know the FBI has stated something about them but I have not heard of any UK agencies calling them that.
Remember that things such as 'Numerous agencies' or 'Some agencies' need quantifying as they can be used to inflate the truth.-localzuk 09:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FBI, dept of homeland security, and I am pretty sure there is another. The truth is some. I don't know the exact number and honestly I don't care to know. It mentions later on in the intro about some US agencies that consider them a threat though, so it seems fine to me. I don't know anything about the UK with regard to ALF. BTW, I definitely was not trying to "inflate" the truth since I am against the usage of the term ecoterrorist with regard to eco and animal defence actions. The Ungovernable Force 03:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to say you were trying to inflate the truth, more that the terms inflate the truth. The article should reflect a worldwide view of the ALF, so that line needs changing to reflect that. In the UK, I am pretty sure, they (government) do not recognise the ALF as a group let alone a terrorist group. If it must stay in, it needs a reference to the agencies that state they are a terrorist group and must state which countries (unless it is the majority). -Localzuk (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost indicated that it was american agencies, but I couldn't find a way of saying it without it sounding awkward. It was late and I was tired, so maybe I can find a better way now. And, like I said earlier, it says later in the intro what US agencies classify them as terrorists. The Ungovernable Force 01:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the UK Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976, terrorism is defined as "the use of violence for political ends (including) any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear". When the ALF firebombs people's houses or sends intimidating letters, they enter the realm of terrorism.BobBobtheBob 10:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware - housefold firebombings are very few and far between and also aren't 'enacted' by the ALF rather they may be done independantly or the ARM. Also, to be classed as a terrorist group you must be added to the list of proscribed groups in the UK. Otherwise any such group is a perfectly legal group and only the individuals involved can be called terrorists and be charged as such. -Localzuk (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the ALF accept actions done in their name as long as no one is physically harmed, in essence all ALF attacks can be claimed to be independent because of its uncentralised structure. Those that are listed as actions on Bite Back and the ALF Press Office can be accepted as ALF attacks where they state as such and they include acts of arson quite frequently, which are designed to inspire fear in the victim, qualifying as terrorism, as do the threats via phone and mail. Currently, all the proscribed domestic groups in the UK under the Terrorism Act of 2000 are related to Northern Ireland, so you could technically argue that the government does not consider them terrorists. Although the UK Home Office refused entry for all but one member of a group of ALF members from the US to attend an Animal Rights Convention in 2004. I think the best way to deal with this might be to take a leaf out of Terrorist group#Issue groups and perhaps reword that paragraph here appropriately.BobBobtheBob 15:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 'eco terrorist' line 

message: I am admittedly an overly sensitive person, especially when it comes to animal rights.  Is there perhaps a template or warning that could be placed on this article?  I found the Britches picture a bit disturbing and others might too. -Etoile 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is appropriate to label an encyclopedic article with something like that. If someone is looking at information about such topics, it is normal and should be expected that such images should be shown. If there is such a template, I would oppose its use for that reason. -Localzuk (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensitive viewers warning? 

message: Viriditas, I see you put the current tag on the page. Is the ALF in the news? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current event?

message: As the user who recently refused to listen to the consensus of editors on this page, I am posting this here. I have started a discussion on the Britches (monkey) page discussing the use of the word 'stolen' and the word 'removed'. So if anyone is interested from here in re-commenting on the issue feel free. -Localzuk (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stolen or Removed discussion revisited 

message: I have altered the caption for Rod Coronado, in a way which I hope will be mutually acceptable to everyone ie it refers to his having been convicted of crimes, and what those crimes were related to, without implying support for or opposition to his actions (ie without using the phrases 'direct action' or 'terrorism' basically). --Apeloverage 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would listing "arson" imply support for or opposition to his actions?71.16.224.178 10:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rod Coronado caption

message: There were some changes in the first sentence regarding what exactly the ALF does yesterday. The current version says The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is a name used internationally by animal liberation activists who engage in direct action, including sabotage and, much more rarely, arson, on behalf of animals, or in protest of the animal testing, vivisection, fur, meat, egg, or dairy industries. I think it should cut out the bit about arson, since arson is covered under sabotage. The Ungovernable Force 08:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's sufficient to say "direct action," because there are many different kinds of direct action, and we can't list them all (and listing only the worst would be POV). We go into detail in the body of the text. Also, it's not clear what "sabotage" would amount to. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't argue with your change, though I do think that most people think of them as carrying out sabotage so I think it will likely be changed back. I'm good with either way. The Ungovernable Force 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add sabotage back, I'll go along with that. I wouldn't want to see all the particular kinds of sabotage listed e.g. arson (especially not that, because it's the least common). SlimVirgin (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's was my original proposal, so I guess we'll go with that. The Ungovernable Force 09:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with SV. Direct action seems the established way of describing activity from these sorts of groups. As long as the nature of their direct action is established further in the body of the article, i see no need to go into details in the introduction. Rockpocket 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorism, Direct Action, Sabotage, or Arson?

message: I thought we had agreed previously that both "liberating" and "stealing" were to be avoided when referring to direct activity by animal rights groups. Wasn't "removing" the agreed upon term? Rockpocket (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I think we decided. Either way, that's the best one. The Ungovernable Force 00:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought so. I've change it to reflect that. Rockpocket (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary got cut off: if we want to use "remove" instead, we have to say removed from something, so I added facilities. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. The Ungovernable Force 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberating animals? 

message: I reverted someone's blanking (I don't remember who now) of a bit of pretext on the line about domestic terrorism, which currently points out that the Justice Dept. labeled the acts "domestic terrorism". The user blanked that part. Since the term "terrorism" is so generally considered to be a "hot-button" word, I think that the qualifying is a good thing for the article, to keep neurality. Canæn 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about that, Canaen. The term is already in scare quotes and is clear from the previous sentence that it is not a POV assertion, but an allegations made by the U.S. Department of Justice. However, the USDoJ doesn't define the law under which they are charged (i presume that was some Homeland Security legislation that says arson attacks can count as domestic terrorism). So they are being charged with "domestic terror" offenses by the DoJ, that is quite different from saying they are charged with what the DoJ call "domestic terror" offenses. Currently the sentence is the equivalent of saying 'Charles Manson was charged with what the DoJ called "murder"'. The DoJ doesn't define it as murder, the law does. That is why the DoJ can only make allegations or bring charges. I'm not going to revert back immediately, however, instead we can perhaps get some further opinion or come to consensus. Rockpocket 07:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmk. Lemme review it. I think you're probably right, however, I just wanted to make it clear. "No project ever failed because of too much communication," or so it's said.  Canæn  03:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "domestic terrorism" line in DA in NA section 

message: [W]hile politicians talked and negotiated, Nazi Germany invaded neighboring countries and began building the concentration camps. It took the overwhelming violence of World War II ... to rid the world of that evil. Such an example suggests that short-term violence may be justifiable in pursuit of a longer-term peace," (Best 2004).
is the [W] in "While" intentional or is it just a typo? You might mean [While] or the [] might not be there in the original and its just a typo
Stui 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just to check

message: Isn't direct action just an euphemism here? A POV assertion? Intangible 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Direct action is the method which ALF activists use. It's a philosophy/ideology. It's the way they go about things.  Canæn  00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which includes property destruction. Something which should be mentioned more prominently in the introduction of the article. Intangible 00:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a defining characteristic of this group, something that separates it from other groups. Intangible 01:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says sabotage pretty early on. The Ungovernable Force 05:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intangible, why do we need to define a term which is defined in its own article? It just leads to duplicate information which is pointless. If someone doesn't know or fully understand what Direct Action is then they can go to that article and read about it. -Localzuk (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  direct action 

message: Dermo69, please do not make edits that go against the consensus we have already agreed upon without some kind of discussion here first. We have gone over this issue over and over again, and by labelling the group terrorists you are making a highly pov judgment. I seriously urge you to revert your edit. The Ungovernable Force 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the rest of this talk page, and also on the ELF talk page as well. This has been discussed and decided already. Terrorism is a highly loaded term, direct action is not. We don't even label al-Qaeda a terrorist group. What we do for them (and the ALF/ELF) is say who considers them terrorists, but we do not say they are terrorists or engage in terrorism, not unless they themselves call it that. The ELF/ALF do not call it that, they call it direct action, which if you read the page on direct action, can include what some consider to be terrorism. It is not our place to decide if it is terrorism though. We don't say they are "merely" activists. The Ungovernable Force 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and thank you for conceding that the first edits were pov. The Ungovernable Force 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'm glad we worked this out without a big fuss. The Ungovernable Force 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag 

message: You said in your edit history comment "find a mainstream source and don't just plonk it in any old where)".  Did you read my addition?  The LATimes is quite reputable and I plonked it in the actions sections, because placing a molotov cocktail at an old lady's house is an action, albeit insensitive and un-neighborly.  I suggest you READ the edits before your REVERT next time.  Have a nice day. --66.69.141.112 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You placed your edit in the middle of a discussion about HLS. That action had nothing to do with HLS. It would help if you would read articles before editing, and if another editor says they are going to move the section, wait for them to do that rather than reverting, or else you'll end up with it being on the page twice, which is what happened. And don't use attack headers. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the original header.  It is inappropriate to edit other people's words in the talk section - that is tantamount to censorship.  If you don't like what someone else has written then ask them to change it, but don't change it for them.  --SpinyNorman 19:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-edited the title. I am afraid it violated the rules and the person who changed it was doing so justly.-Localzuk (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have re-replaced the original header.  Sorry, but to change someone else's words on the talk page is clearly unacceptable.  The talk page, among other things, serves as a log... a record of communication between many different people.  As such, it is only appropriate to edit your own words (unless you're dealing with vandalism).  If you want the person who wrote the header to change it, I suggest you ask them to do so but you may not take it upon yourself to do it for them.  --SpinyNorman 07:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this policy regarding personal attacks. As the heading of this section breached this policy, it is the norm to remove the attack. Please stop editing disruptively as this is a non-issue unless you make it one. See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption.-Localzuk (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To the EDITOR who reverted my addition without reading it...

message: Apologies if this has already been hashed out, but I'm new here:
It seems that discussion of non-ALF groups (e.g. Band of Mercy, etc) ought to be moved to their own pages (I'll create them if necessary) to limit confusion.  Reading the article, it seems particularly that descriptions of actions not attributable to ALF is inappropriate for this page.  To respond to a possible objection, yes various individuals who have participated in ALF actions have also been involved with other groups, however ALF actions have very specific parameters which qualify various actions as "ALF."
--C.lettinga 05:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps all references to other groups should be put into a section at the bottom? I don't think that we have enough content for the others, and they'd do better off for now without their own articles.  Canæn  07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Differentiation between A.L.F and other "liberation" groups 

message: We now have 2 copies of the currie information - one under 'Attitudes towards violence' - in the same paragraph about SHAC?? and the one I moved up into the 'Actions' section. Where should it go?-Localzuk(talk) 11:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currie 

message: Can someone please confirm that the text that is in CAPITALS is actually in capitals in the source (it being a paper that I do not have a copy of)?-Localzuk(talk) 13:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ALF/oxford quote