Talk:Animal Liberation Front

Archives

1 2 3

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

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)

Who is Molland?

There are a few instances where "Molland" is being mentioned in the article, but it neither introduces nor describes the person.--Bloody Rose 06:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodyRose (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out! He is simply the author of some of the source material. I added a clarification at the first place his name appears. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 2 June 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)

Pop culture?

I'm not sure the new popular culture list adds much of value to the page. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the pop culture sections since they are usually unsourced and fairly random. If the section stays, I'd rather see it as a paragraph discussing how ALF is depicted in pop culture, which would require refs and might be more valuable in the article than a simple list. Bob98133 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'd add that I am leaning towards deleting the section, in its present form. It's mostly unsourced, and the content that does not duplicate information already available on the page seems rather trivial and uninformative. I'd support a paragraph discussion if, per secondary sources, there was a case that it shows aspects of how ALF is perceived by others, either favorably or unfavorably, but this just looks to me like an unsourced trivia list. Any objections to deleting it? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to argue for keeping this section in its present form, so I'm going to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, well here it is for future reference so maybe a paragragh could be written:

• Folk musician David Rovics performs many songs in defence of the ALF.
• The ALF were fictionalized in the 2005 novel The Cause by Jane Mann.
• The ALF were fictionalized in the 2006 novel Animal Instinct by Dorothy H. Hayes.
• The ALF were fictionalized in the 2001 novel Rage and Reason by Michael Tobias.
• The ALF were fictionalized in the 2002 British movie 28 Days Later.
• The ALF were fictionalized in the 1996 movie 12 Monkeys.
• The 2010 movie Bold Native centres on the ALF.
• Featured in the episode Animal Rites from Season 5 of Numb3rs.
• The 2006 Shannon Keith documentary, Behind The Mask centres on the ALF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.27.110 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Marineland in Morecambe

The article on Morecambe makes no mention of a Marineland there, and the cited link here is dead. Varlaam (talk) 03:06, 1 December 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)