|This page was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
It would be nice to have some information as to why the neutrality of this page is disputed. - SimonP 15:28, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
As well, it would be nice to have a definition before stating what it compares with.... Pfortuny 20:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)This day is so sad
It's been a year and there's no dispute going on that I can see, so I'm removing the NPOV dispute header. Bryan 02:01, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I came across this page briefly some time ago, and a statement like:
- As all these ideologies allow for some form of property damage when opposed, e.g. in warfare, arguments that all "property damage is violence" are clearly inconsistent.
jumped out at me as a clear statement of opinion. (It's also not a very clear argument, to me: allowing for property damage in warfare is not inconsistent per se with classing it as violence. There is a theory of "just war" in some circles, after all, and its proponents do not deny that war is violent to humans and property alike.)
(By the way, the standard English usage of the word "violence" is not necessarily specific to living beings. Look it up.)
Then there is the statement that
- [the] FBI classifies them as a "terrorist" group ostensibly because they send a political and ideological message with this destruction
This is a clear mis-statement of the FBI's position: the FBI claims that they classify groups as terrorist because they unlawfully use force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or population. (1999 FBI report on terrorism in the US) Whether you agree with this classification, or feel that it is properly applied in the case of the ELF, is another matter.
Anyway, I can't claim to have read the whole thing very closely, just some points jumped out at me and I thought it would be clear why it was labelled possibly non-neutral at the time (after all, the article begins not with a definition, but with an argument!). Sorry about the confusion.
—Steven G. Johnson 02:37, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
It contains nothing of value, it's simply an incomprehensible and pointless rant. Just delete it. Tannin 22:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 18 to Apr 24 2004, consensus was to keep and list on cleanup. Discussion:
- Meaningless rant from 24, probably only still here because no-one noticed it yet. Tannin 22:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Needs cleanup, not deletion. Keep. -Sean 23:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Actually not completely devoid of meaning, should be clipped down and NPOVed (original content really belongs on disinfopedia), but I vote to keep. Addition of legal definition is desparately needed however Pteron 04:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, thought it could use NPOVing. Continuing source of debate in protest politics. Radicalsubversiv 07:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm. A tough one. Probably a worthy topic, but this article is really badly put together and frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. Keep if someone can fix it. Exploding Boy 13:50, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge whatever NPOV content there is with vandalism, keep as redirect to that article. Postdlf 5:57 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- But the two terms aren't synonymous, semantically or legally. -Sean 19:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Bensaccount 19:24, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why was the page Criminal Damage re-directed to this rambling non relevant property damage? In the UK only Criminal Damage is on the staute books, Property damage as uch is not a recognised term. --Pandaplodder 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)