Talk:Animal Liberation Front

Archives

1 2

Number of countries ALF are active in

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)

NZ Herald article about ALF in NZ

Radical group hails Tegel blaze [1] Mathmo ^Talk 06:02, 6 January 2007 (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, [2] but there are plenty of reliable sources descibing their "terrorist attacks in the UK" [3] 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: [4] 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 [5]! —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. [6] 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)

Copy edit in progress

I'm going to try to find time over the next couple of weeks to start improving this article. It has potential, but some sentences and paragraphs have been added without attention to flow and so on, and it's starting to look a bit dog-eared. I'm therefore going to start moving things around, creating new sections perhaps, filling other sections out, fixing the refs so they're all done consistently, finding full citations, and so on.

If you see me remove something and you don't agree, please don't revert, because the chances are high that it'll be restored at some point in another position. For example, I've just removed the threat to Oxford University from the attitude to violence section, because it's too specific, and doesn't say anything about the attitude in general to physical violence, which is what the section is about. However, I'll be replacing it (so long as it's a real quote), but it'll be somewhere else. I'm going to keep an offline folder of all the stuff that I remove so I don't forget to put it back.

Please bear with me on this. I think the article will definitely be better at the end of the process, even if it looks a bit patchy during it. If anyone strongly disagrees with something, I'd appreciate a note here rather than a revert. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, like your an unbiased editer. Ho ho ho —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.228.74.108 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Goodness, SV, you can't seem to do anything these days without your fanclub chiming in ;) I'd like to argue against the recent removal of the court ruling that the Liberation Press Office is the same as the ALF. I realise the material was very much focused on Webb personally, and I'm happy for it to be edited down or reworded accordingly, but I think its quite importent to note that a court pretty much quashed the carefully managed illusion that the Office is independent of the Front. Rockpocket 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say: it's only no attention that's bad attention. :-D

As for the Press Office thing, point taken. I'll stick it in my folder of things to be returned when I can work out where best to put it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and drop me a line if you need any help, there isn't much happening on my watchlist at the moment and my fingers are getting itchy... Rockpocket 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

List of claimed actions

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)

It doesn't need to flow like a story. It's not a story it's an encyclopedia. 70.162.43.130 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

If they are interested in it, they will read it. ImmunolPhD 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started a page on which we can list ALF actions, or at least the more notable ones: see List of acts claimed by the ALF. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ALF Logo

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)

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)

Why don't you use this one?

I think it's what the symbol should actually look like.Maziotis 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Underground Railroad

While I'm not a fan of SpinyNorman it is possible he has a point. Slim, could you show me where ALF has been described as an Underground Railroad? I'm fairly sure that ALF don't ferry lab animals from safe house to safe house in order to make it to those states where the animals can truly by free (would that be New York?). Otherwise, it just seems to add legitimacy to an organisation that, at best, performs illegal activities. Thanks ImmunolPhD 14:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Immuno, it's a self-description. I don't have time to look for the source right now, but it may have been Keith Mann, who's referenced after the sentence; I'll find it later today and add it directly after those words. The point of the comparison is that there is an underground network of activists and verterinarians that moves animals from places of danger, makes sure they get medical care, then moves them to places of safety; like the Underground Railroad, the network has to exist underground because what it is doing is illegal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to look for a source then why not just take that comparison until you DO find the source and use the description you just wrote instead of something that's likely to be pretty inflammatory in general? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.9.91.77 (talk • contribs).

Because the source used the term "Underground Railroad." I don't see why it would be inflammatory. It's a fact that animals are moved through an underground network in the same way slaves were. It's up to the reader what they want to make of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - if the source says it then it should stay. To the anon, can you explain how using the term is 'pretty inflamatory'? I just can't see it myself.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it is particularly inflamatory, but it probably should be noted that it is a self-description, rather than an independent one. I think there is a danger that we imply there is a general belief that the ALF is equivalent to the Abolitionism movement. I hear that a lot from those involved in the movement, but less so from third party sources. Rockpocket 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added three references and tweaked the sentence to say that they see themselves as the equivalent of the Undergound Railroad. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Rockpocket 06:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys truly feel that the comparison of the plight lab and farm animals to the plight of enslaved humans isn't inflammatory? Oh, right, these are the sample people who compared the killing of animals for food to the holocaust and didn't understand why Jewish people found that to be inflammatory. 68.46.183.96 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• This article is obviously not written from a neutral point of view. Some things have been omitted while a lot of propaganda has been left. Example: in the "Direct action and attitude toward violence-UK" section, when talking about Barry Horne there's no comment about the death threats made by the ARM (which where made public through Robin Webb, press officer of the ALF) there's also no comment about the Webb/Channel 4 thing.
• Again, no comment about Pro-Test, which formed right after ALF threat anti-SPEAK students. Even if it is a small group, it has to do with the ALF and should be (minimally) mentioned.
• The whole structure of the article is not neutral, it's seems to constantly go back to how good the ALF is. Example: the "Extensional self-defense" section should probably be merged with "structure and aims" as it talks about what the ALF stands for, instead it's presented as an explanation to the situations told in the three sections above.
• After "Direct action and attitude toward violence" everything gets mixed up, facts should be told as they happened, (just like PETA organized and explained each campaign).
• "Evidence of hardening attitud" should be renamed "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" after all who said their attitude has hardened?(WP:NOR).
• There's no mention of the GANDALF trial which is just as important as the Operation Backfire and would help organize the (now disperse) events-happened-involving-ALF section.
• ALF's aims are not referenced, i'm sure they are listed somewhere.

This article does not reach the GA criteria yet, but it's very well researched and it clearly has a lot of work in it. So i'm putting it on hold for seven days. I would very much like to pass this article, so if i didn't make myself clear in any point, please ask me.Yamanbaiia 14:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am failing the article, it's still non-neutral. Yamanbaiia 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article as well.

Intimidation v Direct Action

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)

Attributing actions or statements to the ALF

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)

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)

Britches and Theft/Rescue

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Horrid Article

This article is completely biased in favor of a group known as a terrorist group. There is no question of it. Bombing buildings and the like qualifies as terrorism, regardless of whether people are injured or killed. The article should be completely rewritten or deleted.--29 February 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.60.4 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Find a reliable source, and add the information you want with a reference. Crum375 (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crum375. Objecting to content or thinking that it should be changed is fine but it then becomes your obligation to replace it with reliably referenced material. If this wiki policy seems arbitrary to you or not something you want to particpate in then stick with graffiti - no references required.Bob98133 (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would far from say it is unbiased, as Crum375 said, find a reliable source and add up the more negative perspective. Personally, I think it's because you can't write or quote terrorism or violence too many times, otherwise they begin to become ineffective terms to use. The 't' word is already used a couple of douzen times and violence over a douzen. I really can't see what could be improved about the article to be honest, but by all means please try and improve it. Blueberrypie12 (talk) 07:16, 1st March 2008 (UTC)

The way the article reads now, the ALF is made out to be a civic organization concerned with the rights of animals. This is like saying that Al Qaeda is a group of Muslims concerned with educating the public about their religion. This is crap. The ALF is a terrorist organization. Federal laws such as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act have been passed as a result of their actions. They have caused millions of dollars in economic damage to governments, businesses and individuals. Homeland Security, the FBI, and law enforcement in general both in the U.S. and overseas treat them as a terrorist organization. All this being the case, I don't see why it is unreasonable for us to at least rephrase the first sentence of this article to something along the lines of "The Animal Liberation Front is a loose-knit association of animal rights activists who engage in acts of terrorism to inflict economic damage on organizations and businesses that use animals for testing and profit." Am I wrong?

I think some of the recent reverted edits to this article should be reconsidered, since it appears to me that they enhance the accuracy of the article in regard to what the ALF is all about. Of course, I know this won't happen, since the ALF sympathizers who monitor this page appear determined to bury the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.128.30 (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please supply references for your comments?: (1)the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act have been passed as a result of their actions (2)law enforcement in general both in the U.S. and overseas treat them as a terrorist organization. Not just your beliefs or comments. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Here's a pretty good source that lays it all out: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

Note this line: "During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.128.30 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying that this testimony given in 2002 directly led to the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in 2006? Sorry, that's pretty sloppy referencing. There is no indication that this act was passed as a result of actions by ALF as you claimed. The only reference you give is for an FBI site. How about your claim that law enforcment "overseas" treats ALF as a terrorist organization? You have not supplied any reference for that. Does the FBI qualify as "law enforcement"? It is certainly a law enforcemnt agency but does not speak for other agencies which may hold a different view. If the direct connection that you claim exists between the ALF and the passage of AETA, there should be plenty of good references. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When I last checked, the only government to try to label the ALF as terrorists was the U.S., and even there it was just "domestic terrorist threat" in a draft planning document. In the UK, for example, a senior police officer — writing from memory, I think he was in charge of the group set up to monitor the ALF — specifically said the ALF is not a terrorist organization — I will make efforts to find and add this.

If you extend the definition of "terrorism" to groups who have never killed anyone, never (to the best of my knowledge) seriously injured anyone, and who make every effort not to do so, then the term becomes meaningless, which I think is why other governments hold off from over-using it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is yet another good source that also lays out the truth about the ALF: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZOfkAoDb_2IC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=alf+actions&source=web&ots=-rYt1xxO0u&sig=f9zunkIBAwnEW5julVF6Fiw1z20&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as “the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

Similarly, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines terrorism as “the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion,” and/or “violent and intimidating gang activity.”

There is no mention in either of these definitions that terrorism necessarily has to involve killing or injuring people. The only necessary element in order for an action to be considered terrorism is the mere threat of force or violence, if not an actual violent act.

This being the case, many ALF actions clearly fit the terrorism label. Some of these include the 1987 arson at a UC-Davis veterinary laboratory, the 1992 firebombing at an animal research laboratory at Michigan State University (both are cited here: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco), and more recent actions like the arson of the Londonbridges boathouse in Oxford, England in 2005, which caused a half-million pounds worth of damage (read about it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/sep/28/highereducation.uk1) and the attempted firebombing of the home of UCLA professor Lynn Fairbanks in June 2006 (read about it here: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2006/sep/24/attacks-on-ucla-professors-tak/).

Even in instances where ALF actions are not necessarily meant to coerce any particular person, the actions themselves are still against the law and therefore, they are criminal actions. Freeing animals from captivity may seem like an act of compassion to some, but that doesn’t change the fact that doing so is against the law. At the very least, the ALF is a loose association of criminals.

Besides this fact, even the ALF’s non-violent actions still cause massive economic damage, threatening the livelihood of innocent people. An Associated Press article from May 16, 2005, details the case of one Peter Young, an ALF activist who was involved in several raids on farms in the late 90s. One of Young’s raids on a Wisconsin mink farm resulted in a loss of $350,000 dollars to the farmer, Alex Ott. Ott is quoted in the article saying that he nearly lost everything “because of some psychotic ideal.”

Furthermore, being that the FBI is pretty much universally considered to be the premiere law enforcement agency in the U.S., I think that any publication from them is easily an authoritative and reliable source. To say that the FBI is but a lone law enforcement agency with a set of unique “views” about what does or does not constitute criminal or terrorist activity shows an astounding level of ignorance of the law and how law enforcement operates.

The actions of the ALF are against the law. Therefore, anyone who commits any of said actions has committed a crime. And any crime is subject to investigation and prosecution by law enforcement. End of story. If individual law enforcement agencies were able to pick and choose which laws they wanted to enforce based on a particular agency’s “view,” then the entire judicial system would be useless.

Granted, different jurisdictions and different governments heed to their own individual sets of laws. And what might be considered a crime in the U.S. might not necessarily be considered a crime in, say, Canada or the U.K. However, in the case of the ALF, the terrorism idea is one that transcends national law enforcement boundaries. Scotland Yard, for example treats the ALF as a terrorist organization (see here: http://books.google.com/books?id=kV4umgkiilcC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22scotland+yard%22+and+%22animal+liberation+front%22+and+%22terrorist%22&source=web&ots=ri171H6lbs&sig=CRD5fWYu8OXC2RpsB46IbTJHR_Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result).

Similarly, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) considers the ALF a terrorist group (as reported in a news article titled “Lawmakers Target Eco-Terrorism” printed in the Feb. 16, 2000 issue of The Oregonian). The RCMP has pursued criminal charges against individuals who have committed ALF actions that clearly fit the definition of terrorism. In one such incident, ALF activist Darren Thurston was charged 22 times for sending envelopes containing razor blades to hunting guides (also referenced on this page: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco).

I suppose if we wanted to get down to brass tacks, we could do a global survey of every single law enforcement agency in North America and Europe to find out the approach each of them takes in dealing with the ALF. But why should we need to do that when we already have the three top law enforcement agencies in three of the countries where the ALF is most active, all of which seem to agree that the group is a criminal entity?

Of course, I am aware that none of this is likely to sway any of the ALF sympathizers who dominate this page. I know that even though it is plain to see that the ALF is no different in its methods than anti-abortion extremists who attack clinics and doctors, such a comparison will never be acknowledged by those who support the ALF’s misguided mission. But, you can’t blame a guy for trying, can you? Even though this piece-of-crap article will stay as it is – written in a tone as though it could be a brochure put out by the ALF – at least someone made an attempt to call the bullshit. Right? 72.186.128.30 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't use dictionary definitions, which are written by people with no specialist knowledge. The definitions you gave above would fit trade unions organizing illegal pickets, for example. As objectionable as that might be, no one would call it "terrorism," except as rhetoric.

I doubt that you'd find a reliable source that shows the RCMP seriously regards the ALF as a "terrorist" group. It's not a proscribed organization in any country in the world, so far as I know, so calling it "terrorist" is just another way of saying "we don't like it" — it has no actual meaning. And Scotland Yard does not regard the ALF as terrorists; no police organization in Britain does. In fact, the police who monitor the ALF have explicitly said they do not.

Anyone can do a google search for group A and word B, and find instances of the two being joined by someone who doesn't know any better, or who was exaggerating to make a point. When a state really regards a group as "terrorist," it's unlawful to be associated with it, its meetings are raided, its members arrested, and there are financial penalties (e.g. bank accounts associated with it are closed; bankers arrested if complicit, and so on). None of that applies to the ALF or to anyone who acts on its behalf. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Angels of Mercy

I think the following link should be included under the external links; videos. Its an old documentary channel 4 put on which I think most people would agree is an unbiased vid, and is one of the only documentaries not made by the AR movement.

• Angels of Mercy, Channel 4 documentary, June 24, 2006. Blueberrypie12 (talk) 07:15, 1st March 2008 (UTC)

Have look at Wikipedia:External links to see if it is approp. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 07:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look, can't see anything that's wrong. It's not promoting anything and it is middle ground as documentaries go. It says that YouTube/Google videos can be added as long as they are ok with the general guidlines, which as far as I can tell it is. Apologies in advance if I'm missing something. Blueberrypie12 (talk) 07:24, 1st March 2008 (UTC)

It being hosted on the google site would mean it is a copyright infringement and as such we cannot link to it.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Being hosted on Google does not make something a copyright infringement (why would it??) Also, even if it were a copyright infringement, that's no concern of Wikipedia's. If it meets external link guidelines, copyright status doesn't really matter. (I'm not saying we should willfully ignore such stuff, just that it's not really our concern, if we're not copying it onto Wikimedia servers.) -Pete (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It being hosted on google, without any indication that it has copyright permission to be there, does automatically mean it is a copyright infringement. And whether it is a copyright infringement is one of the conditions of an external link, take a look here. Specifically, under US law "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States".-Localzuk^(talk) 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits

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)

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)

My revert

I have reverted all the changes made to the intro due to the following:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

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)

Too many photos

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)

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 {{Commons}}. Rockpocket 20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which ones were you thinking of, LZ? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I also removed the press office image, and reduced the size of the others. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)