Talk:Animal Liberation Front/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incidents

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1979 and 1993 there were over 313 incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts committed in the name of animal rights in the U.S.

All break-ins, etc. done in the name of animal rights were not done by or in the name of the ALF. This seems like a misleading statistic to have in an article on the ALF and not on more general "animal rights movement". DanKeshet 04:04, Sep 25, 2003 (UTC)

ALF spokespersons

I edited this paragraph: "According to media sources, ALF spokespersons refuse to condemn violence by people who have previously acted in the name of the ALF, so long as they attempt no attribution of their violent acts to the ALF. For example, when David Blenkinsop, together with two other men who remain unidentified, severely beat Huntingdon Life Sciences director Brian Cass outside his home with 'staves' or 'pick-axe handles', ALF founder Ronnie Lee said of the victim "He has got off lightly. I have no sympathy for him." [1] The ALF's 'decentralized resistance' model of organisation, with no formal membership or hierarchy, thus acts as a formal 'firebreak' in issues of legal responsibility (or moral accountability).

It said that Ronnie Lee is ALF founder and spokesperson, but I don't think he is a spokesperson, so I removed that, which leaves the paragraph with no reference, as I believe the reference cited only mentions Lee, whose views are known to be extreme and explicit. Does the editor who added this paragraph have a source for the first sentence i.e. a source that refers to recognized ALF spokespersons? SlimVirgin 18:16, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the steer, SV. I've added a quote from Robin Webb, which is better. The links between all these people are hard to be specific about, for obvious reasons. But I agree it's best to be precise. Adhib 19:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ah. So now the Webb quote turns out to have been a misattribution - thanks for the input, anon! Perhaps you can advise whether or not this BBC quote by 'Tim Daley' is legit? "In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors.'' Adhib 23:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This quote is from a 1980's BBC documentary program, Animal Warfare, in the Brass Tacks series. An mpg of the program is available online if you do a search for it.

An anon IP just inserted this into the intro: "It has been linked to PETA, which has circulated some of its propaganda tapes." I'm not sure it's appopriate for the intro in any event, but if it's to go anywhere in the article, it needs a reference. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:34, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template

I've removed the anarchist template as the ALF is not an anarchist group (or any kind of group): activists claiming actions on behalf of the ALF come from across the political spectrum. Regarding the claimed link to PETA, that still needs a reference or it should probably be removed. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

It does has strong ideological links to anarchism though - it uses the anarchist black circled A logo with the smaller letter L and F inside, and through its use of "propaganda by the deed".
the template is off, but I agree, anarchism should at least be mentioned. I put it in the see also section.

Reference required

Plain regular ham, you keep adding: "ALF attempts to maintain an image of non-violent action, as the frequent incidents of violence accompanying their actions are always reported by ALF as instigated by their victims." You would need a reference to show that there are frequent incidents of violence committed by ALF activists, and that they claim the violence was initiated by their victims. Without a reference, it can't be allowed to stay. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I reworked the statements to your liking. I expect the BBC is reputable enough. plain_regular_ham 18:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You rewrote the edit to read: "However, ALF reports many violent incidents, consistently claiming that the violence was instigated by their victims." You need to find a reference that shows (a) that the ALF reports many violent incidents, and (b) that they consistently claim the violence was instigated by their victims." It's POV, which means we must attribute it. The BBC reference didn't say that, and in any event you used it to support a different edit, so I'm not sure what you mean. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am satisfied with your last revision, though I recall a page detailing claimed violence against activists. I have no problem leaving it out. plain_regular_ham 18:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverts that are incorrect

My edits keep getting reverted but there are multiple websites that support my claims.

A quick search on google will bring up the following along with many other articles:

Now, this page clearly needs to be NPOV. However, any attempts to show that the ALF is an ecoterrorism group get reverted. That is not right because wikipedia should provide accurate information. The ALF is discussed in other terrorism and ecoterrorism pages but those terms keep getting blocked from this page.

Those of you who keep reverting, stop being dumbasses and suck it up. The ALF is clearly an ecoterrorism group, especially if it's recognized as one by the FBI.

I put the fact that the US government considers the group to be a terrorist group back in the article. We'll have to wait and see if it gets reverted or not. I included a link to the testimony on the FBI's web site.
JesseG 23:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
JesseG, I reverted your edit because I think we need a quote if we're going to say that the group is a terrorist group. If you look at Keith Mann, there is a reference to terrorism in the intro, because such references were prominent at the time of his conviction, but The Guardian is quoted as saying it, not Wikipedia, or unnamed critics. I've looked through the FBI reference, and I can't see where it explicitly says the ALF is a terrorist group, though I may have missed it. In fact, the FBI says in this statement that the ALF in the U.S. adheres to its policy of non-violence. Also, don't say the U.S. government if it's the FBI, unless you can find the ALF listed as a terrorist group by the State Dept, in which case we'd need a reference. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

To the editor who placed the tag on the page, to use it properly, you have to list specific suggestions for change that are actionable within our policies. Also, please sign your posts. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pagesSlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the article, done some reordering and copy editing, and added some images. I also found a quote for the "eco-terrorist" claim, which I put in the intro. I took the NPOV tag off because the person who added it hasn't left any comments. The tag isn't meant to be used hit-and-run style. If it's put back, please say specifically what you feel needs to be deleted, added, or rewritten. SlimVirgin (talk) June 28, 2005 07:04 (UTC)

PETA

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)

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)
Website/link is Earthshare. Martial Law 23:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
They take all donations and give them to different environmental groups. Does this answer your question ? Martial Law 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, take a look at these [2] and [3]. It makes for interesting reading. Also, take a look at the external links on the first one. Activist cash is as credible as a wolfe dressing in sheeps clothing saying he didn't eat a sheep.-Localzuk (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

Riobranden, we don't embed external links in articles. SlimVirgin (talk) June 30, 2005 22:58 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, it's not an external link..? I am genuinely confused. --RioBranden

Sorry, I've forgotten which one it was. Can you post it here? SlimVirgin (talk) July 6, 2005 22:09 (UTC)
I made "Animal_Liberation_Front#Origins and aims" look like "Origins and Aims", which seemed like it made sense to me because it is a subsection of the same page. --RioBranden
Sure, that's fine. I doubt that's what I was referring to; if it was, my apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) July 8, 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Links

On July 9, an anonymous IP added a section entitled "Sites critical of PETA", with a link to exposepeta.com. Since this isn't the PETA article, it is hardly appropriate. Additionally, exposepeta.com seems to be a brand new site that nowhere mentions its affiliation, history, mission, or funding. The registration data for the site is also hidden from whois searches. At this juncture, it seems like a very poor quality source for information on this topic, so I have deleted it. --Teej 07:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Good edit, Teej. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Animal Liberation Front are freaks, willing to take whatever measure may be necessary to purvey their dogma. The law be damned, their efforts are so righteousness, that nothing can get in their way--not even the danger of maiming and killing human life. User:70.98.185.10

Graham Hall

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)Recusant

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)
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)
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)

But that's exactly what I said - I made no statement in the article that claimed he was branded *by* the ALF, I merely said he was branded with the letters "ALF". The brands were photographed and the pictures published in the paper. I assume you don't question the fact of the branding, just the question of who branded him. Right? --SpinyNorman 05:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Security Risk Template

  • 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)

You may remove the tinfoil hat now. FCYTravis 03:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gladys Hammond

Added a note to the "actions" section on the grave-robbing incident in the UK last year. Also linked to BBC timeline. [4] Kayman1uk 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it, because the source you linked to didn't say who was involved. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

New 'eco terrorist' line

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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[5], 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[6]. 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)

Sensitive viewers warning?

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)

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)

Current event?

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)

Found it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


NPOV Tag

The opening implies that ALF uses only non-violent resistance, are arsons really non-violent? The caption on the monkey-picture tries to be very touching and uses POV terms like "removed". "In April 1985, the ALF raided the University of California-Riverside laboratory to rescue Britches, a five-week old macaque monkey who had been separated from his mother and left alone in a wire cage with his eyes sewn shut as part of a maternal- and sensory-deprivation experiment." example of a POV statement, rescue or steal? You get the point Lapinmies 16:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The alf are a non-violent 'front'. If you can list some examples of ALF actions that have caused violence to a living being then we can discuss it. However, violence implicitly references injury to living creatures not objects. You cannot be violent towards a wall. The statement you give is not POV - it is a description of the event and the animal. It is not an opinion (which is what POV means). It can be backed up with evidence and is. Steal is a weighted word, more so than remove - it is however a truth, the monkey was stolen - and I would not oppose using the word.
Also, sorry for removing the NPOV tag, I will re-add it if you haven't already.-Localzuk (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I support using the word "removed." The ALF would say "liberated" to signify that the animal was a living being, and the "other side" would say "stole," because they regard the animal as property. "Removed" is neutral between those positions. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
My point on this word is that, legally, the word stole would be correct. Removed does not show any form of crime - which in this case there would have been. That is why I would not oppose stole (I don't oppose removed either as it is also correct).-Localzuk (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I am from the center of consumer freedom and i want to tell you that the ALF is a bunch of terrorists


Yes, I see your point. My concern is that the word "steal" is a legal term, and we can't say that someone has stolen something until a court has agreed. Often activists in the States use the argument that the animal wasn't stolen because s/he wasn't being held legally in the first place, so to use the word "steal" of any particular case, we'd had to check that a court had so ruled. It could also be argued that, in so doing, we're repeating the court's POV and we should therefore put in quotation marks exactly what the court said. For all these reasons, I feel it's better to use the most neutral term available. For the same reason, I don't support using "rescued" Britches. If I wrote that, my apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Good points really. I think it might be best to leave it as removed, as you say - until someone can provide a reference to state that it was classed as a crime by a court. -Localzuk (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stolen <-- the correct word is "stolen" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.161.137.162 (talk • contribs) .
(copied from above anon's talk page): I know a dictionary definition, thank you, but my point is that in US and UK law it is legal to commit a 'lesser crime' to prevent a 'greater crime'. If this is the case then the 'lesser crime' is ruled as not having been a crime - thus removing the fact that it was stolen in this case. Without such a ruling either way by a court, it is just opinion and therefore POV to use 'stole'. That is why 'removed' is being used as it has neither POV grounds nor legal grounds. Please discuss this on the Talk:Animal Liberation Front page. -Localzuk (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
"(copied from above anon's talk page): I know a dictionary definition, thank you, but my point is that in US and UK law it is legal to commit a 'lesser crime' to prevent a 'greater crime'. " <-- So show a court case stating that this was not theft, or other evidence that the dictionary is wrong.
"If this is the case then the 'lesser crime' is ruled as not having been a crime - thus removing the fact that it was stolen in this case. Without such a ruling either way by a court, it is just opinion and therefore POV to use 'stole'." <-- No, it is correct english. To use "removed" is to deny the fact that they had no right, and broke the law by stealing the monkey.
That is why 'stolen' is being used as it has neither POV grounds nor legal grounds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.161.137.162 (talk • contribs) .
It is POV as you are making that interpretation of the act rather than a law court. The definition to me seems to be that an animal was removed from the lab. That cannot be denied. Yes it was taken without permission, however due to the nature of the alleged crime and the near universal denunciation of the original test + the lack of a legal ruling on the issue leads to the fact that stating it was theft is pov - your pov. The 'right' you talk of is seen by some to exist, as it is seen by some (including yourself) to not exist. Therefore a neutral term seems best - thus 'removed' seems optimal in this situation.-Localzuk (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The monkey was removed. The people who were torturing the monkey say it was stolen. The people who removed it say it was liberated.

See that above. That's an NPOV rendering. Get to it, guys. Grace Note 04:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it again, I don't think 'removed' is terribly POV. Steal would be probably correct, but it is such a loaded word. Lapinmies 09:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed "rescued," by the way, Lapinmies, in the description of the Britches raid. My apologies and thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
how about "taken illegally", "removed illegally" or similar? expresses the idea without use of emotive terminology. Mostlyharmless 05:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact that anyone considers those animals their "property" is disturbing enough to me. I support removed, as it is less pov than liberated (which would still be correct, as would be stolen). The Ungovernable Force 05:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a lot of discussion over one word. ;-) I still don't see the problem with "removed." It doesn't imply the action was legal or illegal, and we don't know what the court ruled, so we can't say exactly. All I can remember in the case of Britches is that it was a complex case that went to the Supreme Court. As Grace Note said, "liberated" is the word the activists use, and "stolen" is the word the pro-testers use, while "removed" seems completely neutral between those positions. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it didn't. I was thinking of another case. Britches, I believe, didn't go to court. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"Removed" sounds neutral to me, and avoids judging the situation. -Will Beback 07:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I opt for "Removed" as well. -- Ravn 16:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
So i can come into YOUR house and remove YOUR tv and not get charged with theft? Sounds like a plan. Where do you live? 134.161.137.162 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
How about you tell me where you live so I can take your child and sew his/her eyes shut and torture them in the name of science. If you took him/her back, is that theft? What if random people who just didn't like the idea of me experimenting on your child took her/him, would that be theft? It's the same situation. "Stole" is just as POV (and in fact more POV) than "removed". You seem so intent on what the "truth" is and reporting this "truth" regardless of what the community thinks (as evidenced below), but in some people's opinion, the truth is the ALF liberated this animal and deserves praise for this action, not condemnation, so maybe we should rewrite the whole article to say that the ALF are saints and should be given medals of honor for their courageous sacrifices in the name of freedom. I'm sure you see how POV that is, and although some personally feel that is the "truth", we wouldn't go and rewrite the article like that because it is highly biased. What you propose is just the same. The Ungovernable Force 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and "removed" fails to denote the fact that they were breaking the law when they stole the moneky. I remove the litter in the park, I remove the dead brush in my yard, you steal my tv when you take it, you steal my wallet when you remove it from my pocket, you commit theft when you take something that doesn't belong to you. The word "remove" would be appropriate if the criminals, instead of breaking and entering (a crime) and stealing the monkey (a crime) they had filed legal injunctions and the law came in and removed the monkye. 134.161.137.162 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point of the above argument. What you say is only true if a conviction occurs/a court rules that way. If the court ruled that the people had done right to remove the animal then it is not in fact theft. You are not being unbiased on this issue - Removed is a neutral word (it does not cover the legal aspects of the action but covers the fact that the animal was removed from the room) whereas 'stolen' would bring your analysis that it was a crime - without a legal ruling to back it up.-Localzuk (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


I know innocent until proven guilty and all.... but to say it was not theft is biased. It doesn't take a court ruling to see that the monkey did not belong to them. Would my taking your tv not be theft until AFTER a court decides it was? what would you say ont he police report? I came and removed your tv and you would like a court ruling to see if ti was theft or not? 134.161.137.162 19:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To say it is theft is also biased. It does, in an encyclopedia, require a court ruling or other such evidence. Otherwise it is just your view against the view of, as you so nicely put it 'crazy' animal rights people. You seem to not understand that we must have evidence to back up everything on this site. 'Removed' is provided for (as it was removed, there is no denying that) however we do not have any evidence of a court process that stated it was 'theft'.-Localzuk (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


So why did the lab have the ALF's monkey? why did ALF have a monkey in the first place? I thought they were against pets... so why did they have one.. which they loaned to the Lab (which did animal testing even!) and then why did the lab not give ALF's monkey back to them when ALF wanted it back? since you know, it was not theft or anything.134.161.137.162 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You still miss the point. The community has (see above) decided that removed is the better word - as it is neutral and does not require evidence further to that already shown. It does not matter that it was not the ALF's monkey etc... This is just your bias showing through. You have to provide some legal evidence to back up that it was theft, else it is just your analysis of the matter - which is opinion and is not admissable on the site.-Localzuk (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


YOU still miss the point. The quasi democracy of wikipedia is not Truth. Just because you disagree with the dictionary defintion of a word doesnt mean you are right. You have the power of bias and wiki experiance, I have the weight of the dictionary and fact on my side. The community in the dark ages thought the world was flat, but you don't see ships sailing off the edge of it, now do you?134.161.137.161 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You do not understand wikipedia. The policy at WP:V covers this. Wikipedia isn't here for truth. It is here for verifiability. Also, you are avoiding a block which is against the rules. You will end up having an entire IP address range blocked if you are not careful.-Localzuk (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi 134.161, activists often use the argument in court that the animal they're charged with removing was being tortured and held illegally. In the case of Britches, this would have been a particularly strong defense, given that a number of scientists condemned the experiment too. Therefore, had the activists been tried, there's no way of knowing whether they would have been found guilty of theft or not. For that reason, the word "removed" is being used, because it is legally neutral. Similarly, in described the killing of a person, we can't say they were "murdered" unless a court has so ruled. These words — theft, murder — are legal terms and this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. A further argument is that, even if a court had so ruled, we still shouldn't parrot the rulings of a court. That's a separate argument and I don't know whether I'd defend it, but it's certainly a valid one. The point is that, in using the word "removed," we avoid all these complications. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rod Coronado

I think the text underneath should read "Rod Coronado, a prominent ALF activist and convicted arsonist in the United States." He is notable for both being an activist and being an arsonist. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 11:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. The relation to this page is that he is an ALF activist, however it is also accepted that ALF commit arson. I don't think I would have a problem with your version - as it is backed up by evidence. It does, however, lead to the question of whether it needs to be in this article as it is already in the article about Rob Coronado.-Localzuk (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
He is famous/infamous for being a convicted arsonist. That is the source of his credibility. It seems notable to me and belongs on there more than "from the United States".--JohnDO|Speak your mind 15:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you missed what I was saying. I am not contesting the USA bit - that it useful as it is a fact of his location. The problem is that the article is about the ALF not him, so putting to much detail in about him is a bit overkill as it is already in the article regarding him. Stating that he is from the USA is not there for his notability, more to show the geographical spread of the ALF. I personally would prefer it to stay how it is but would like some other opinions on it before it were to be changed.-Localzuk (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, I understand your point about the whether the arson information belongs here since it is in the main article. My point is that since not everyone will go to the main article, and he is notable and distinguishable from other animal rights activists by being a convicted arsonist, one can make a case for inclusion here. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that both this article and the Coronado article are frequently under dispute. Pertinent information should not be included nor omitted based on another article. If it is pertinent it should remain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.16.224.178 (talk • contribs) .

Looking at the Rod Coronado article's talk page it seems very stable over there. The occasional discussion regarding the word terrorist in the past but that is about it. I think it is a stable non-disputed article - compared to most of the Animal Rights related ones. I would say also that the information that is being discussed here is not pertinent to this article and should stay as it is.-Localzuk (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The animal liberation front is not a terrorist organization please remove it from the list of terrorist organizations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.214.245 (talk • contribs) .

As much as I agree with you, various US government agencies class them as a terrorist organisation. Therefore, the classification as a terrorist organisation stands. -Localzuk (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The US government describes terrorist organizations as violent, you can not be violent to a non-living object. The ALF rejects violence therefore it is not a terrorist organization. It does not fit the profile of a terrorist organization because it rejects violence.

If you are going to use the government's definition of a terrorist organization (and I believe we should) i.e. "The US government describes terrorist organizations as violent... (above)" then the ALF is clearly a terrorist organization. The U.S. government (FBI, Department of Homeland Security, etc.) considers the ALF a terrorist threat. Arson, it seems, can be very dangerous. "Activists" like Coronado also threaten action against humans (see the quote section on the Rod Coronado page.) That this is not a nonviolent organization is clearly to be seen. As far as "...you can not be violent to a non-living object (above)," I hardly think we can accept this out of hand (see property damage and violence.)

"Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)].71.16.224.178 07:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Real ALF members reject harming humans and take every percaution not to harm humans. If a human should be killed or injuried then the ALf condemns the action. People who kill in the name of animal rights do not represent the ALF. No human being has been killed by an ALF action, or ever will be. The Alf should not be confused with the animal rights milita, which advocates violence. Alf members strongly adcovate againist harming humans.

I don't think that the ALf is a terrorist organization because they reject harming humans the real terrorists are the corpartions that murder animals.

Okay, read the quote more carefully. "Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life..." Arson is dangerous to human life. What is so confusing about this?71.16.224.178 07:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for those who condemn the actions of the ALF. If you support the kind of property destructon of the jewish resistance fighter during the holocaust, then why don't you support the ALF is it because that was the 1940's and this is now? Is it because these were humans and those are animals or is it because that was Poland and this is the US? Or could it be that those who condemn the actions of the ALF are speclists who condone property destruction on behalf of humans?

Thank you for the irrelevant statement. This has nothing to do with the Holocaust. If I read your words in their correct context-- I might be misreading them, as they are not terribly clear-- they read to me as saying that you are a supporter of the Animal Liberation Front, in which case I suggest you join an ALF support group and leave the Wikipedia entry to those of us concerned with facts, not rhetoric.71.16.224.178 07:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Can I just step in here and say that people are entitled to their own views on Wikpedia, and this talk page. It does not matter if you love or hate the ALF - what matters is that the article is created to be NPOV regardless of those views. There is a danger to life in every action we take every day. We must remember that a lot of what happens is decided upon by intent.
It is perfectly acceptable, and should be to anyone who supports the ALF, to have a reference in this article to the fact that they are described as a terrorist organisation. This comes with the category that is titled 'Terrorism'. It is not POV so it should stay. -Localzuk (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This question about the holocaust is not rhoteric, it is a simple question that expouses the hypocrisies of those who condemn the actions of the ALF. Billions of animals are killed every year in the U.S. It is hypocritical to condemn violence, then critize those who destroy property that is designed to kill innocent beings. The attudute you displayed in my response is the same attudute that the nazis displayed when they killed they killed the jews. Look inside a slaughterhouse and you will change your mind, especally the iowa beef packers slaughterhouse, in Emporia, Kansas. That question I asked is directed at those who would praise those who destroyed the gas chambers in the exterimination camps, and helped jews escape, but condemn the actions of those who break the law by destroying property and taking animals from places of abuse. Those who do some serious research on the ALF will quickly find out that it does not fit the description of a terrorist organization. Many ALF members model themselves on the jewish resisttance fighters of the holocaust. I am going to tell you how the United States is like nazi germany. In both countries the governments tried to hide the killings. why is it difficult to get access to a slaughterhouse, and why is it againest the law to take pictures in the slaughterhouse. In both countries if the victim was taken to a safe place the government calls the actions criminal, and tries to punish those who are responsible, in nazi germany a person faced execution by helping someone who belongs to a racial group the nazis viewed as inferior to hide or escape, But that same person could kill the member of the targeted race and not have to worry about punishment. So to in the United States when people take animals from places of abuse and send them to loving homes the law comes down on them. But when those same animals are murdered the law does not care. In our cou

I think the point that is trying to be made is that this is not the place for this discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I support animal rights, the alf and many other things but I do not think creating POV articles about it is the way to present the case - the case presents itself with facts. -Localzuk (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
agree fullyThe Ungovernable Force 08:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly my point. ALF activists have strong convictions and feel that their actions are justified, but to ignore the fact that the United States considers this group a terrorist organization would be intellectually dishonest. It also denigrates actual non-violent movements, such as the numerous non-violent animal and human rights organizations that have so successfully affected public policy in the United States and throughout the world. These rants on the Holocaust (capitalized) and the Jewish People (also capitalized) are illustrative of the fact that some think if they believe in something strongly enough they can somehow change the reality of the situation in which they find themselves. I sympathize, but I hardly see its relevance to this article.71.16.224.178 07:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't Usenet. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not discuss the merits of various positions. If a credible source has called the ALF "terrorists," we quote them. If another credible source has compared them to the Jewish resistance, we quote them too. We don't take sides, we don't take liberties with what the sources say, we don't insert our own opinions. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
To what "credible source" comparing the ALF to the Jewish resistance are you referring? This may well exist, but you must reveal the source of this assertion. Are we to take it on faith? I have provided excerpts from the United States Constitution as well as Senate testimony in support of my claim, yet have not seen so much as a hyperlink to the contrary. I'll also thank you, SlimVirgin, not to sign my comments to other Wikipedia members. It is my right to post anonymously. I am not Localzuk.71.16.224.178 07:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few references, from people other than PETA - who came under fire for saying the same thing. [7], and an article about that article [8], and a couple more (both from the same site) [9], [10]. -Localzuk (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Apologies to the anon and to Localzuk for signing the post with the wrong name. I got confused about who was saying what. For the anon, if you add four tildes after your posts — ~~~~ — that will produce your name/IP and the date. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the references, none of which mention the "Jewish Resistance," that is unless you think the terms "Holocaust" and "Jewish Resistance" can be used interchangeably (they can't.) Those websites compare the slaughter of animals to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. They don't compare ALF members to freedom fighters or the Jewish Resistance. Come on guys this scholarship isn't worthy of a highschool term paper.71.16.224.178 02:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've lost track of the discussion here. To the anon: the article doesn't compare the ALF to the Jewish resistance, and this page is for discussing the contents of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just curious, Slim, where you came up with "If another credible source has compared them to the Jewish resistance, we quote them too," because the article doesn't compare the ALF to the Jewish resistance. That was the point I was making-- about a statement that you made.71.16.224.178 03:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Note the "if": I was making a point about policy. This page isn't here to discuss the ALF, but to discuss the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm tired of you trying to shut down this discussion. This page is here to discuss the article, and the article is about the ALF. The "if" is very important Slim. For example, suppose I were to say "...if a credible source says the ALF routinely murders children, we quote that too," as if such a quote actually existed (it doesn't). All I ask is that supporting evidence be offered for various claims.71.16.224.178 05:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And I'm tired of single-issue anons who don't know how to edit within our policies and who waste people's time on talk pages. I was explaining policy when I wrote that, as in: IF you have a source that says the ALF is run by the mothers' union and that George Bush's wife is a prominent member, THEN put it in the article. That was my one and only point. If there is a claim in the article that you think is false and it is not supported by a source, quote it here. Otherwise, please stop the endless arguing. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is quoted above. I know reading may seem a waste of time to you, but it is necessary.71.16.224.178 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read it, but the problem with arguing so much is it makes relevant material hard to find. Please either quote here the claim you feel is unsupported, or stop mentioning it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The point at issue is recorded neatly under the heading "Rod Coronado." You are welcome to re-read it, as it is quite clear.71.16.224.178 07:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
In case it matters, you wanted a source comparing the ALF to the Jewish resistance. I came across one tonight: "At the Gates of Hell: The ALF and the Legacy of Holocaust Resistance" by Maxwell Schnurer in Terrorist or Freedom Fighters, Steven Best (ed), 2004. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

---> Beagles are not Jews. Fire is not harmless. Thank you.

Stolen or Removed discussion revisited

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)

Rod Coronado caption

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)

Would listing "arson" imply support for or opposition to his actions?71.16.224.178 10:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving Justice Dept and ARM to See also section

...because they aren't part of the ALF and hence shouldn't be included in the "(ALF's) attitude to violence" section. If someone wants to rewrite the paragraph to say "there are also two more radical groups willing to engage in violence and some ALF members are in them too", go ahead...

I'm not so sure of this. Given that the ALF doesn't have a strong leadership, organization or membership criteria, it's seems pretty difficult to say who's in and who's out. But the text as it was made it clear that it was a different organization. --BluePlatypus 08:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've restored it. There's no indication that the Justice Dept and the Animal Rights Militia are different people from ALF activists, and several indications that they're the same people e.g. an ALF spokesperson was charged with incidents claimed by the Justice Dept, and a well-known ALF activist was jailed for 18 years for an arson attack claimed by ARM. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said above under general... Robin Web was charged for JD incitment (not actions) NOT CONVICTED, but aquited. Its more a case of the police fishing. AR activists generally have a policy of not critizing those who use other tactics within the movement, Robin Webb adheres to this too. Lots of RSPCA members are also in the ALF, does that make the SPCA the ALF? Why not mention the 20 or so other animal liberation organizations apart from the ALF that have been active underground? Barry Horne was not an ARM activist as the Isle of Write incideries were not targetting humans and were claim at the time by the ALF. By your logic the ALF should also be lumped in with Abortion Doctor Killers because asome them were vegans.(talk) 16th Feb

The ALF has harmed no one and rejects violence. Racist organzation have killed countless people and advocate violence. And yet the U.S government lists them as the more dangerous threat. Do you know why? Because of money.

How come it is a felony to photograph inside a slaughterhouse, besides the reason that meatpacking companies want to keep costumers in the dark about the suffering animals go through simply for them to enjoy meat.

The ALF creates monsters, such as the Justice Department and is then unwilling and unable to stop them. They use arson, an uncontrollable force, as a weapon that will, eventually claim either a civilian or firefighter's life. ALF cannot be ignored until they are as violent as racist organizations. Also, meat is delicious. 35.12.24.54 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Slimdavey
That is your POV. Unless it is backed up with verifiable information it cannot be accepted in the article. Also, no-one is discussing the taste of meat here - and making comments like that is just childish. If you want to make comments like that, please take them elsewhere. -Localzuk (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

General

This could be added as I belive it is the most commonly use symbol for the ALF

demo

Barry Horne wasn't an ARM activist, he was only ALF. If you have proof against this please provide. Terrorism or Freedomfighters is essential reading for any academic editing these pages. As I read through the article I am making the following notes... We should mention how the UK state regards the ALF beside the US definition, esp as the ALF has its roots in the UK. The band of mercy was not recreated as the HSA, it was simply that BoM came from HSA members. The roots in the angry brigade and anarchism in the UK should be mentioned. As well as the anti-vivisection riots of the late C19th. This sentence- "Lee and Goodman were arrested for allegedly taking part in a raid on Oxford Laboratory Animal Colonies in Bicester, which earned them the name the "Bicester Two." They were sentenced to three years in prison, but released after serving one." its not alleged if they were convicted. there are other problems with this version of histroy, I'm going to do some reading and come back to this one. The US origins are NOT conflicted, the US liberations were NOT the ALF as they were done by non vegetarians, so by definition could not be ALF. The ALF have been using vandalism for a long time, its what the founder started with! ARM info should be under ARM. They are diffrent organizations. If someone is a memeber of the SPCA and gets fed up with them and joins PeTA that doesn't make the RSPCA PeTA does it? the mink paragraph needs more balance, eg: science about mink release and info about the area they were released. Graham Hall was never an Animal Rights activist, he was a animal welfarist. That whole branding incident was also shown to be a hoax and publicized in the media as such.

heres the link:http://website.lineone.net/~grandlaf/Jwdc99.htm

"Recycled Hall's new scam (2) was to 'brand' his own back with the letters 'ALF'. Hall claims he was kidnapped by some animal rights people who conned him into thinking he was on the way to expose some dog fighting. Even from the start, this does not stand up, because after C4 Dispatches, no animal rights person would have anything to do with Hall, and he himself would be unlikely to try to contact them, being aware of the possibility that some of them might want revenge. The story is doubly suspicious because it is written by Foggo, the creep who tried to infiltrate and film the August 1999 Earth First! summer gathering near Bungay in Suffolk. Hall claims the ALF bundled him into a van, put a sacking hood over his head, and then burned his back with a hot iron. Recycled Hall has a track record of such claims. In another story he said he was kidnapped and told newspapers that he'd been shot in the leg, (could this be the kneecapping allegation recorded in GA54/55 ?) and on another occasion that he'd been tarred and feathered. (3) To be kidnapped once is unfortunate. To be kidnapped twice goes beyond coincidence, and stretches credulity too far. The front page picture of his wound in the Mail seems surprisingly superficial for a branding. There is a distinct lack of red flesh around the edge of the 'wound'. Even the Mial itself on the Monday questioned the story. We think the whole thing is fake, the sort of make up job people had in old civil defence exercises. This opinion is compounded by hard questions asked by Robin Webb. Where and when did Hall go to hospital after the attack? No one is saying which hospital, which suggests he never went. What record do they have of this? Have the police been told ? We find out West Mercia police were only told of the attack after Hall went to the media - a sure sign this was simply a stunt." GA is the Magazine Green Anarchist. for more:http://www.animalsagenda.org/articledetail.asp?Menu=News&NewsID=291 And if POV is really at contention here then heres an ANTI-ALF comment about Graham Hall http://www.animalrights.net/59825 "West Mercia Police are still investigating the incident and stressed they were keeping an "open mind" on whether animal rights activists were involved or not." I think that if the ALF had done it, they would have claimed it thu the press office. After all if you wanted to be secret about it they wouldn't have put ALF on his back.Xanax

Xanax 14:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

ALF activists are not in SHAC as ALF is a underground group. They share the same targets and aims. overall this article is messy! Its disjointed and contains alot of basic historical errors and is missing about 20 years worth of information and is US centric and I'm going to be here discussing quite a few changes for awhile I think (: (talk)

Xanax, if you know about the ALF, your help is very welcome. Just a few points:
  • All your edits must conform to our editing policies i.e. Wikipedia: No original research (NOR), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV), and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). It would be worth your while to look over these before making any radical changes. What the policies say is that our edits must already have been published by credible sources, and that they should present all majority and significant-minority views. The ALF is allowed to be used as a source for this article because it's about them.
  • You should source your edits by linking to a source after the sentence or paragraph, or if it's not online, by adding a Harvard reference in brackets after the sentence (e.g. Best 2004).
  • The two books I've been using as sources are Steven Best (ed) Terrorists or Freedom Fighters, and Ingrid Newkirk Free the animals.
  • Material should be written in an enycyclopedic tone: no weasel words, no words that convey an opinion e.g. we don't say "The ALF stole 40 beagles from research lab" and we don't say "The ALF liberated 40 beagles"; instead, we find a neutral word. If we want to say they stole something, we have to attribute that claim to a court e.g. A court in Essex ruled that ALF activists stole 40 beagles."
  • You can add your name after your posts by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.
I hope this helps.
As for Barry Horne, I believe ARM did claim responsibility for the arson attacks he was convicted of, or did I get that wrong? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I did keep the NPOV in mind, and if any bias came thru I'll blame the politically charged sources I have been reading(: A few books (booklets) I have found that have alot of ALF content include: Memories of freedom, terrorists or freedom fighters, Into the 90's with the ALF, Bite Back 2004 action report, against all odds and the ALF Primer. Is it Okay to use Magazine refrences? I only have refrences in Animal Rights Magazines to Horne being ALF not ARM, is this acceptable? There is a well documented statement from the Judge of his case say there was no intention to Harm anyone, although the ARM could esposue that they also have no intent, but are mearly careless about how they terrorise their victims.. tricky..Xanax 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Magazine references are fine, Xanax, as are ALF leaflets, so long as you make clear where the information is coming from e.g. "According to the ALF ..." or "According to an ALF leaflet entitled "X,Y,Z" published in 1980 ..." etc. As for ALF and ARM, separating them is difficult. My understanding is that ARM, like the ALF, is not a "group," but just a direct-action name. In other words, if I go out tonight and smash the windows of my local butcher's store, I can claim that action as ALF. But if I also beat up the butcher, I would be more likely to claim it as ARM (I couldn't claim it as the ALF, because the Animal Liberation Press Office would reject the claim). That's my understanding anyway. Robin Webb has indicated that the ALF and ARM may consist of the same activists: see the article for details of what he said. If you want to say definitively that they are not the same people, you would need to find a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep I agree Slim, but membership cross over still doesn't preclude them being seperate organizations/social entity/terrorist cells. "In other words, if I go out tonight and smash the windows of my local butcher's store, I can claim that action as ALF" thats true in so far as you are vegan or vegetarian and "To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human." (biteback magazine and ALFFAQ). You could also claim to be a christian, but in so far that you must believe in a monotheistic God and Jesus and stuff.
Also I've read Robin Webbs comments, and I've also seen them in the context of a television debate, he was laying out principles, not describing the organizations membership. He is only a press officer for the ALF. I believe Robin Web has an agenda seperate from ALF. Also if the ARM was seen as harmless then the majority of its actions wouldn't work (product scares, death threats), so this may be propaganda. There are court transcripts showing ALF activists denoucing the ALF to escape conviction, this would be similar. If ARM terrorists act as ALF activists they arn't being true to ALF guidelines. Also another problem is some activists believe that Arsonists arn't ALF memebers contary to claims because arson endangers life, dunno who I'm ganna quote on that...

Just for the record I'm not trying to push a POV here, and I know alot of this does seem like its just from my personal perspective, but'd love to see wiki actually work for this type of social history which is notorieously hard to document and usually ends up one sided or non-existant. I am however finding it hard to find alot of sources as the ALF, ARM etc are terrorist style groups.Xanax 13:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

heres a source about 'leaders' of the ALF..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/11/60minutes/main1041047.shtml specifically- BRADLEY: Does Dr. Vlasak speak for anyone the movement?

ALF CELL LEADER: I don’t know who put Dr. Vlasak in the position he’s in. It wasn’t us, the ALF.

BRADLEY: He says that every social movement eventually resorts to violence. Would you agree with that?

ALF CELL LEADER: I think looking at history, many social movements have resorted to violence.

BRADLEY: And do you think that yours will resort to violence?

ALF CELL LEADER: As I said before, we don’t choose the methods. We don’t choose the weapons. We liberate life, destroy property. We have guidelines of non-violence.Xanax 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the logo Xanax uploaded and placed it on the top left, but I don't know if that's the right place for it so feel free to move it elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I note that this article has been listed as with 'non-violent resistance' ??????????????????????????? http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/06/alf_violence_on.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3561-2014798,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1514380,00.html http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2748

A few of the many links to stories of ALF violence. To place this organization in such a category is mildly demeaning to the organizations conatined eg the Civil Rights Movement.

Firstly, the Center for Consumer Freedom is widely known to be nothing but an Anti-Animal Rights capaign organization, and not trustworthy. Animal Crackers, the typepad blog, is not worthy of being cited in an article either; Blogs are opinions. Further, it notes only destruction of property, which is not violence. Whether or not you agree, the defenition of Violence according to the ALF does not include destruction of property. You can't make a car suffer.
As for the TimesOnline article: being a taget of the ALF does not mean you will be physically harmed; it means that all your material objects, and you relationships (not relations) are subject to damage.
Arson is an acceptable tactic to many, involved with the ALF and otherwise. It's not considered to be Violence as long as no animals (human or otherwise) are harmed. Canaen 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest it matters less what the ALF's definition of violence is, than whether the ALF's actions equate with the accepted definition of violence. Taken from dictionary.com, Violence:
Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing
Abusive or unjust exercise of power
Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
I think plenty of ALF actions fall within those definitions. I could be wrong, but it seems from the article as if the ALF are suggesting non-violence is synonymous with "no direct action that could endanger life". If that is the case, then perhaps their claim of being non-violent should be qualified with their own definition. Rockpocket 00:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the partisan nature of the website, the story depicted is valid and was widely reported by the UK media http://www.i-mockery.com/meatatarian/branded.htm Plus as an independant body I thought we didn't allow organizations to self-classify or describe? Also- arson is an acceptable tactic to many? I'm guessing the persone posting has never lost a loved one as 'collateral damage' - arson is violent, brutish and unsophisticated as a form of protest. This past decade ALF had caused more damge to property than the IRA, and I am a man who is passionately in favour of the rights of buildings, to liberate constructs from abusers, to inflict economic damage on those who profit from the misery and exploitation of buildings etc. I agree that the links presented were for the most part biased, but it does not detract from the fact that acts of violence have been carried out by the ALF, ergo they can't be classified as a non-violent resistance movement (unless we take their word and definition for it, but I'm a nasty cynic who doesn't). For crying out loud, this site even has mentions the attack on Brian Cass by ALFers.--Peteranthony 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Its important that we represent why the ALF consider themselves to be non-violent without misrepresenting their acts (which, by the wider definition, are probably not "non-violent" to a lot of people outside their movement). There is no merit to saying "the ALF does not consider it to be violent, so its not" - by that rationale, we should edit David Irving's article as if there was no Holocaust. In both cases, their opinion does not get to define the content of their entry.
I've made two (hopefully) subtle qualifications to address the issue. Firstly, I changed the intro to use the language of the ALF's guideline about violence, rather than just say "non-violent". Secondly, i have added one sentence at the beginning of the "attitude towards violence" section to establish the parameters of what the term is referring to, according to the ALF, in that section. I hope this allows the reader to make their own mind up about whether the ALF are "non-violent". Rockpocket 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a source for "The ALF define "violence" to include acts of aggression specifically directed against people and animals only," because otherwise we're stating it as a fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Alternatively we could write it as "the ALF appear to define..." - as i feel we need to somehow explain how the ALF define themselves as non-violent despite claiming what, according to the definition of the word, appears to be violent acts. If we could source it directly, it would be better though. Rockpocket 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I added citations as you suggested and stated the logical implication of their interpretation of the definition. Rockpocket 18:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism, Direct Action, Sabotage, or Arson?

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)

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)
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)
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)
That's was my original proposal, so I guess we'll go with that. The Ungovernable Force 09:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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)

Novels That Support Animal Rights

Books to buy -- May 2005 links to booksellers. Animal Instinct -- March 2006. Book review. The book is technically a thriller, though it's also a message book about the plight of animals. Igniting a Revolution -- Voices in Defense of Mother Earth, co-edited by Steven Best & Anthony J. Nocella, II. Henmaids Tale -- The Holocaust & The Henmaid’s Tale: A Case for Comparing Atrocities by Karen Davis, Ph.D.

NPOV?

Honestly, I think thet the use of "activist" to describe this group is non-"npov". By definition, including those provided by Wikipedia, "terrorist" is more applicable. The ALF is all about violence. DevoutHeretic 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Except, of course, in the definition of "violence" the ALF use, they are a "non-violent" group. Difficult to be defined as a terrorist if you are non-violent. Rockpocket (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
By that reasoning, a rapist that defines himself as an "unconventional love interest" isnt a criminal...seems a bit thin to me.DevoutHeretic 16:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true that people that have acted in the name of the ALF at one point have committed acts of violence, but not in the name of the ALF. You see the cunning situation they have created. Calling them terrorists, unless as a well sourced description by a respectable body, would be innapropriate. See ARM for the terrorists. |→ Spaully°τ 16:50, 14 May 2006 (GMT)
Oh, please....just because we are striving for neutrality, we are not allowed a bullshit detector? They *self-describe* as "non-violent" (by redefining violence) and we are to take that as NPOV? The situation they have manufactured is hardly cunning, its transparent as hell. Just because the facts about this group, and its allied groups, are harsh, does not make those facts biased.DevoutHeretic 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You missed the important part of my reply, also remember several billion people believe in hell so maybe not a good comparison :). Find authoritative sources that describe ALF activists as terrorists and you might be able to put it in and abide by WP:V and WP:RS at the same time. WP:NPOV is more ethereal.
I would also define terrorists as a subset of activists, so either way activists is correct. |→ Spaully°τ 17:29, 14 May 2006 (GMT)
When I stated "transparent as hell" the word "hell" was used as an intensifier, I wasnt making a statment about the christian concept of hell. The formula "X is as Y as hell" is a pretty common turn of phrase, my apologies if it was one you were unfamiliar with.DevoutHeretic 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I had hoped the ":)" would signal my sarcasm, but as usual this seems tricky to convey over the internet. Maybe ;) would be better in future. Hmm |→ Spaully°τ 18:08, 14 May 2006 (GMT)
DevoutHeretic, we don't say that any group is "terrorist," not even groups like Hamas. The most we ever say is that they're regarded as a terrorist organization by A, B, and C. Calling a group "terrorist" is POV, bullshit detector notwithstanding. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
How is calling a group ,that meets the definition, terrorist POV? Is it because it is a unflattering word? Like I stated earlier Harsh does not equal bias.DevoutHeretic 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
In the "violence" section of the article, it is clear how the ALF manipulate definitions to allow themselves to claim to be non-violent. As far as i'm concerned, it is sufficient to state the facts and let the reader make their own mind up. As SV says, that they are considered terrorists by others is also clear, but in terms of NPOV language, we must descrive them as "activists who engage in direct action" Rockpocket (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The ALF is not a terrorist group. Before you go about labeling people as "terrorists," please consider the defenition of the term. Regardless of all the bullshit surrounding the word, in it's essence, it is "one who uses terror," usually to accomplish a goal. You could quite easlily call SHAC a terrorist group, because a lot of their tactics involve scaring people into stopping their involvement with Huntington Life Sciences.
However, animal liberations, such as those performed in the name of the ALF, are a form of Direct action. They serve not to cause fear, but to achieve a concrete result. The goal in an ALF liberation is not to scare the operators of the place (although that is sometimes an added bonus), but to liberate animals. Plain and simple. Canaen 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you call burning down a McDonalds (which is something the ALF does)? That's more than just liberating animals, not to say there's anything inherently wrong with burning down a McCrap, but still.....The Ungovernable Force 00:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I call it burning down a McDonald's. Arson is a tactic rarely used by ALF cells. One must understand that the ALF does not carry out actions. Cells of individuals carry out these actions, and they are then claimed for the ALF. I'm not in all of their heads believe it or not, but I this particular action causes direct financial damage to McDonald's, a corporation which commits many attrocities. They no longer have that facility to make money in. If they want it again, they'll have to rebuild, knowing full well that someone or a group of someones are pretty damned determined to get rid of McDonald's in their area.
Much more often than actually burning down a McDonald's or KFC, people will break windows of such places, and claim it for the ALF. Much, much more often. The usualt goal of such actions is to have a direct financial impact against the corporation. Now, since most of those places are run as franchises, it hurts the manager a lot more than the corporation, but it still has some effect. Canaen 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, many groups on Wikpedia are labeled as "terrorists."
Spaully: Does the FBI count?

Liberating animals?

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)

That's what I think we decided. Either way, that's the best one. The Ungovernable Force 00:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought so. I've change it to reflect that. Rockpocket (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
Sure. The Ungovernable Force 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"domestic terrorism" line in DA in NA section

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)

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)
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. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 03:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to check

[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)

Righty - I've added a quote mark at the beginning and fully square bracketed the "While" so it now is like that.

"[While] 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).

Stui 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

direct action

Isn't direct action just an euphemism here? A POV assertion? Intangible 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Direct action is the method which ALF activists use. It's a philosophy/ideology. It's the way they go about things. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Which includes property destruction. Something which should be mentioned more prominently in the introduction of the article. Intangible 00:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Because it is a defining characteristic of this group, something that separates it from other groups. Intangible 01:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It says sabotage pretty early on. The Ungovernable Force 05:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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)

Dairy?

Are you sure that they target the dairy industry? Can't say that I've ever heard of it. Could we have a citation please?

Well, I'm sure I'll find one. I mean, most of them are vegan, why wouldn't they target the dairy industry as well? The Ungovernable Force 21:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here is something from no compromise magazine. The ADL website says in relation to an attack on McDonalds, "A statement issued by the Animal Liberation Press Office a day after the attack read: 'McDonald's has been designated a poster-company for the fast food, meat and dairy industries, which are responsible for massive and unimaginable animal cruelty, as well as participating in environmentally destructive practices and anti-union efforts.'" I'm not really interested in trying to find much more, since it seems pretty obvious that if they attack egg, meat and pharmacutical industries, that they would also attack dairy. Do you have any reason to doubt this? The Ungovernable Force 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote in the article says that vegetarians can be in the A.L.F. If that is so, then it seems inconsistent for them to be anti-dairy, unless they only target the particularly cruel parts of that industry. Epa101 12:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm still not too convinced. If you don't want to do any more work, you don't have to; I'll have a look. With the first link, the A.L.F.'s official motive was unconnected to dairy. I know that anti-dairy graffiti was sprayed, and that does count as some evidence, but it cannot single-handedly be used to suggest to say that the A.L.F. is completely anti-dairy. The second link seems a little strange. How exactly are McDonald's connected to dairy? They don't sell milk or eggs. They might use butter, but so does everywhere. It sounds a bit like a wild rumour to me. I'll try to investigate this stuff a bit. Epa101 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm now in favour of removing the word "dairy" from the opening paragraph. I've searched the A.L.F. website, and find no evidence that they're, by definition, anti-dairy. In their list of saints, they include a lot of vegetarians. Everything is always phrased "vegetarian/vegan" being deliberately inclusive. I expect that some within the group would like to end the dairy industry, but every group has its internal differences. Epa101 13:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They oppose all animals use, including use for dairy products. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not too convinced. The F.A.Q.s on the website even admits that cattle aren't treated quite as cruelly as the others[11]. The links above are from America, but the A.L.F. is British-based. It's debatable whether being a British vegan does help animals anyway when you consider the environmental impact of importing soya milk from afar. Epa101 14:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Epa101, you are referring to the ALF as if they are an organisation. Remember that the ALF is simply a front, a set of guidelines and rules if you will, under which non-violent, pro-animal rights actions occur. To state that 'the ALF is anti-dairy' is a non-point as the ALF in that context does not exist. If you said that 'activists under the guise of the ALF, in XYZsville are anti-dairy' then thats ok. Also bare in mind that there is not an ALF website. There is an 'ALF Press Office' website - which is a seperate, legitimate organisation, there is also a site which provides information on the ALF - but as there is no such thing as the organisation 'the ALF' it is not 'their website'.
Soy milk does have environmental issues, yes, but it has far fewer issues in total than the issues involved in dairy. Also, there is such a milk as 'oat milk'.-Localzuk (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding british vegans and soy milk. There are many different alternatives to milk, not just soy milk. Also,
Hi. I understand that the A.L.F. is not a card-carrying organisation, but, if we can't say that they're pro- this or anti- that, then it makes no sense to talk about an A.L.F. at all. What I've decided on is that it is inappropriate how the opening paragraph does not mention leather, zoos, circuses, etc. but does mention dairy. Any glance over the links at the bottom indicates that their focus is more concentrated towards the former. I'm going to alter it, and it shall keep a reference to the fact that some members also oppose dairy. Sorry if my point about soya milk seemed a bit provocative. I should've just said that some animal rights people are skeptical on the anti-dairy, pro-soya argument. Oat milk is a new one on me. Interesting. Epa101 09:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to SlimVirgin. You can't say that they oppose all industries with animal use, because that would mean opposing wool, silk, gelatine sweets, and elements of beer, apples, bananas, cereals, could go on forever. Here is a resource from their website illustrating my point. We can say that they are opposed to animal suffering wherever, but they single out certain industries above others as targets, and their literature seems to suggest that dairy is not one of those that is considered to be a priority. Epa101 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that, although the official definition of "vegan" is someone who doesn't eat meat or dairy, there are people in the animal rights movement who define "vegan" as someone who doesn't eat anything that's may have come into contact with any animal product, as shown in F.A.Q. above. It seems that the "official" A.L.F. sites recognise that their members differ over what exactly counts as a significant exploitation of animals. They deliberately welcome mere vegetarians. I'd guess that it's to avoid the activists getting divided by arguing over details. Epa101 13:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Epa101, I think maybe you should do a bit of reading on what veganism acutally is. It is not limited to food and I don't think anyone who calls themself a vegan thinks that. This explains such things as vegan clothing, vegan cosmetics etc... I think what you are trying to change is a little pointless as the ALF do oppose all animal abuse - plain and simple. However, for practicalities sake they target those industries that do the most damage to animals. Also, veganism isn't about complete removal of anything animal related - it is about removing everything that is practicable (so removing dairy, meat, leather etc... but not stopping using roads).-Localzuk (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the definition of "vegan" differs, and I have met people who claim the title who don't even bother with boycotting wine or beer made from animals. Why don't we settle this by just including the words from the A.L.F. website on their mission? Epa101 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC) I was wrong on the "official" definition of "vegan" though. Should've actually bothered to check it first. Sorry. Epa101 11:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

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)

I will not revert my edit.Its also POV to say that they are not terrorists merely 'activists'.It makes them sound better than they are.If you feel that my changes were POV then i will allow you to change them but i want to persuade you not to change them.My first edits were blatant POV.I accept that.Dermo69

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

Ok idid look up other 'actiivist' groups such as the PIRA and theUlster Defence Association and i saw you were right aabout how it is only who considers them terrorists that is put down.I will revert my edits.Dermo69

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

Me also:)Dermo69

Tone of "attitude to violence" section

The way that the first paragraph in this section is written seems to be suggesting that the A.L.F. is violent really. In the context, Webb's comment appears like an apology for violence, but the Green Party of England and Wales have said exactly the same thing: they don't like violence, but they can understand it when nothing gets done on the issue[12]. Perhaps, the quote should be moved elsewhere, or the paragraph should be written in a less P.O.V. tone. Epa101 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was written that way to best reflect the different interpretations of what the ALF does. They call themselves non-violent based on their definition of the word "violence", but within a wider definition, they do commit violent acts. Moreover, sometime ALF activists do carry out violent acts (under both definitions) but not in the name of the ALF. When these occur, the ALF refuses to condemn it.
As the rest of the article defines the ALF as "non-violent" (and correctly so), this section was inserted to provide independant perspective, allowing the reader to make up their own mind about whether "the A.L.F. is violent really". Taken in the context of the entire article, i think the balance is about right. Rockpocket 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist designation

(copied from Rockpocket's talk page)

The category says that entries must have been officially designated as a terrorist organization by someone empowered to do so, in such a way that there is a consequence for that organization. It doesn't seem to me that that applies to the ALF. They are not an illegal organization. There are no restrictions on ALF activists, such as frozen bank accounts and the like, as occurs with terrorist groups. All that happened is that the DHS said they were regarded as a "domestic terrorist threat," but without consequence or any official listing, so far as I know. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, the ALF supporters' group has a proper membership, with membership dues, and it sells things to raise money for the ALF. If the ALF were officially regarded as a terrorist organization, they would not be allowed to do that, at least not in the U.S. Yet they operate openly without interference. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect SlimVirgin. There are organizations that exist in the united states that are on official lists of terrorist organizations (DOD, FBI, state dept. etc.), and are still allowed to operate/raise money. ALF is one that comes to mind. GreenPeace was another, they were on the FBI list. Westboro Baptist Church is on the DoD list. When I was working full time counter-terrorism/force protection for the army, we would get the CT briefings with a full list of terrorist organizations operating in our area, and some of the names on the lists were very public organizations that were actively engaged in fundraising activities. Religious organizations like IIIT, SCC, IRO, Al Wafa, etc still operate in the US. For a Terrorist organization to have their bank accounts seized, they must be on the Terrorist Exclusion List. I will CC this to your talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That's very interesting, SJ, thank you. Do you know how we can find out whether the ALF is on one of those official lists? All I've seen is the comment from the DHS, which an FBI agent quoted during a hearing. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the redirect above, the Terrorist Exclusion List is the same as the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. If this is the case, it would preclude the ALF (being as domestic threat). If it isn't, the redirect should probably be removed. Rockpocket 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not the same. ALF is considered a domestic threat. I don't know why that redirect is there. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You could call the respective agency. DOD's list is not for civilian release, so you wouldn't be able to see that one, but State Department's list is public. I would assume DHS and state have it up on their websites somewhere. I looked on the TEL, but the wikilink we have only shows foreign groups. There is a seperate list for operating domestic terrorist organizations, but for the life of me I can't remember what the name of it is. For now though, shouldn't testimony that the ALF is on homeland security's list suffice? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed something in the redirect: "Upon the expiration of the seven-day waiting period, notice of the designation is published in the Federal Register, at which point the designation takes effect". If you have a Lexis account, you could see if it was announced in the register? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess, if we can get it, we should us the Exclusion List as a criterion for the category (that is, if we are saying significant consequence for that organization's activities is the benchmark). Otherwise the 'consequence' wording should be rethought. It would suggest that ALF are not on that list if they can still fundraise in the US. Rockpocket 19:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a terrorism database here that has an entry on the ALF, and if you look at the sidebar, it says of the ALF:

state department:

  • Designated: No
  • Watched: No
  • US Terrorist Exclusion List Designee: No
  • UK Proscribed Group: No
  • Australia Specified Group: No
  • Canada Specified Group: No
  • EU Specified Group: No

In other words, the ALF doesn't seem to be listed anywhere as a terrorist organization. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this to the article talk page. We should probably discuss this there. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Here is the FBI testimony before congress [13], quoted is the relevant section:

Testimony of Dale L. Watson, Executive Assistant Director, Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Division, FBI Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence February 6, 2002 "The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States"

"During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. 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. The FBI estimates that ALF/ELF have committed approximately 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 42 million dollars."

"In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)--an extremist animal rights movement--has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal rights groups in the United States, including ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. A distinct but related group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail (Colorado) ski resort in October 1998, which caused 12 million dollars in damages. This incident remains under investigation. Seven terrorist incidents occurring in the United States during 2000 have been attributed to either ALF or ELF. Several additional acts committed during 2001 are currently being reviewed for possible designation as terrorist incidents."

Yes, I'm aware of that. That's the comment I was referring to earlier. But an FBI agent saying the ALF has "emerged as a serious terrorist threat" is not the same as them being formally designated. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Oakland Tribune says otherwise: [14] " Because ALF has been designated a terrorist organization, Dudek said, the FBI was called in to determine whether the vandalism was committed by someone associated with group.

"They're a domestic terrorist group, and that's why (the FBI) is involved in it," Dudek said. "


Further repeated in the article "Vandals sprayed graffiti on a horse trailer and ranch signs in the Crow Canyon area, scrawling the initials of the international animals rights organization, which is considered a domestic terrorist threat, said Lt. Bill Gaudinier, spokesman for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department."

⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But we have what appears to be an authoritative source that says the ALF is, in fact, not so designated. Are you saying you think that source is mistaken, and that the Oakland Tribune is correct? If so, on what basis? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The website I cited is run by these people, and they seem very authoritative (former senior CIA, FBI people etc), so they count as a more authoritative source than the Oakland Tribune. That's not to say they're correct, of course, but it means we should go with them until we find something better. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The past record of former "former senior CIA, FBI people etc" when it comes to being solid sources of information is somewhere between poor and appalling.Geni 20:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[15] Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Activists claiming affiliation with an FBI-designated domestic terrorism group burglarized a mink farm in Washington state Monday, releasing approximately 10,000 of the more than 20,000 animals housed there. About 9,000 of the mink had been returned to the farm late Monday, but at least 200 died as a result of their release.

Multiple sources seem to state that it HAS in fact been designated. One of those sources is a governmental organization , the Alameda County Sheriff's dept. Both sources I've placed here are significant and accurate news reporting agencies. So yes. I believe that the source you had originally cited is either outdated, or incorrect. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


"Anyone with information on the following crime should contact Drew Ptasiemski, FBI, on (814) 452-4516" [16] again, "designated" ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't said why you feel news organizations and local sheriffs understand the terrorist designation system better than a dedicated terrorism database run by former senior FBI and CIA officials. I have never seen anything official that indicates the ALF has been formally designated. I've looked for it and haven't been able to find it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but if they're to be added to that category, we need to find an extremely reliable (i.e. official) source who confirms it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Point of information: the confusion here could be based on the fact the (despite being largely funded by Dept of Homeland Security) the MIPT knowledge base appears to take its listings from the State Dept. I have no idea of Homeland Security has lists of designated terror threats, i certainly can't find any, but if they do it could be this designation the FBI are referring to. Rockpocket 20:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bam: I found it at good old FAS.org "Probably the best-known extremist group in Europe and North America is the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), founded by Ronnie Lee in England in 1976 and still very active . The ALF appeared in Canada in 1981, with a series of break-ins at several university and medical laboratories involving vandalism, arson and the release of animals; this was followed by attacks on fur stores and meat-packers. First recognized in the United States in 1982, the ALF made the FBI's domestic terrorism list in 1987 with a multi-million dollar arson at a veterinary lab in California. Similar incidents in Arizona and Texas in 1989 were also classified as domestic terrorism.4" [17]

But is there, in fact, an official FBI terrorism list? There appears to be absolutely no consequence for any organization named as "terrorists" by only the FBI, so what is the sense in which the ALF would be regarded differently having been placed on this list, if it exists? Also, the source may be speaking loosely. It first talks of the ALF being "designated" and then says it was the acts that were so designated. I think we need to find an official source for this alleged designation. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Slimvirgin, there is indeed. The Terrorism in the United States report is the FBI's annual report. It lists terrorist organizations and activities from the beginning of reporting to the present. See the PDF link below for the 1989 version which is the first to name ALF for their attacks in 1987, 1988 and 1989. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Here's the official designation on the list: Google Terrorism in the United States 1989, or read the .pdf here: its on page 6, very first entry. [18]. Also page 19 has the full analysis. Page 29, 30 and 36 have more info.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything on page six. The entry on page 19 says that three ALF acts have been designated as terrorist by the FBI and the rest criminal. That's not the same as designating the organization, and the source you're quoting is the same as the one I quoted above, which says the ALF is not designated as a terrorist group by any of the govt depts that are in a position to designate them. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh a terrorist organization is defined on page 31 as "groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction". As ALF is classified as a group committing terrorist activities under the classification of "domestic terrorism" they are therefore defined as a terrorist organization by the FBI. You seem to be stuck on the fact that it doesn't spell out word for word "ALF IS OFFICIALLY AND HEREBY DESIGNATED AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION". FAS.org, the Canadian intelligence service, etc, all interpret the above to designate ALF as a terrorist group from the FBI. FAS in particular is a world respected expert in global terrorism studies and governmental studies as well. I highly trust them as a source. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Where does the Canadian intelligence service say anything about it? And what are the consequences of it, as discussed on the category page? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that link was lost in a edit conflict, it is [19]. As to "what are the consequences of it", I do not follow. What are you asking? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The category says: "Designated terrorist organizations are non-governmental organizations that currently are designated by a law monopolist as a terrorist organization. Law monopolist organizations for the purpose of this category are bodies where designation by that body would be expected to have a significant impact on the group." And the examples they give are governments or the UN.
Designation by the FBI, assuming for the moment that they have been so designated, has had no impact on the group whatsoever.
I'm not trying to be obstructive here, though I'm sure it looks that way. It's just that I edit terrorist-related articles quite a lot, and so I know the hoops that governments jump through before designating organizations as "terrorist," and the impact is invariably significant and immediate. Yet here we are accepting an apparent listing from a law enforcement agency, not a government, based on their view that three ALF acts fitted their description of "terrorist" in 1989, a view that has had no effect whatsoever on the legal or financial status of the ALF in the United States or anywhere else in the world. It just isn't enough to fulfill the requirements of that category in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think you're being obstructive. You're following the strict definition of the rules. I'm finding myself getting too "into it", and I've got other things to do today, so I'm leaving this out until tomorrow. In reference to your last comment, SlimVirgin, the FBI, as a united states governmental bureau, speaks FOR the government. They ARE the government. when the FBI has designated a group as a terrorist, then the US government has designated them as a terrorist. Remember, the FBI is federal, and the seniormost bureau member (Director of the FBI) reports directly to the Atty. General. So this is in actuality a governmental statement. It's just like when the DHS changes the alert level of the nation. It's not just "DHS's " alert level. IT's the NATION's alert level. DHS just happens to hold responsibility for that. It's still a governmental action. Same thing with the FBI, which is the nation's federal law enforcement agency, and the lead branch of government when it comes to terrorism (as cited in the very end of that .pdf file). Ok that's it for me today. I'll pick up on this tomorrow. Thanks for the discourse SV (and others.) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope I'm not splitting hairs. As I said, I'm used to editing Middle East terrorist-related articles, and there we have situations such as the paramilitary wing of Hamas being designated terrorist, but not the social affairs half, it's all very precise and debated endlessly at an international level; followed by press conferences, funding cut, etc etc. It's all public, transparent, unambiguous, and it has immediate legal and financial implications. This, on the other hand, feels too casual, too ambiguous, and most importantly, pointless. However, I truly don't want to split hairs. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see where your are coming from, SV, and appreciate you are not being obstructive. It appears to me also that the FBI announcing that the ALF is a domestic terror group/threat does not have immediately obvious consequences for the ALF's extistance (in terms of legality of membership, funding, dissemination of information etc). However, although not an expert i expect it probably does have implications or consequences for the aftermath of (illegal) acts carried out "by" the ALF. For example, i'd imagine that any crime carried out by a "domestic terror group" (according to the FBI) would immediately become a federal investigation rather that one for local law inforcement. I would imagine it also has consequences come sentencing, and there may even have consequences regarding investigative techniques that can be used under the Patriot Act. These, admittedly, are not directly consequent to the "group", but - as we know - the ALF is not a group, but a Front for acts within certain parameters. Is it therefore inappropriate to consider the consequence this listing would have on such acts? I'm not sure of the answer to this, am also currently unsure whether i think the ALF should be in the cat or not, but i just thought i would put this out there. Rockpocket 00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, those are good points, Rockpocket, and I hadn't thought of it that way. Calling ALF acts "terrorist" might allow investigators to take steps they couldn't otherwise be able to, and so on. Okay, I'm willing to concede the point. Thanks for bearing with me. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To the EDITOR who reverted my addition without reading it...

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Verifiability

Information sourced from advocacy sites ought to be deleted. Steven Best is an academic. Any writing by him in peer reviewed journal or in newsmedia is in. His other writing is rather problematic. At this point, I would make POV attribution. Vapour

I deleted reference from advocacy sites in intro. Please revive these sites in "External Links". Vapour

Unclear Differentiation between A.L.F and other "liberation" groups

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)

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. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have cleaned up the largest problems; there's still an unscourced portion about an ARM "mars bar" action that seems particularly unclear, and some out of context quotes. I'll try to fix them up with good faith in mind, just let me know if you think they're innapropriate. I'm new here, so apologies if I step on anyones' toes.--C.lettinga 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Currie

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)

New ALF/oxford quote

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)

No luck here...I'd also like to take a look at that article, to get a sence of it.--C.lettinga 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_Liberation_Front/Archive_1&oldid=1136291784"