Talk:Animal Liberation Front

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:

• News on ALF and ecoterrorism
• Congressional Testimony

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)

• http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

Is this any good?

activist cash is one of the most screwed up astroturf sites ever. You can say "according to..."" but I wouldn't call that proof of anything. I want to know where activist cash gets their cash.

Answer: donations from the general population, via such programs like the www.earthshare.org site. Martial Law 23:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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" — Preceding unsigned comment 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.— Preceding unsigned comment 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. --John^DO|^{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".--John^DO|^{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. --John^DO|^{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.— Preceding unsigned comment 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. — Preceding unsigned comment 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)].

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.