This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Normal Op (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 16 September 2020 (→ARM content: +cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:29, 16 September 2020 by Normal Op (talk | contribs) (→ARM content: +cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Animal Liberation Front article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Animal Liberation Front was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
Violence and terrorism debate
CharlesMartel, re. removal of 12 year old quote: I agree that having an old quote like this doesn't make sense; however, it is notable how incorrect this expert's opinion turns out to have been. Since it is a recurring theme that ALF will eventually hurt people, perhaps it is notable to include that expert opinions about danger to human life from ALF have not materialized? Bob98133 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the passage in question, it strikes me that there are two parts to it: (1) a statement about ALF being the most serious threat, and (2) the prediction that there would soon be a death. Charles makes, I think, a valid point that the second part is now of dubious relevance, and it would be difficult to make Bob's interpretation clear without resorting to SYNTH. On the other hand, the first half of the statement seems to me to remain valid, and so I would suggest restoring that part, minus the prediction. I'm going to do that as a BOLD edit; please feel free to revert me if you disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- P.S.: I do think the shortened version is appropriate, because it shows an observer describing it as "the most serious", which is documentation of the subject's notability. (And, by the way, the passage really should not have been deleted as a "minor edit.") --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Trypto - no problem with your edit. However, if this guy is such an expert, why was he so wrong in the now-removed quote? My suggestion is that this guy is not an expert, simply an alarmist whose unfounded prediction failed to come true. Whether or not he is considered an expert by others, I would identify him as a prophet or psychic, and since he was 100% wrong during a 12 year period, I wonder about the value of the remaining quote. I think that it is simply an opinion by someone who has demonstrated his inability to form accurate opinions. Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- The issue, of course, is not what you or I might think, but, indeed, what others think about his expertise. I clicked through to his bio page, and he is identified there as an expert on terrorism, about as clearly as anyone can be identified. As such, his assessment is encyclopedic, and the standard at Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not whether he is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I reluctantly agree. You would think at some point this guy would become a discredited expert, but I guess he wouldn't put that on his web site. Bob98133 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- The issue, of course, is not what you or I might think, but, indeed, what others think about his expertise. I clicked through to his bio page, and he is identified there as an expert on terrorism, about as clearly as anyone can be identified. As such, his assessment is encyclopedic, and the standard at Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not whether he is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Trypto - no problem with your edit. However, if this guy is such an expert, why was he so wrong in the now-removed quote? My suggestion is that this guy is not an expert, simply an alarmist whose unfounded prediction failed to come true. Whether or not he is considered an expert by others, I would identify him as a prophet or psychic, and since he was 100% wrong during a 12 year period, I wonder about the value of the remaining quote. I think that it is simply an opinion by someone who has demonstrated his inability to form accurate opinions. Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits
I'm going to make an effort to get this article up to FA status. I've been meaning to do it for years, so I'd like to finally get round to it. I've started removing repetition, tightening the writing, fixing the sources, making it less long-winded, less of a quote farm, and more MoS compliant. I'll also be expanding to try to bring it up to date (which means the 1996 onwards section will be rewritten) and rearranging material for flow. SlimVirgin 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I've wanted for some time to try to get this to FA status, and I've repeatedly stopped the effort because of your editing. I've even taken it off my watchlist at times. It won't gain FA status by being a repetitive quote farm with material like this. What does this even mean? "In 1993, ALF was listed as an organization that has "claimed to have perpetrated acts of extremism in the United States". Only claimed? And why the quote marks? No one is disputing that it carries out acts of extremism. That is, indeed, its purpose, which the entire article makes clear. Ditto with the rest of the material you keep inserting. Why the focus on repetitive quotes, why always the quotation marks, why always the same issue, why always the same quotes, why always the U.S.?
- Please allow me to get the page in shape. It's very poorly written in places, very repetitive, a huge amount of history is missing, and it needs to be brought up to date, which will involve a lot of work. Once I have a first draft done, then we can discuss issues you feel are important and missing, and I'll be very receptive to anything that's reasonable and well-sourced. In fact, I am fairly sure you will not object to the final version. SlimVirgin 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've just read through the above. I must apologize for the harsh tone, and I've struck through the first part of it. I'm speaking out of frustration, and of course it's entirely my own responsibility if I stop editing something, not anyone else's. The bottom line is that I'd like to see a well-written article with a three-dimensional history, but also one that isn't too long or repetitive. It's already inching toward having length issues, yet a lot of material is still missing, so the writing has to be tight and focused. Every word has to be made to count. I hope you'll consider letting me try to grapple with that as it gets expanded. SlimVirgin 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for that last part. That makes all the difference, and I really appreciate it. Of course, I'll be happy to do that. Perhaps you would consider doing similarly in our recent talk at PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
A problem in Philosophy of direct action
The Philosophy of direct action section features the following words: “The provision against violence in the ALF code has triggered divisions within the movement and allegations of hypocrisy from the ALF's critics.”.
The problem is that whatever follows the text doesn't have any allegations of hypocrisy or explanations as to how the provision has triggered the divisions within the movement. In other words, the first part says that because of the ALF being against hurting humans or animals there are disagreements on that within the movement and that some critics call the ALF hypocritical. The second part either speaks of the accusations of terrorism in general or vandalism, both of these things being unrelated to the first part. --Bloody Rose (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Not copyvio link, but might still be unreliable
Someone added an external link in this edit but immediately tagged it as {{copyvio link}} for some reason. I removed the tags, but I think it still might not be a reliable source. Qzekrom 💬 them 22:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Voice of ALF
ALF is a leaderless group with no membership or staff roster, and "ALF" has traditionally been used as a "banner" or "tag" for labelling an action as being "part of ALF" or "for ALF". As such, "it" (meaning ALF) doesn't have a voice, an opinion, or a viewpoint. Only people do. I reverted several edits which had been made that changed the ALF "voice" in the article. This is incorrect. ALF doesn't promote anything; only individuals (who might associate themselves with ALF) can promote, act, speak or have an opinion. Normal Op (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you really want to be technical, no organization has a voice, only the people do. People who share the same opinions just use organizations to help promote their opinion, but that would be too tedious to constantly explain. While some organizations are leaderless and decentralized, that doesn't mean they're voiceless. Is BLM voiceless? Was the Occupy Movement voiceless? Of course not. In the ALF's case, it has spokespeople. It has a code, a philosophy, and it even has press offices! That is not a voiceless organization. We probably wouldn't even have this article if it was truly voiceless. Mariolovr (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to voice as in voicebox on a human, but closer to Writer's voice. An organization with no people, one that is just a loose collection of ideas/ideals, has no "voice". The actors associated with the organization can speak in a voice. The Misplaced Pages article needs to be written to keep that clear. I presume that's why ALF and similar organizations created a "press office" so they could actually "speak" in the voice of the organization. But that's not what's happening here in those edits you had changed. Those ideas/utterances were not from a "press office". Normal Op (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
ARM content
I removed some content about the actions on the ARM since it wasn't about the ALF, but this was reverted because discussion was wanted due to the size of the content removed. So, any reason why this content should be on this article instead of the ARM article? Mariolovr (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like a section explaining the interrelationship between ALF, ARM and JD. There is this document that might explain further why the MARS poisoning event is in the ALF article. Normal Op (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I understand that, but I'm talking about the paragraph of other events that happened later and were attributed to the ARM. Mariolovr (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know what you're referring to. I only looked at the edit history, saw what you had deleted (and another editor reverted). It's the paragraph starting "From 1983 onwards". Normal Op (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh! I hate these ALF articles. I see I got the wrong paragraph. It's all gibberish to me. These organizations "claim" this and that, and these are all history, so ignore my MARS explanation. I don't have enough brain cells left today to devote to this. Normal Op (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's all good. This article needs some work. So do you think the actual paragraph belongs in the ARM article instead?
- There's no reason a paragraph couldn't be in more than one article. I'm not inclined to read all that history just to answer whether it's ARM or ALF. It might well be both since these orgs often had a lot of crossover/overlap. Normal Op (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's all good. This article needs some work. So do you think the actual paragraph belongs in the ARM article instead?
- Ugh! I hate these ALF articles. I see I got the wrong paragraph. It's all gibberish to me. These organizations "claim" this and that, and these are all history, so ignore my MARS explanation. I don't have enough brain cells left today to devote to this. Normal Op (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know what you're referring to. I only looked at the edit history, saw what you had deleted (and another editor reverted). It's the paragraph starting "From 1983 onwards". Normal Op (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)