Talk:Animal Liberation Front

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:33, 7 January 2021 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Animal Liberation Front/Archive 3) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:33, 7 January 2021 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Animal Liberation Front/Archive 3) (bot)(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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 27, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

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.

Animal rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Analysis Citation bot External links

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)

Should a paragraph on apples be used in an article about oranges? Also, if you're going to edit an article's content, you have a responsibility to at least read it. Mariolovr (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Normal Op (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That has to do with taking breaks. It is not justification to not understand what you're editing. Mariolovr (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Categories: