Talk:Animal Rights Militia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Animal Rights Militia is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Slim's POV Pushing

1. "The same activists may also carry out non-violent acts in the name of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)."

This is a completely empty statement. There is no evidence offered to support the claim which is speculative even if it were true. The key is the weasel-word "may". They may, they may not. You don't provide even a hint of evidence either way. Therefore, this statement has no place in an encyclopedia article.

2. "some animal-rights activists shifted their focus" vs your statement "animal-rights activism became less centered on"

Your statement is implicitly absolute. You're claiming to speak for all animal-rights activists. I'm saying that only some of them have changed. Some animal-rights activists have remained entirely peaceful and respectful in their protests. Only a few of them have turned into militant assholes.

3. "who came to public attention for sewing kittens' eyes shut at birth for studies into the effects of".

You don't offer any evidence that this statement is true or how you can claim to speak for "the public" and what first grabbed their attention about this man. Yes, his experiments were controversial and remain so to this day. Yet he's certainly not the only scientist who experimented on the eyes of cats. Yet he does seem to be the one singled out for attention in this area. For example, are the animal-rights loonies threatening to kill Torsten Wiesel? This guy's experiments were not only more invasive (he inserted electrodes in the brains of cats (I don't know about you but if I had to choose between having my eyes sewn shut and having electrodes implanted in by brain, I know which one I'd choose) but also won him the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Blakemore was only published in Nature. This at least suggests that there is something more to the issue than just experimenting on cats. In any case, until and unless there is some actual evidence, I suggest you cease your wool-gathering.--SpinyNorman 07:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Do you mind if I ask a blunt question? Do you support groups like these? Are you a member of groups like these?--SpinyNorman 08:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, please, your questions show you don't even know the basics of this subject, and on every animal-rights-related page you are doing the same, as though you're on a crusade. I welcome input on these pages, I really do, but you need to do some research first.
And your responses show that you still need to learn some manners. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't know anything. It is possible to be informed on this issue and still disagree with you. --SpinyNorman 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1. If you read Robin Webb, he more or less confirms ALF = ARM. Barry Horne (well known ALF activist) was jailed for arson for which ARM (i.e. Horne) claimed responsibility. As I've explained to you before, these groups have no real existence. If you went out tonight and superglued the locks on a butcher's door, you could claim the action on behalf of the ALF. That would make you a "member" of the ALF. If, however, you superglued his locks and beat him up, you could claim it on behalf of ARM. It's that simple. What you could not do is claim the second action on behalf of the ALF, because they would reject it. They would not publish it, and would not accept the claim of responsibility i.e. they would reject you as a "member". That is because the name ALF is retained for non-violent direct action (non-violent here meaning involving no violence against human or non-human animals). So the ALF is by definition non-violent. That does not mean that the activists who sometimes use the name ALF are non-violent.
(ROTFL) "more or less confirms"? Is that like being "more or less dead"? or "more or less pregnant"? Now listen carefully: a conformation is an absolute statement. Something is either confirmed or it isn't. If something is "more or less confirmed" it is, by definition, NOT confirmed.--SpinyNorman 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
And as for this semantic tapdance about membership in the ALF/ARM, you're contradicting yourself. First you say that these groups have no existence - there is no "group"... and then you talk about what the groups would or wouldn't do in the event of thus-and-so. This ponderous rationalizations are ridiculous and irrelevant. If the ALF doesn't exist as an organization, it can't reject/accept anything or publish anything. A group certainly can't have a spokesman if it doesn't exist. This is a simplistic legal dodge on the part of the leadership of these groups to avoid criminal charges of conspiracy. --SpinyNorman 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Sorry, I don't understand. Saying what it became focused on is not to speak for all activists. But newspapers don't write about people asking for signatures for petitions. They write about violence. And that's what politicians speak about. That is what the focus is now on, rightly or wrongly.
Perhaps you should go back and read my original statement again. Your absolute statement was implicit. If someone said "animal rights activists are terrorists", you'd object (and so would I). The statement implicitly includes all animal rights activists. When making sweeping statements like this, a writer has to be very careful. Writing with precision is an important skill. If you want to do better here, I would suggest you learn this ability. I can give you some suggestions if you're interested. --SpinyNorman 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Answered at Talk:Colin Blakemore.
4. I'd prefer not to discuss my own POV, because it's irrelevant. My aim is to keep these articles factual and free of the strong POV you, among others, bring to them, thinking you're being NPOV. Animal-rights activism invokes strong feelings, but those feelings can't be allowed to affect the editing of these pages. And please don't use attack headers. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
But this is precisely my point. You have your own POV. Everyone does - I have mine, though you're mistaken about the nature of it. The fact that you seem to think you don't (or that you have it under control) is an indication of how strong it is. The fact that you won't discuss it is not encouraging - it is suggestive of denial and naivete at best. --SpinyNorman 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and as for the header. You're not allowed to change my text in a public talk page. If you want me to change something, you can ask me and I will consider it - but I will not allow you to censor me. It is not only rude but, in this case, a clear double-standard. You have accused me of POV-pushing. I disagreed with your assessment, but I don't edit your remarks. I find some of your statements extremely rude and offensive but I do not censor them. You are entitled to your opinions and I can disagree with them and comment on them as I find appropriate, but I would not even consider interfering with them and I expect the same from you.--SpinyNorman 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rework by Xanax

Today there has been an extensive rework by Xanax. There is some good material in there, though it requires extensive copy editing. However, i notice much of it appears to be lifted verbatim from other news sources - for example see link here and compare with:

Animal Rights Militia claimed responsibility in a letter with the package. The remaining explosives were addressed to the leaders of the other UK political parties and one government official: Michael Foot (Labour), Roy Jenkins (SDP), David Steel (Liberals), Timothy Raison (Home Office). Mrs Thatcher, who was in her study when the bomb went off, told the House of Commons at Prime Minister's Questions that all MPs should be on their guard.

I'm not sure if this violates policy, perhaps an administrator could advise? Rockpocket 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi RP, I've reverted until someone has the chance to tidy the bits that aren't copyvios, and rewrite anything that is. I'll try to find time myself to do it, but feel free to go ahead if you'd like to. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll get started on it when i get a few moment, Slim. Rockpocket 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
sorry it was my first post and I should have written more carefullyXanax
No Problem, Xanax. As i said, there is good stuff in there, see your talk page! Rockpocket 00:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Xanax. I left a list of links to our content policies for you at Talk:Animal_Liberation_Front#General. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)