Talk:Timeline of Animal Liberation Front actions, 2000-2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Timeline of Animal Liberation Front actions, 2000-2004 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.

[edit] Quotes

I think there are way too many quotes in this (and accompanying) pages. The quotes are all lifted from unreliable sources and, while a few are good to establish the sort of messages the ALF leave behind, by reproducing them all we are beginning to look like a conduit for their propaganda, especially when we are not quoting the justification for the businesses the ALF attack. There are few other articles with even have the number of quotes as this one. I propose a (humane) cull. Rockpocket 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood, I'll trim it down as well as 2005-Present by taking out the repitive quotes etc and others, leave the few that make sense to have. User:TomLovesCake/Talk 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed there are too many, I was getting a bit lazy explaining what the ALF had done, so was overly quoted. I've trimmed it down 3KB from quotes, mainly those that are propaganda orientated and repetihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Animal_Liberation_Front_actions%2C_2000-2004&action=edit&section=1

Editing Talk:Timeline of Animal Liberation Front actions, 2000-2004 (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediative. I understand that there are a lack of quotes to justification for the businesses the ALF attack, although I have tried to include has many as I could find and included them.

However, I think this can be balanced by leaving the intimidating and threatening quotes, although not the repetitive ones, as people will surely be concerned by these quotes and will want to read them, like the media quote. Therefore the balance comes from taking away the ALF's apparant "compassionate" edge, and putting into perspective what sort of things they threaten etc; which most people dissagree with.

Finally, as I was going through the FBI list, I noticed that they consistently said what relationship the businesses had with HLS, therefore the resource for the "connection" with HLS is not through Bite Back, but confirmed by the FBI. This was exactly the same for the number of animals taken, as well as the most of the vanadalism done. However, if the FBI confirm an act of "vandalism" has taken place, the claim on Bite Back is surely as reliable as can be, as it is only a matter of choice as to whether the mainstream quote them, which most of the time they do when they report on actions. So I don't see the problem with the descriptions etc (as long as not NPOV contradicting), because the FBI have confirmed the action has taken place, and only done so because activists have reported it and they have checked it has happened.

Let me know what you think. Talk / TomLovesCake 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bite Back is as about reliable as it gets with regards to what the ALF claim, but they can only be used to validate their own actions, not anyone elses, and they are not sufficient to establish notability. This "FBI list" your refer to is not produced by the FBI, but the FBR: Foundation for Biomedical Research. All they do is scan the Animal liberation communiques and collate them into a spreadsheet. [1] So they are not confirming anything other than the original claims, they are no more of a WP:RS than Bite Back and being on that list does not confer notability. Therefore anything that is only sourced by the FBR can be treated as being only sourced by the citation they provide (typically Bite Back). In other words, a reliable third party source is required for notability.

I don't have an issue with using Bite Back as a source for a quote in a genuinely notable incident (like the bomb attack on the UCLA researcher), but when there is weak notability then adding a quote seems excessive. Rockpocket 02:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)