Talk:Animal Rights Militia

Talk:Animal Rights Militia/Archive 1

Source
Guardian, Independent, BBC as well as local newspaper are fine. Also, books published by a legit publishing house like Lantern is fine. Animal right advocacy sites or books published by a publishing house which does not even have its own website are not reliable sources.Vapour (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * These groups are reliable sources in articles about themselves; see WP:QS. I agree that the article could use some tidying, but it should be done carefully within the policies, and checking what the sources actually say. It's an AR article I've neglected for a long time, so I'll try to pay it more attention and slowly fix it up. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist organization
Technically it is terrorist organization by all aspects (violence, arson, intimitation as means). I make constructive and factual changes, yet some biased person keeps vandalizing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.85.36 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing neutral about the term "terrorist" nor is it factual. That is why it has been reverted. Anarcham (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are disagreed about factual incidents given in this article then why you don't argument against them? At moment they act as proof that ARM is terrorist organization. About neutrality of the term "terrorist", then this is not right place to argue over it. Please go under article named "terrorism" and prove your point there. ( (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) Give us sound arguments that violent incidents organized by ARM's members are lies, and i will delete word "terrorst" with my own hand. What you are doing at moment is ideologically motivated vandalizing of wikipedia article!


 * It is not incumbent on me to disprove your assertion since you are the one who wants to introduce a non-neutral term to the article. You want to add "terrorist" to the article and you are calling me ideologically motivation? Anarcham (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you have to say "Technically it is terrorist organization by all aspects" shows your edits don't belong. Using the qualifier "technically" shows you are using original research which isn't appropriate. That policy says "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." You have no source for your assertion so it doesn't belong in the article. Is that a sound enough argument? Anarcham (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I already proved that using word "terrorist" in this context is relevant and non biased, because it bases on factual incidents given in this article. Please, if you have something against facts of incidents of arson and violence committed by ARM, then argue against them and disproof it. If you have something against word "terrorism" then argue against it under relevant article. I think it is logical enough, and further on i cannot do more than repeat myself on and on.

Please give to me ARGUMENTS that i can overturn. I gave mine with links, documents and with all metadata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.85.36 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have already explained that you are adding unreferenced content which attacks this organization. You cannot do that. You have been warned repeatedly so please stop. Anarcham (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I had link to wikipedia article. Be more observant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.85.36 (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What you did was look at information and draw a personal conclusion. That is the literal definition of original research which is why it keeps being removed. Please stop. Anarcham (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

My changes are based on logic; motivated by given facts, data and relevant links. Yours?


 * Policy. Please abide by it. You cannot just go calling people or organizations "terrorists" simply because you disagree with them. Anarcham (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think i do act against policy making changes that are based on relevant data; and you are not acting against policy making changes that are subjective and baseless then please, you already warned me, now fulfill your threats! IF i am wrong, and you are right.


 * You were blocked. Why are you doing this again? Anarcham (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was blocked because of EDIT WARRING, the very similar reason YOU were guilty too, and you will be blocked next time if you continue that way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.85.36 (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

STOP EDIT WAR please! I haven't broken any rule and PROVED legitimity of my edit; you, inn fact, DO broke rules if you delete my entry every time without proving YOUR point! You'll be warned, then reported because starting of edit war.


 * Enough with this. I have given you the guidelines you are repeatedly breaking. It violates the Neutral point of view to call them "terrorists" as well as the no original research guideline since you have no reference just your own opinion. You have been blocked for this already and upon your return you immediately start again. Enough. Anarcham (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

First: I have NOT broken the guidelines you gave to me! Second: You violate guidelines starting an edit war! Third: I REPEAT i was blocked because of EDIT WARRING, which i did as well as did you; and NOT  because of violating neutrality which i DID NOT. Stop edit warring, this time i wont start it but i WILL REPORT YOU! SEVERAL organization in Wikipedia are marked as terrorist organizations because of similar violent actions and threats, do you dispute those articles too?!? And i gave reference to article that give you description about terrorism, and ARM fells under it in every aspect. It is not only my opinion, those are facts, simple LOGIC. Do your OWN research and and at least visit the article named "terrorism" and compare it with ARM actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.85.36 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You told me to "Do your OWN research and and at least visit the article named "terrorism" and compare it with ARM actions." What part of no original research are you having trouble understanding? Doing your OWN research is ORIGINAL research. If you are going to add non-neutral terms like "terrorist" to an article, you better have a reference or two to back it up. It really is that black and white. I can't make it any clearer than that and I don't understand why this is such a problem for you. If it is so obvious that ARM is a terrorist group then it should be really easy for you to find a bunch of references that say this. Anarcham (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Please review WP:DR and consider pursuing another method of dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protected for 10 days
Due to the edit warring that has been taking place on this page, I've felt it justifiable under the protection policy to fully protect this article for a period of 10 days. This may be adjusted. It could be reduced should the parties discuss the questionable information here, on the talk page, and reach a consensus. If the protection lapses and the edit warring continues, protection may be extended and / or blocks may be issued. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Animal Rights Militia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213024723/http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org:80/communiques/2006-12-14_pom.htm to http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2006-12-14_pom.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609225605/http://www.directaction.info:80/images2/Novartis_UK_Oct07/FrameSet.htm to http://www.directaction.info/images2/Novartis_UK_Oct07/FrameSet.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213024723/http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org:80/communiques/2006-12-14_pom.htm to http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2006-12-14_pom.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Animal Rights Militia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623122808/http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/22robin.html to http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/22robin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212062932/http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/23controversial.html to http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/23controversial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421181812/http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/Writings_Speeches/whos_afraid_of_jerry_vlasak.html to http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/Writings_Speeches/whos_afraid_of_jerry_vlasak.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2006-12-14_pom.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)