Those ideas/utterances were not from a "press office". But that's not what's happening here in those edits you had changed. I presume that's why ALF and similar organizations created a "press office" so they could actually "speak" in the voice of the organization. The Wikipedia article needs to be written to keep that clear. The actors associated with the organization can speak in a voice. An organization with no people, one that is just a loose collection of ideas/ideals, has no "voice". 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. We probably wouldn't even have this article if it was truly voiceless. It has a code, a philosophy, and it even has press offices! That is not a voiceless organization. Is BLM voiceless? Was the Occupy Movement voiceless? Of course not. While some organizations are leaderless and decentralized, that doesn't mean they're voiceless. People who share the same opinions just use organizations to help promote their opinion, but that would be too tedious to constantly explain.
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. ALF doesn't promote anything only individuals (who might associate themselves with ALF) can promote, act, speak or have an opinion. I reverted several edits which had been made that changed the ALF "voice" in the article. As such, "it" (meaning ALF) doesn't have a voice, an opinion, or a viewpoint. Qzekrom ? they them 22:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Voice of ALF ĪLF 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". I removed the tags, but I think it still might not be a reliable source. Someone added an external link in this edit but immediately tagged it as for some reason.
Bloody Rose ( talk) 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Not copyvio link, but might still be unreliable The second part either speaks of the accusations of terrorism in general or vandalism, both of these things being unrelated to the first part. 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 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.
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.”. Griffin ( talk) 20:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC) A problem in Philosophy of direct action Its damned shameful and no better than those who defend neo nazi groups - Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.56.14 ( talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Engaging in ad hominem attacks and bad faith editing (see: WP:GF) is not a good way to build a case for your preferred version of the article, and ridiculous comparisons to neo-Nazis probably won't help, either.- C.J. I note a large cadre of ALF apologists, constantly rewriting this page to paint this terror group in a glowing innocent light and adding in various retorts and claims of "false flag" operations, which would be laughable if this group's activities were not so serious and life endangering. They have been cited as a Terrorist group along with the ELF for the over $110 million of damages, threats, intimidation, instructions on bomb making being made publicly available. 3 Not copyvio link, but might still be unreliable.2 A problem in Philosophy of direct action.For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. 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. hist) has been submitted for AfC by CT55555 ( t.hist) has been submitted for AfC by Keith Richards 1969 ( t.Last updated 28 December 2021 by HotArticlesBot. These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days.