Talk:Earth Liberation Front

1200 incidents of vandalism

I took out a sentence attributing 1200 incidents of vandalism/arson/whatnot to the ELF. The source clearly states that the FBI says there have been 1200 environmentally motivated attacks, not 1200 carried out by ELF. Also added a line about the questionable status of alleged "unofficial spokespeople" for ELF. Killtacular 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but if ELF has no central leadership or spokesperson, where do the quotes in the first paragraphs come from? -- AK

Wasn't a lumberjack injured when the saw he was using hit a spike that the ELF drove into a tree? RickK 04:09, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tree-spiking is an old, and i don't think very common practice right now. This might have been Earth First!, which later renounced violence/direct action as a tactic, possibly as a result of such out-of-hand stuff. The ELF formed as a result of a split over this decision, and only relatively recently. Seems much more likely the tree-spiking thing was EF!. But, I do not know. Graft 04:26, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You're right. It might have been EF!. RickK

The only documented injury I have found from quick Googling was "Two firefighters were treated for smoke inhalation and ex-haustion" after the 1998 Vail fire [1]. Couldn't find anything about ELF and tree spiking. Seems like arson is more the ELF's game. M123 04:33, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In Cloverdale, California, in 1987, a saw operator named George Alexander was injured when his band saw blade shattered when it hit an 11-inch spike in a redwood log he was cutting. The tree spike was never conclusively linked to any person or group. gbroiles 05:48 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Terrorists?

The word terrorist simply does not belong in the first paragraph. There are two more specific and more correct terms to use, and they're used there now, one friendly, one not.

Actually the word terrorist means "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." akeldamma Just because an organization says it burns down buildings to make it uneconomical to function does not mean they are not engaging in terror.

The FBI's claim is dealt with but ELF doesn't satisfy the CIA's version nor the UN's version nor any sane person's version of what terrorism actually is - deliberate bodily harm done to civilians to frighten other civilians to achieve a political end. If we let the FBI define neutrality, that's a mistake. Also, we would have to get into the whole history of how J. Edgar Hoover put a bunch of petty criminals on a list to invent "Public Enemy Number One" and hype up the search for them. Fact is, this is a standard trick the FBI pulls when they are unable to catch someone, or simply too lazy to bother. Keeping that claim out of the first paragraph allows us to dodge this rather than get into it. If you insist, though, we can get into it, and the FBI's credibility will be rather more tarnished by the end. NO ONE outside the USA would accept the FBI as a neutral source. EofT

I wonder about your definition of terrorism as "deliberate bodily harm done to civilians to frighten other civilians to achieve a political end." In the hypothetiocal case that the King David Hotel had been cleared of all personnel when the Irgun bombed it so that no one was injured, would you not have considered it an act of terrorism? I am not really bothered by much of what the ELF does--in many instances I sympathize with them. I am just concerned about misusing language to further an agenda, whether I agree with it or not. Danny 00:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Personally I think the word "terrorism" applies more to the state of mind of the individual who feels like he must "strike back" and blow things up and assassinate and invade countries in a futile attempt to "disrupt terrorist infrastructure" which is easily rebuilt - some of these groups simply have no infrastructure at all. So I am not citing my definition, I am just saying that ELF doesn't satisfy the standard definition. Not even the CIA, US State Department, let alone any foreign government, uses that FBI definition. It's a fringe claim made by a government agency with a history of such hype: "public enemy number one" and all that. So it just isn't a credible label, if one is reading this encyclopedia say from New Zealand, one would conclude we are a bunch of US government dupes. Let's evade the issue by using the more specific labels available, and explaining the "terrorist" label below, as I did. EofT

As to your hypothetical case, if Irgun had taken pains to make sure everyone was out of the building before blowing it up, and if this was the only such act they performed, then, I call that sabotage or property destruction, it is not violence, and I don't really think it's terrorism by standard definition(s), questionable as those are. EofT

I think it's unfair to focus on the FBI as having a different definition than the "standard". There truly is no standard definition of terrorism - what does and does not constitute terrorism is an ongoing debate in the security community and academia. In fact the CIA, Defense Department, State Department, and FBI all have their own definitions that come from their approach: the FBI's definition focuses on law enforcement, the CIA's on covert operations, Defense's on military operations, and State's on the possibility for diplomacy. Other U.S. government agencies have different definitions as well, but my studies have focused on these four. Every country and organization in the world has a different definition of terrorism. So to say that ELF fits in only the FBI's definition and nobody else's may be true, but it's not because the FBI has a different definition than the standard - rather because there is no standard.--Xinoph 02:53, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Apologists?

Does "apologist" conform to Wikipedia NPOV standards. -Naif 06:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Something Needs To Be Done

I think something needs to be added to this article. The fact is, there is no evidence that the Earth Liberation Front is an actual organization. Many (most, I would say) in the radical environmental movement treat the ELF as a symbol, and something of a pseudonym for completely autonomous direct actions.--

Cottrell and the Maryland Home Fires

Should Cottrell and the Maryland home fires be on this page? They don't have connections to ELF.

I reworded your addition slightly. The article you reference is an OpEd piece that doesn't distinguish a clear disconnect from ELF. I'd say their connection to ELF is possible since they did after all spraypaint "ELF" on the SUVs. Of course we don't know if that was done to confuse the police. (P.S. Please sign your posts. We wont know who you are otherwise!) Monkeyman 19:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this misses the point somewhat. Spraypainting 'ELF' while taking an action that is vaguely in line with ELF principles is basically what makes an action an ELF action. There is no centralized decision-making body to endorse an action as "ELF" beforehand. DanKeshet 03:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The point about the Maryland fires still stands - a suspect whose motive was revenge, not environmental politics, has been charged with starting the fires. Connecting the previous envrironmental dispute over the development to the fires is tenuous and unsubstantiated. Furthermore, according to the article ELF has taken responsibility for other actions; this is sort of standard terrorism operating proceedure. So if the organization does not claim responsibility for the action, I argue it shouldn't be classified as "ELF." -Tim

But with this logic you could disassociate yourself from any terrorist group once you've been caught in an attempt to lessen your sentence. I'm not really arguing this either way since I don't think there's enough information to say he was or was not a member of ELF. But I have to ask why he spraypainted the cars with the ELF signature if he was not a member. (Tim, create an account when you have time ... one of us, one of us). Monkeyman 19:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links

There's a link provided to the archives of www.earthliberationfront.com, but no direct link to the site itself. It's not clear to me why this is the case... is there something about the webpage which should be mentioned in the article?

From www.earthliberationfront.com: "The intention of this web site is to inform and chronicle issues related to E.L.F." Looks relevant to me ... I went ahead and added the link. Monkeyman 19:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That site was hijacked by the owner of tshirthell.com. He's taking advantage of the hits to sell ads.

ditto the last comment, the last time I went to the "official" page (a few months ago) it had been hijacked by some advertisers and had really shoddy info on the ELF. The earlier site was legit and had good info. Nov 30 2005

Chritian Science monitor

One of the references added is to the The Christian Science Monitor. They have figures for number of attacks and total cost, but no references. Whilst these may be true its not a group which is particular NPOV. ANyone got a better reference? --Salix alba (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would argue that Christian Science Monitor is one of the best resources out there. Anyone else on this?--TheGrza 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Life Force

The Environmental Life Force has no connection ideological or otherwise to the Earth Liberation Front. It is likely that the founders of the Earth Liberation Front never heard of the Environmental Life Force. Listing the Environment Life Force on the page makes about as much sense as talking about the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on a page about the Animal Defense League whose acronym is also the ADL. -Dumpster Jan/30/06

True, the Environmental Life Force has no connection with the Earth Liberation Front as the original ELF was disbanded back in the 1970's. But there is a genetic link: The original ELF was the first eco-guerrilla group to use arson and other extreme, radical tactics in defence of the environment. As described in the original ELF archives page (http://www.originalelf.com/elf_archives.htm), The original ELF founder, John Hanna and Earth First! founder, Dave Foreman, communicated with each other in 1985. As the story goes, members of EF! in England started using the acronym ELF for a second time - in essence, re-inventing ELF. The tactics and goals are the same between the two disparate entities. A 1993 Earth First! Journal article (anonymous) is often referenced to as proof that ELF had its origins in the UK. This may be true with regard to the contemporary ELF but it is most likely that the inspiration for today's ELF derived from the Environmental Life Force from Santa Cruz, California, USA. The fact that EF! founder Dave Foreman was aware of the original ELF's activities and tactics supports the likelihood that word spread slowly (no internet in those days) to Great Britain. So, it is relevant to mention the original ELF when discussing ELF history in Wikipedia.(John Hanna) 21:45 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon - if you wish to reinsert this info with the appropriate sourcing, i have no problem with that. I only deleted it because there was no evidence offered. Also, you provide no justification for removing the sourced info on alleged leadership and spokespeople, which is why that was also reverted. Rockpocket 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth I was involved with Earth First in the UK when the movement started in the early 1990's. Earth First (UK) was quite distinct from the US group. We did have some contact with US members, but not with Foreman who was less promenant in EF by that time. The first I heard of ELF was at the first UK meeting when we decided to not to "condon or condem acts of criminal damage", which can probably be credited as the time ELF formed. It was a simple step to replace the Animal in ALF with Earth in ELF and there was some discussion as to whether it was a good idea to use us such a similar name given the bad rep ALF had in the UK. I never heard the name Environmental Life Force mentioned. The letter from Foreman is very brief, basically saying "sorry we can't give you any money", which does not hint at a long term connection or correspondance.

I don't object to having a brief mention of Environmental Life Force, as they did predate the Earth Liberation Front, used similar tactics and shared the same initials. It is also worth including as a person critical of Earth Liberation Front, it is a more informed critique than most, as it is from someone who came from a similar mindset, but with a bit of wisdom aquired with age and time. To say anything more than that is pure speculation. --Salix alba (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

p.s. just for the record I did not participate in any ELF activities or commit criminal damage. --Salix alba (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha, just in case the FBI are listening in, eh? Would you consider adding that brief mention Salix, seeing as you seem to have a firm grasp of the topic? Rockpocket 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Major attacks and police responses

ELF took responsibility for the arson of a michigan state genetics office. it was included in a NOVA special on genetic engineering. details in this link http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/etc/script.html someone add it NPOV. i can't do it. really not sympathetic at all. 216.160.56.72 07:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently the Feds in the US has launched a operation called Operation Backfire. It is designed to infiltrate groups/cells like this one (ELF), then, when the time is right, TAKE THEM OUT. See discussion on ALF's and PETA's article's talk page archives. Also Google Search: Operation Backfire as well. Martial Law 03:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline section has expanded somewhat. I'm thinking that this might be best moved to a seperate article say Timeline of Earth Liberation Front actions, with just a few key points here. --Salix alba (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm remember clearly that the term Earth Liberation Front was used by anonymous groups to cover covert acts of damage to road building property during the anti-road protest movement in the UK as early as 1993, such as the disabling of digging machines and bulldozers, and temporary building. Non-violence towards people appeared to be very important indeed. --User:Anon 09:20, 20 January 2007 (GMT)

Leadership

This entire section is unsourced, and indeed, the anonymous editor removed some of my sourced edits to write this. Could that editor please provide sources for this section, or else i will revert back to the fully sourced version. For example, Coronado called himself an "unofficial spokesman" [2] and labelling the FBI's statement "erroneous" without a source is highly POV. Secondly, Craig Rosebraugh is identified as an "E.L.F. Spokesperson" by a sympathetic animal liberation site [3]. Both are well sourced additions and thus could the anonymous editor tell me why they were removed? I'll give the editor some time before acting on these. Rockpocket 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so since no-one volunteered sources for the speculative section on leadership, i removed it and reinstated two sourced sentences in the intro about alleged leaders and spokespeople. This gives readers an opportunity to learn about specific activists under the ELF banner, while maintaining (though not labouring) the point that a Front has no official leadership. If some one wants to re-expand this to a full section on leadership, then i have no problems with that, but i don't really think there is much more to say (as, we are told, there are no leaders). Rockpocket 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Spokesperson

The introduction is now contradictory. It says: "The Earth Liberation Front has no formal leadership, membership or official spokesperson" followed by "Craig Rosebraugh served as spokesman for the ELF from 1997 to 2001". I'd earlier added the second sentence "according to" to a sympathetic source, but its been edited and dates added to make it sound like an established fact. I have no idea what Rosebraugh's role was, but if it is widely accepted that he was a spokesman in some official capacity, the first sentence should be edited accordingly. Otherwise, the second should be reverted. Sounds like a parallel of Robin Webb/ALF to me. Can anyone with a greater insight into the group clarify? Rockpocket 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Craig was an unofficial spokesperson. He couldn't have become an official one (and probably never wanted to) because ELF has no process for making decisions and may not even have members to make decisions. Dumpster 2:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, Dumpster. Whats the rationale with moving their classification as a terror group in the intro? It seems pretty relevent to me, though could possibly have been reworded. Rockpocket 03:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not ELF is a terroist group or not is debatable. Because of that I think accusations of terrorism or eco-terrorism should be confined to the "Criticism of ELF" section. Dumpster 3:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was saying that, it was saying that US government agencies consider them a terror group (number 1 on their list, apparently). That is not debatable. It is also highly notable considering the spate of arrests of alleged ELF activists recently and is, arguably, what has brought the ELF to the attention of the general public. I think something should be in the intro about the authorities take on them as is in the ALF page. Rockpocket 04:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I put the #1 domestic terrorist info back in the introDumpster 5:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, do you happen to know of a source for: ELF's guidelines require that individuals or groups acting on behalf of the front "take all necessary precautions against harming any animal - human and nonhuman." It must come from somewhere if it is in quotes. Rockpocket 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

its there now[4]Dumpster 5:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The ELF Guidlines has always bothered me, I'm not sure of their original source. Is it the UK Do or Die article [5] or maybe something from the "press office". Neither of these can really be said to be the voice of all the people who commit ELF actions. The article at present indicates that these are some generally accepted guidelines, but I don't think these should be consider universal guidlines for the movment. --Salix alba (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the guidelines were printed in the September-October 1993 issue of the Earth First! Journal, as part of the article that announced the creation of the ELF. As far as I know that article is not online. They were listed on The ELF website, which was run by the NAELFPO, under a statement that said anyone could commit an action on behalf of the ELF as long as they adhered to the guidelines. [6] Dumpster 8:11, 5 March 2006(UTC)

Anon edits

Please stop adding that it's a terrorist group, because it's a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and W:NOR to state that as though it's a fact. We can report that the U.S. govt has classified it as such, but we can't go beyond that according to our content policies, which all articles must adhere to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Even al-Qaeda are not labelled as terrorists, the article merely states that several governments and international agencies (and it lists which ones) have labelled them terrorists. Please see the talk page for the Animal Liberation Front, where the issue has already been decided. And as stated above, the US government is not the be-all-end-all of terrorist classifications. IMO the US government are terrorists (see state terrorism), but you don't see me going and labelling them as such. It's POV and I know it, so I don't do it. Please have the same respect here. The Ungovernable Force

Is the criticism from the Ayn Rand institute NPOV? Certainly, people who hold to Ayn Rand's philosophy are entitled to their opinion, but I'm not sure why they get to be philosophical authorities on radical eco-groups. As an initial edit, I've edited the first sentence claiming that "many" have criticised the ELF for its "primitive" nature. Comments, either here or on my talk page, are welcome. Frekja 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, I removed the whole Ayn Rand oriented paragraph. It didn't add anything to the article other than advertising for the Ayn Rand Institute. Philosophical disagreements are valid and deserve to be debated, but not in the pages of Wikipedia. Frekja 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so... I believe the Ayn Rand comment added a reason and a possible standpoint for critisizing The ELF... Because earlier in the article, it gives The ELF's and its supporters possible justification for their actions... I think it is only fair to include a counter-argument in the "Critisism" section denouncing and refuting any justification for their actions... I think it adds a needed balance to the article... Although additional sources besides ARI would probably be richer in content... I thought it was a worthy addition. (The Ironically Also-Anonymous Editor...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.133.13.1 (talk • contribs) .

Terrorism

While we should certainly mention that the FBI now class the ELF as terrorist we shouldnt describe them as such in the opening, this is something discouraged on wikipedia because it creates huge controversies and also because it takes more than the FBI to class a group as terrorist for it to be generally considered so. Please bring your sources to justify your POV, then we can debate the issue here on the talk page, your POV label using weasel words is not POV, SqueakBox 21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh....what? No, we don't censor articles here to avoid controversy. That the ELF is a terrorist organization is accurate and well founded by many sourced documents. They are classified as terrorist by more than just the FBI. Please do a little research first. I will further warn you to be civil: I have not used "weasel words", and accusing me of such is uncivil. Please research again the definition of a weasel word. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel word is not a criticism of you but words used in wikipedia policy and in many talk pages as a description of the T word. The terrorism issue is substantially covered here and nobody is disputing that coverage or removing any sourced material, SqueakBox 22:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, who other than the FBI has classified the ELF as "terrorist"? And bear in the mind the FBI has only called some ELF acts "terrorist," and the FBI is not a government. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In the short research I've done today, I've thusfar found the ELF actually designated only by the FBI. However, acts perpetrated by the ELF have been designated as terrorist incidents by respected terrorist watchdog groups such as FAS and the southern poverty law center. And quotes such as the following entail that it's a terrorist organization "A recent communiqué announced that the group, which espouses "militant direct action ... by any means necessary," will now target "F.B.I. offices and U.S. federal buildings," "liberal democracy," and even "industrial civilization" itself.

Until now, the group's nationwide bombings, arsons and vandalisms had been directed only at corporations "profiting from the destruction ... of the natural environment." "

I've other things to do the rest of the day, I'll check back on this tomorrow. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And of course it is fine to include that. What is disputed is whether they should thus be designated a terrorist group in the opening sentence. It is also important to make clear they are the biggest domestic thjreat in the US, they clearly are not in many countries, eg in the UK the authorities would clearly label the Animal Rights Movement as far more of a domestic threat than the ELF while here in Honduras and this region cocaine trafficking is the greatest threat so to remove the fact that the ELF are seen as the most dangerous domestic threat in the United States gives a less accurate picture of the reality of the ELF and I am confused as to why you reverted me on that point. Perhaps you would care to explain? Remember that we are writing an international not a US encyclopedia, SqueakBox 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What? If I removed a section that said In the United States" it was by accident. I don't disagree, the ELF is a domestic only threat. The ALF however is a threat in the UK and other places, but obviously that's not relevant to this article. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Woodinville Washington

Explosive devices were found inside multimillion-dollar show homes that burned in a suburb north of Seattle Monday, fire officials said. Authorities also found a spray-painted sign purportedly left by ELF. News linky here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/353498_arson04.html

But there has also been some speculation that it might also have been the builders, who have dropped the price on these "McMansions" by $200,000 over the last year or so...

Who knows right now, but time should sort out the perps. Proxy User (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

REcient burning of

Elf may have torched a develoment in seatle h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.149.231 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Seen it on FOX News and on CNN (the Hillary Clinton News Network) as well. 65.173.105.114 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Feds are all over this. See Operation Backfire (FBI) about how the feds are handling this matter, other eco-terrorisim activities. 65.173.105.114 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that's true. We watch Channel One in our classrooms and it was mentioned on there and included details about the Earth Liberation Front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.106.21 (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are they against GM?

Reading the article it says the ELF are against genetic engineering, does anyone know why? Destroying GM crops that will help feed the starving population and avoid turning tons of forest land into farmland and stopping the development of GMO's like bacteria that decontaminate radioactive waste seems counterproductive to me. GE has such a huge potential to fix the planet that destroying it seems bizarre. Comrinec (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Genetic engineering won't solve the problem of world hunger. Starving population is not starving because of lack of food, it's because of lack of political will. It's stupidity to think that genetic engineering can solve the world hunger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.74.105.81 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And what about the GM bacteria that clean up radioactive waste and GM viruses that cure genetic diseases? It's completley counter productive and is incredibly hypocritical to be against GM and say your saving the world. And it destroys any support the group may have gotten by large numbers of people. Comrinec (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)