This is an archive of past discussions about Rod Coronado. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I added "Terrorist." This is clearly not POV, as Coronado fits the description of a terrorist as defined by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.224.178 (talk) 2005-12-15T22:15:11
Actually there is quite a bit of debate over this point - it is contentious, there is a lot of debate over whether the kind of acts conducted constitute terrorism; there needs a reasonable amount of contextualising, which makes it unsuitable for the introduction. Wikipedia is not the place for individual research, so the claim shouldn't be backed up by definitions made in other parts of wikipedia, but from verifiable outside sources. Until these conditions are met, I think the term should be removed from the introduction. -- Mostlyharmless 05:52 December 29, 2005
I removed the claim terrorist from the intro again because the claim was supported by the Anti-Defamation League a highly contentious source not noted for their NPOV, and further the claim needs contextualisation as per my comments above. This hasn't been addressed at all. I wouldn't accept a claim in the in the introduction supported by Sea Shepherd , so I don't expect to see claims from partisans on the other side either. 222.153.142.20523:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
In response to Mostlyharmless: The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation describes The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) as, "an extremist animal rights movement that has carried out numerous terrorist attacks in the United States since 1987" http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm and states that "Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]. Certainly the FBI is a "verifiable outside source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.224.178 (talk) 2006-01-17T03:33:16
Explanation of deletions
I've deleted some recent additions, as some were POV, and others need to be sourced:
from the intro: "convicted arsonist, domestic terrorist," for obvious reasons
"a sometime contributer to the environmentalist Earth First! Journal" but elsewhere he's called the editor
"which effectivly brought Iceland's illegal whaling to a halt," needs a source
"The targets and the subsequet actions were taken after painstaking undercover research by Coronado. He went undercover in many mink farms and labs across the western U.S. documenting,with video and photos, the conditions under which these labs and farms operated. No one was ever harmed or threatened in any of the actions. Many in the animal rights movement considered these actions at the time'to be the last nail in the coffin of a barbaric fur industry'. This documented evidence was released in many radical, and some mainstream magazines. During this time Coronado also produced a zine called 'Strong Hearts' about the Animal Liberation Front and animal rights. On December 2, 2004 he was indicted on a conspiracy charge related to Earth First! hunt saboteur actions to protect mountain lions in Sabino Canyon, near Tucson; the charge carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison." This all needs to be sourced and reworded to remove the POV.
"He has been a controversial and outspoken figure. He is often singled out and mislabeled by 'right wing'front groups like 'Activist Cash' as a leader of various eco or anarchist groups including the Earth Liberation Front with little supporting evidence." Needs a source.
"The Earth First! Journal, an award winning magazine which was founded in the 1980s, has no ties to the Earth Liberation Front, which according ot the U.S. government is the most active "eco-terrorist" group in the U.S." Ditto. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
NPOV editing
I reverted back to my version, and made one edit. Here are the justifications:
1) The use of the term "vivisection" to describe medical research on animals is a politically charged term. It implies nonconsent of the subject, which is a viewpoint in line with animal rights activists, and is POV. I replaced "vivisection" with "animal research" for this reason.
That's the strangest reason I ever saw for not using the term vivisection. That it implies the animals have not given consent? Of course they haven't. ;-D Vivisection has come to mean animal testing. Either term is fine, but it should be one of the terms used by most people and by Wikipedia. SlimVirgin(talk)20:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Animal Testing and vivisection are two diffrent things. Animal testing is product testing specific and doesn't relate to all medical experiements.
I agree with changing liberation. Why are you deleting the category, by the way? And we don't add a person's convictions to the first sentence of an article. SlimVirgin(talk)20:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd still like to see the quotes gone, but I suppose this is a good compromise. I didn't mean to delete the category; I may have inadvertently reinstated someone else's edits. Animal testing is a good alternative to vivisection, I agree. Vivisection is just too much of a loaded term, at least insofar as it is used in animal rights literature. Thanks for the feedback. Skinwalker22:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Vivisection; historically it means "to cut a living being" The term 'vivisection' is now used to apply to all types of experiments on living animals, whether or not cutting is done. So states the Encyclopedia Americana (International Edition 1974). And the large Merriam-Webster (1963): '... broadly, any form of animal experimentation, especially if considered to cause distress to the subject.' Thus the term also applies to experiments done with the administration of noxious substances, burns, electric or traumatic shocks, drawn-out deprivations of food and drink, psychological tortures leading to mental imbalance, and so forth. The term was employed in that sense by the physiologists of the last century who started this kind of 'medical research', and so it will be used by me. By 'vivisectionist' is usually meant every upholder of this method; by 'vivisector' someone who performs such experiments or participates in them."
Animal Testing is limited to specific forms of vivisection.
Animal Rights Literature is loaded, but I think the term is specific.Xanax11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Professorships
Is there a reason we keep adding that the people whose offices were broken into were professors? We don't normally use titles in articles, and particularly in this case: in North America, everyone who teaches at university is called professor, but it means a great deal more than this elsewhere, so we're risking being unduly deferential by using it. Also, one is retired and the other an associate. Can someone say why it keeps being added? SlimVirgin(talk)03:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I added it back in, since "researcher" at a University is vague, since a number of people do research at Universities, including staff scientists, post-docs, and graduate students. I think that including the function of these people at the University is important.
The last version (in which I was clear about the status of Aulerich and Chou at both the time of the fire and currently) was correct, and IMHO, NPOV. Especially with Aulerich---he had a title of Professor (and was a full, tenured professor) at the time, and you're implying that using that title is "unduly deferential?" -- Kaszeta13:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Aulerich and Chou's professorship is relevant. It is not true that everyone who teaches at a university is called "professor"; there are legions of graduate and postgraduate students (including myself at one time) who teach classes but do not have the rank of professor, nor are addressed as professor. Articles that mention scientific research regularly refer to "Professor So-and-so", and I don't see how naming their academic status is overly deferential, regardless of one's view of their research. Skinwalker20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
CCF
Hi Skinwalker, CCF is not regarded as a credible source when it comes to these issues, as they've been set up specifically to attack certain activist groups. See the talk page of PETA, where others agreed to stop using them as a source. It's not that they're partisan that's the problem (all sources are partisan to some degree); it's that they've been set up specifically to attack these groups. Just as we wouldn't use PETA's anti-CCF website as a source against CCF members, similarly we can't use the CCF website as a source against PETA members and related activists. To write of an individual in his biography that he is a domestic terrorist, you would need a strong source, preferably a law-enforcement source (for legal as well as editorial reasons). Perhaps you could track down his court cases, and see whether any such claim was made during them. See WP:V and WP:RS: extraordinary claims require strong sources. SlimVirgin(talk)22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wasn't able to find any agreement not to use CCF as a source in the PETA talk page archives. Could you point me towards the relevant discussion? At any rate, I looked up his court cases and found that the US attorney's office has called him a "terrorist" and a "violent anarchist". This source meets the standard you describe, and I put the charges back in the article, while making it clear that they are the opinion of law enforcement. Thanks for the feedback! Cheers, Skinwalker15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
POV changes
I have changed the following:
Earth First!, which was founded in the 1980s, gave rise to the Earth Liberation Front.
This is a guilt-by-association statement. I have found no evidence that Coronado has a connection with ELF, and as far as I know he has not been accused of such. I also think it's a bit misleading to say the EF! "gave rise to" ELF. Former Earth First! activists started the ELF because they were dissatisfied with the movement. To my mind, this would be like saying "Pat Robertson is a fundamentalistChristian. The fundamentalist Christian movement gave rise to abortion clinic bombers."
Assistant US Attorney Wallace Kleindienst has referred to him as a terrorist and has noted that he is a convicted arsonist.
It just doesn't seem necessary to include this. We can state for a fact that he has been convicted of arson, as well as the more recent charges, but there's no need to say that an attorney has "noted" this fact. I think the statement works better like this:
He went to prison for arson at a university animal laboratory, and was convicted of three charges related to sabotage against a government mountain lion hunt. Coronado's critics claim he is a terrorist. [1]
Also, I changed "the editor" to "an editor". The journal is edited by a group of people.
I like the fact that you put the "terrorist" charge later in the article and gave it more context. I still didn't like the ELF reference in the intro, since he is not a part of that movement. But I added a bit to clarify his actual views and allegiances. Mycota00:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Animalrights.net
I've removed the recent anon addition, part of which had been plagiarized from animalrights.net (see below). We can't use that website as a citable source. It's run by someone called Brian Carnell, who gives no information about himself, and who says it's a personal project that isn't financed by any organization. [2] That makes it a self-published personal website, which means we can't use it as a citable third-party source, according to WP:V and WP:RS. It's a good resource to use to find citable sources, but everything we take from the website would have to be confirmed elsewhere, and the second source cited. SlimVirgin(talk)22:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
As part of Coronado's 1995 federal plea bargain, he also admitted his guilt in a burglary at the Little Big Horn National Monument. Coronado vandalized an exhibit, stole a diary from a US 7th Cavalry Trooper, then burned the historic document. The artifact, a notebook carried by one of Custer's slain troopers (and one of the few personal belongings ever recovered from the massacre), had been stolen from its plexiglass case at the battlefield's museum. [3]
SlimVirgin, do you realise that the quote above is from a US court docket? Brian Carnell is just reprinting the public domain US government work? You should reinstate it, citing it as "Government's Sentencing Memorandum, U.S. v. Coronado, No. 1:97-CR-116, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division". You can google for "1:97-CR-116" and find it in several places on the internet, including animalrights.net—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.97.37 (talk) 2006-02-11T12:19:54
Undocumented deletions
There have been some undocumented deletions/ modifications to this page. Please have the intellectual honesty to give reasons and documentation for any such additions or deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.173.70 (talk) 2006-01-23T07:41:57
This introductory paragraph was modified without documentation. It includes two important facts. The first is that Coronado is a member of the Animal Liberation Front, which is supported by the linked ALF website and included interview with Coronado. The second is that the ALF is considered by the FBI to have carried out numerous terrorist attacks in the United States, and this is supported by the FBI government website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.173.70 (talk) 2006-01-23T07:54:11
Hmmm, the ALF article does pretty bluntly state that Coronado is a member:
"He is the first Native American Animal Liberation Front member in U.S. history to be sent to Federal Prison."
If you look at the page history, though, Slimvirgin did document her modifications. Still, I don't agree that we can't tie Coronado to the ALF on the grounds that "ALF has no members". Of course ALF has members; it is an organization started by its members and perpetuated through the actions of its members. I propose that we keep the fact that Coronado is an ALF member on this page (since it is documented on ALF's website), keep the term "convicted arsonist", but delete the statement above on the FBI's opinion of ALF. The wiki on Animal Liberation Front has this information already. Cheers, Skinwalker17:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment, have stated he is a convicted arsonist in the introduction (in a way which does not connect to his other affiliations), and removed the FBI quote about the ALF. Anyone can go to the ALF page to read things about the ALF themselves. 81.178.97.3720:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
FBI link
Perhaps the FBI link could be moved to "Recent Actions?" This section already deals with the "terrorism" accusation, and the quote in question is a short one. My main concern is that ALF will be lumped together with the Earth First! journal and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.224.178 (talk)
2006-01-23T18:16:23
Image and other edits
I've deleted the image of Coronado supposedly showing how to make a bomb until we find out more about its origins. The source on the image page looks like a personal website, which we normally can't use as a source. See WP:V for when these can be used. And it's unlikely he'd demonstrate how to make a bomb in what looks like a public place. Also, the image page says it's PD, but it's not clear why. Could the person who added it find a better source and supply more information about who took the photograph, where and when? SlimVirgin(talk)08:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes Rod did do that, he was shown on 60 mintues doing it. I think it would be a fine picture to use, as even he would like to see that I'm sure. However its not a 'bomb' its an 'incendiary device' and it was at Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Center in Hillcrest San Diego Friday, August 1st, 2003. At least that was one time he displayed such a device. Xanax00:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll ignore the issue of the image deletion, but you didn't justify the other edits you made at the same time. Particularly, I want to hear your justification for removing the fact that he's a convicted arsonist. Are you not aware of the evidence? Such factual information is vitally important to the article; your deletion of it is suspicious to say the least. Matt Gies18:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It can't stay in the first sentence like that. See previous discussion. We don't write of someone: "Jane Doe is a professor of philosophy, best-selling novelist, convicted shoplifter, and someone who gathers a lot of speeding tickets."
By "previous discussion", do you refer to the part where you said you deleted that phrase "for obvious reasons"? Because the reasons are not obvious at all. From where I stand, you're materially censoring the article. Why can't it be in the first paragraph? That's the primary reason he's famous--precisely because he's a convicted arsonist. Matt Gies20:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we have articles on every convicted arsonist? Coronado is a well known animal-rights activist and enviromentalist, who has engaged in direct action, and he'd have a Wikipedia article whether or not he had been convicted of arson. Please find other WP biographies where the subject's convictions are in the very first sentence along with their professions (excluding people known solely because of a conviction e.g. the subject of a miscarriage of justice). If you can find several of these, then we can consider making this page consistent with that style. SlimVirgin(talk)21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Barry Horne's article indicates his conviction for planting incendiary devices in the first sentence. To use better examples, let's look at some other articles. Michael Milken single-handedly created a market for junk bonds, and has contributed scads of money for cancer research, yet his bio reveals his conviction for white-collar crime. Charles Keating, who would otherwise be infamous for his anti-Larry Flynt campaign, has his well-deserved conviction for fraud stated in the first sentence. Gary Glitter's conviction on child pornography charges is indicated in the second sentence of his bio. These are all people who (for better or worse) would merit a Wiki article without their criminal histories.
Coronado is most notorious for the actions leading to his arson conviction. It is somewhat dubious to conjecture that he would merit a Wiki without his "direct action", as you put it, but that is neither here nor there. This information belongs in the first sentence.
Slim, I'm a little worried about your protective attitude to this page. I understand that you have created and expanded upon many articles on the topic of animal rights. And that's fine, as far as I'm concerned: good work!. However, you tend to take a very harsh view of edits that present unflattering information on animal rights activists and concepts, and I'm concerned that you apply a double standard to edits that are either for or against a particular topic. Can you explain to me, for instance, how this photo[6] is OK to use, even though it comes from a personal website? Why, then can't we use the photo of Coronado and the bomb? Cheers, Skinwalker22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Skinwalker
First, the examples you gave:
Barry Horne: "Barry Horne was a British animal rights activist who died of kidney failure in Ronkswood Hospital, Worcester on November 5, 2001, following a series of four hunger strikes while serving an 18-year sentence for planting incendiary devices." This is the first sentence because he is best known for having died after hunger strikes in prison. He wasn't well-known as an animal-rights activist before this, unlike Coronado. It would be obtuse not to say what he was in prison for, and that it was a long sentence, given that we focus on his death in jail.
Michael Milken: "Michael Robert Milken is a prominent American financier who almost single-handedly created the present-day market for High-yield or junk bonds during the 1970s. After he was sent to prison on finance-related charges, he became the epitome of Wall Street "greed" during the 1980s, and was nicknamed "The Junk Bond King." First, it's not in the first sentence. Second, it's mentioned in the context of explaining, in whole or in part, why he became the epitome of Wall Street greed, which is what he is best known for.
Charles Keating: "Charles H. Keating Jr. (born December 4, 1923 in Cincinnati, Ohio) is a U.S. American lawyer and banker convicted of fraud in the Savings and Loan scandal of 1989." He is best known for his conviction, unlike Coronado.
Gary Glitter: "Gary Glitter (born Paul Francis Gadd, May 8, 1944 in Banbury, Oxfordshire) is a rock & pop singer who came to prominence in the glam rock era of the early 1970s. His career was majorly damaged following a child pornography conviction in 1999." This is more comparable with Coronado, because Gary Glitter is not best known for his paedophile conviction, yet it is shocking enough to warrant a mention in the second sentence.
Thefore, if you insist on mentioning it in the first paragraph, I suggest you follow the style of Gary Glitter. Note that it does not say of Glitter: "Gary Glitter is a rock & pop singer and convicted child pornographer." Yet you want to say of Coronado that he is "an eco-anarchist, animal rights activist, and convicted arsonist." If you can't see why that's bad writing, I'm not sure I can explain it.
It would be more encyclopedic and would look less like well-poisoning if you would introduce a second paragraph saying: "Coronado was convicted of arson and sentenced to X years in jail in 19xx following an attack on XXX in 19XXX, during which XXX worth of damage was done." And then link to a reputable source (e.g. mainstream newspaper, law-enforcement article etc) showing that he really was convicted of arson and not something else.
As for the image of Steven Best and the other one of the bomb: you can surely see the difference yourself. One is a regular photograph of Best, taken (as I recall) from his own website, and which he knows we're using, so there's no doubt that it's him, it's not unflattering, and it's not defamatory. The second is taken from a dodgy looking activist website, which looks as though it's run by one person, showing a photograph of someone else (i.e. we'd be using a personal website as a third party source, which is not allowed), who is allegedly doing something illegal, which makes the photograph highly defamatory. (Whether a jury would find in favor of a convicted arsonist is an open question, but let's not test it.) There is no information with the photograph e.g. that it was taken by person Y in place X at time T. We're just supposed to trust that the anonymous author of the website knows all these details. See WP:V for when it's okay to use personal websites and for how they can't be used as third party sources i.e. as sources about anything other than themselves.
Finally, regarding my attitude, it's true that I take "a very harsh view" of unencyclopedic and badly written edits that engage in well-poisoning in order to portray animal-rights activists (or anyone else) in the most negative light possible. The facts should be allowed to speak for themselves in an encyclopedia article, and when material is written that way, whether it's positive or negative, you'll find me supporting the edit. For example, someone recently removed from the intro of of ALF that the FBI had named it as a terrorist threat, and I restored it. [7] But I oppose well-poisoning and unencyclopedic writing no matter how I feel personally about the subject. Another example: for a long time, someone kept trying to insert "convicted felon" into the first sentence of Ron Karenga, the founder of the African-American holiday of Kwanzaa, just as you're trying to do here: "Ron Karenga (born July 14, 1941) ... is an African-American author, political activist [and] convicted felon..." If you check out the history, you'll see that I kept deleting it e.g [8] because it was being inserted to poison the well, perhaps out of racist motives, and his conviction is not the thing he is best known for. But that doesn't mean I have strong protective feelings toward Karenga, or even any interest in him. SlimVirgin(talk)23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
More could also be said about the whaling action and his participation in SSCS see http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/28sinkingwhalers.html. Also more can be said about what was known by the ALF as operation Bite Back/the Western Wildlife Unit, (MSU attacks) actually I'll just write a wiki site about it and put in a one liner for rod. For more info on the MSU actions read the booklet 'memories of freedom' (online) http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/WhatisALF.htm this booklet was most likely written by Rod, however that is hersay, but does give a first hand account of those actionsXanax00:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Explanation of changes/removals in 1st paragraph, PETA info, and artifact theft
The placement of PETA's donations to Coronado's legal defense seemed to be a thinnly veiled attempt to smear PETA, since it was provided without context, sourced only from anti-PETA websites, and placed in an extremely prominent place on this pages layout--even before the background. This isn't an important part of an encyclopedia entry about Coronado. If anything it should be on the PETA entry. I've removed it. Mahonia19:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the artifact theft section. First of all, this was not a "recent action"; it shouldn't have been placed there. Second, Coronado was not "convicted" of this, as the text stated, it was merely mentioned in the setencing reccomendations of the prosecution. Whoever posted this should revise this for accuracy, read source documents carefully before extrapolating from them, and make it a less prominent portion of this article than it was. Mahonia20:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up the first paragraph, made the more well known things first, the lesser known things later. I removed the FBI characterization of ALF -- that is for the Animal Liberation Front entry which is already linked. A references to him being a "spokesperson" for ALF were not sourced and was removed: an interview in a magazine doesn't make one a spokesperson for a group. It seems better to call him an ALF participant, as opposed to "activist for the ALF" which was vague. twas a few other minor things too. Mahonia20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone put that PETA stuff back, I've took it out for those reasons above. Also couldn't find a source for the "restitution unpaid" thing apart from a pro-business pressure group, so I added a caveat.Chaikney19:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Jailed = Convicted?
The second paragraph states, "Coronado was jailed in 1995 in connection with an arson attack..." Does this mean he was convicted of arson or was he just held overnight as a suspect? If he was convicted, what were the charges? Monkeyman(talk)15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Changes by SpinyNorman
I have reverted back (sorry if it lost the edit made by one editor subsequently). Please don't remove information from the article without discussion on this talk page. Rod Coronado is a animal rights activist etc... -Localzuk(talk)22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)
I feel we should't be using this organization as a source except about itself, in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_websites. We wouldn't use Rod Coronado or the ALF as a source on CCF, and I feel we should treat CCF in the same way. They make no pretense at being neutral or accurate, and there's no indication that they do good research. We don't know exactly which companies finance them, because they refuse to say; we don't know who their writers or researchers are; and they have no obvious fact-checking or libel-checking process, as a regular publisher or newspaper does. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin(talk)23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the same goes for the other business advocacy group we use as a source saying that Coronado's restitution remains unpaid. If we can't find a source other than an unknown partisan website, I feel we shouldn't include the information, in accordance with BLP. SlimVirgin(talk)23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this, SV. One could make the same argument about certain animal liberation groups and their "reports" on the activities of researchers and pharmaceutical companies. These are used widely as sources in the animal testing article, particularly under "Allegations of abuse". One could argue that many of them "make no pretense at being neutral or accurate, and there's no indication that they do good research. We don't know exactly [who] finance them, because they refuse to say; we don't know who their writers or researchers are; and they have no obvious fact-checking or libel-checking process, as a regular publisher or newspaper does.".
Advocacy is advocacy, irrespective of political motivation. My feeling is that, as long as the source of such claims are made clear (as is the case here and in animal testing), then the reader can draw their own conclusions. Rockpocket05:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, RP. As I see it, the difference between using animal rights groups in the examples you give is that we use them only where they've been directly involved in an issue; e.g. where they have broken into a lab, we'll discuss what they say they found. But we don't use them as general sources. We use groups like BUAV as sources on vivisection, but that's because they really are the experts even though they have a particular POV, and BUAV is a respected group that operates within the law and is frequently used as a source by other publications.
The thing about CCF is that it is purely an attack/lobbying group. It was set up for that purpose (and doesn't deny it) and continues to operate in that way with its various sites like activistcash.com. PETA has set up an equivalent website about CCF (I forget the name), so by rights we should use the PETA website as a source on CCF if we're going to use CCF as a source on activists. But I would say that using the PETA website would be inappropriate, because its aim is purely to attack. Similarly, if we use CCF as a source on Coronado, there's nothing to stop us from using the Animal Liberation Front website as a source on Brian Cass, which I don't think we'd do (unless it was about an incident they were directly involved in e.g. if they assaulted him then released a statement). But we wouldn't say: "According to the ALF, Brian Cass has set up an offshore bank account ready for the day he has to leave England." We do, however, use CCF and activistcash.com in that way in several animal-rights articles. SlimVirgin(talk)07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You make a strong case, Slim. Based on those principles its hard to disagree. Give me a day or so to see if i can find any other sources for that information. If not, then it can be removed. Rockpocket22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the assertion that Coronado didn't pay restitution, as i cannot find another source that does not quote the advocacy group. I don't for a second doubt that he never paid a penny, though. However, on reading further, i think the CCF statement should stay. We are not using them as a source of fact, simply as a valid opposing opinion to those that are claiming a "witch hunt" and abuse of constitutions rights. Therefore the argument about them being a unreliable source is somewhat moot. Afterall, in Animal testing we quote the opinion of PETA as a counterpoint to the importance of experimental use of animals. The aim of PETA is to attack animal users, so they are hardly an impartial source in this instance. As long as its made clear who is voicing opinion, and what their agenda is ("a partisan advocacy group"), i don't see the problem. Rockpocket07:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, RP. We also use activistcash.com as a source in the References section, linking to a profile of Coronado. I'm not sure we should be using them as a source of information about a living individual per BLP. If the information exists elsewhere, we can use the other sources, and if it doesn't, that should tell us something. As for using PETA as a source, PETA isn't only an attack website. They do rescues, research, they fund lawsuits, they have named professionals working for them in the open. No one knows anything about CCF, except that it was set up by a D.C. lobbyist funded by the tobacco industry, and all they do is attack activists, from PETA to Mothers against Drunk Driving, and even the Centers for Disease Control. SlimVirgin(talk)07:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the activistcash.com profile. I'm sure the CCF would argue they "expose" activists in the same was PETA et al exposes animal rights "abusers". Seeing as they are pretty much the only people going after the antis they way the antis go after the "abusers" i think they are valid as a named source of critical opinion of them, but acknowledge not as a source of factual information. Anyway, thats my opinion, if you disagree perhaps we can invite others to comment? Rockpocket16:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia should quote from experts in their fields, people who are prominent and respected sources. CCF looks like a PR firm, with no expertise beyond the ability to use a computer and a fax machine. The head of CCF, Richard Berman, is a Washington lobbying and lawyer (according to Washington Post article linked on his wp page), works for CCF one hour a week, and also runs other organizations (ABI, EPI, CUF) that are counter-movement organizations. He looks to be no expert on animal rights issues, and certainly not on Rod Coronado specifically. CCF's website has no 'about' page, or discussion of their credentials From all indications, their opinions are ordinary, not expert, but they use a megaphone (like running full-page ads in national newspapers). Activistcash.com quotes no sources or references. Finally, the quote about Mr. Coronado is not sourced to any individual, just "CCF" as a corporation. Though I'm sure CCF is regularly quoted on TV news, Wikipedia's standards are higher, and considering that this is also a BLP and references need to be of a higher-than-usual Wikipedia quality, I removed references to CCF and activistcash. For commentary and criticism, sources that come to mind as appropriate include the prosecutors for either his previous conviction or the current case (ie, a lawyer that is well-informed about Mr. Coronado specifically), or anti-PETA/ALF university professors that are experts in this field.
I really don't care enough to revert this edit, and certinly have no sympathy for the CCF, but the is a real lack of consistancy regarding criticism in these article. PETA, for example, are no more experts on animal experimentation than the CCF is on animal rights groups. Both are advocacy groups that function by attacking those with differing views. The CCF tactics mirrors those of groups like PETA (multiple attack websites, running full-page ads in national newspapers), yet PETA is permitted as a source of critical comment on animal testing, yet the CCF is not permitted as a source of comment of Coronado's indictment? Can you not see the disparity there? Perhaps instead of simply removing the content, you could determine if there is a suitable comment by one of your so-called "experts" that could replace it, in the interest of balance. Rockpocket20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
RP, the animal-rights and anti-vivisection groups, and individual writers/activists, are the only experts on animal rights. Everyone else who gets involved does so in order only to oppose them, and is either doing something else as their main area of expertise (e.g. the scientists who criticize them), or is doing other things at the same time (e.g. CCF, a lobby group that attacks all kinds of activists, not just AR), or moves on after a while. PETA is emphatically not just an attack website. They do research, they do investigations, they arrange lots of undercover work. They are without any doubt experts on the dark side, as it were, of animal experimentation. SlimVirgin(talk)12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the comment should be replaced rather than just removed, however I do not agree that PETA are not experts on animal testing. The issue I see with this is that PETA is an organisation that is advised by a significant number of experts in the field of animal testing (such as Jerry Vlasack) and this fact is well published, whereas CCF do not publish the source of any of their criticisms and do not appear to have any experts in the field of animal rights protest. That is, unless someone can prove me wrong.-Localzuk(talk)21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You have got to be joking! Vlasak is a surgeon. He knows as much about the realities of animal experimentation as i do about surgery. Just because someone has a MD behind their name and makes some controversial statements reflecting their extremist "extremist" views, [9][10] does not make them an "expert" in a completely different field. Kary Mullis' opinions about HIV spring to mind. He is as much an "expert" the subject as you or I, but because he is a Nobel Prize winner people give his opinion false credibility. Anyway, expert or not, Vlasak's opinion is notable in that he is a campaigner that others in the media quote. Just as the CCF are often quoted in their criticism of PETA. Thus i support the partial revert of their opinion, but concur that facts they provide should not be used unless backed up with other sources.
On that note, a very brief Google search reveals plenty of primary sources from the CCF that they provided during Senate hearings into animal rights terrorism, including evidence that PETA paid a significant amout of Coronado's legal fees (something that was previously removed from this article because it was from the CCF and therefore deemed noncredible). (pdf, p22) Is an PETA's IRS documents verifiable enough? In addition, the quote from Coronado that was removed is sourced to a transcript of Coronado speaking at National Conference on Organized Resistance (pdf, p26)and the very same quote is attributed to Coronado on the ALF webpage [11]. Again, is that verifiable enough? I have no problem removing unsourced material from this article (i removed some of the CCF stuff myself that i couldn't verify), but i do have concerns with attempts to move all criticism when a simple google search would provide verification. Rockpocket02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
RP, you can't label a view as "extremist" because you don't agree with it. Many people find the views of animal experimenters "extremist," because they're the ones who advocate that causing pain to living creatures is justifiable in order to gain research grants, which strikes hundreds of thousands people around the world as extreme and, in fact, bizarre. Likewise, the researchers who do these things regard anyone who disagrees with them as holding "extremist" views. We can't adopt one side's label but not the other. SlimVirgin(talk)12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Slim. I use the term "extremist" in its proper context: "the term "extremist" refers to groups and individuals who have become radicalized, and hence advocate or use methods of aggression or violence in the hope that such will catalyse a desired political or social change (or otherwise will serve as retribution)." People who support and incite action that is over the limits of what is acceptable in civil society are, by definition, extremists, irrespective of whether you or i disagree with their cause. Civil society currently embraces animal research and thus most researchers are not extremists. Civil society does not deem murder or other illegal action acceptable to further a cause, therefore someone who incites such action can be defined as an extremist. Moreover Vlasak is regularly described in the respectable media as "advising", "working with" and being "a spokesperson for extremist organisations" as well as justifying the murder of those who work with animals[12][13][14]. So please do not try to imply that "extremist" is an invalid description of his views, just because you may happen to agree with him. However - if it makes you happier - i'll cite the use of the word that appears to offend you. Rockpocket20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on the Senate testimony RP referenced, I agree David Martosko at CCF is knowledgable enough to have his opinion quoted on this page, and support the revert of my earlier removal. However, I still stand by the removal of the activistcash.com link. As the biography at this site reads,
"Despite his self-description as a “former” Animal Liberation Front activist, Coronado remains active in the animal rights criminal culture." This is a libellous statement, and a reference to this statement should not be on a BLP. Pro crast in a tor18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Pro crast in a tor on this one, it would appear to violate BLP. On a similar note, i notice the Observer has reported on the connections between PETA and Coronado relating to his MSU arson. I'm pretty sure this was in the article before being removed due to the CCF being the only source. I'm proposing a sentence or two be re-instated with this as a source[15]. Opposition? Rockpocket20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Video link
I changed video link description from "Showing Mr. Coronado teaching the methods of fire bombing" to "Shows Mr. Coronado describing how to fill a milk jug with gasoline to make a crude incindiary device". I watched the video, and he didn't say anything about 'fire bombing'. This change may seem overly detailed, however, he was arrested in February 2006 for talking about how he committed his prior arson, so spending a few extra words to be technically accurate seems warranted.
Also, is a YouTube video of a copyrighted program ("Bullsh*t" with Penn and Teller) a suitable reference for Wikipedia? It's not just a snippet, it's a full 15 minute segment. Not being covered under fair use, it seems to me that this video link should be deleted entirely, but wanted some feedback before doing so (I'm new to wikipedia editing). Pro crast in a tor05:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There's the copyright issue, and that the link doesn't actually go to the video, and that the video is about PETA, with only a glimpse of Coronado and the incendiary device. SlimVirgin(talk)06:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, it's not Mr. Coronado's full presentation, just a couple of sound bites, making the possibility that significant context was lost by choice editing. I've removed the video link to the copyrighted episode, though I would like to see the video of his whole presentation so everyone can judge from the primary source material. Pro crast in a tor19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What counts as expertise?
RP, I find this interesting, because above you dismiss the views of Vlasak because he's a surgeon, saying that means he may know about surgery, but not necessarily about animal experiments or animal rights. I agree. But you often quote (or watch others quote) a wide variety of scientists who put forward pro-testing views, even though they also are experts only within their own fields, and don't have the breadth of knowledge about animal testing that a specialist group such as BUAV or PETA has. You promote the views of pro-testing scientists who have only partial knowledge, and you downplay the views of BUAV and PETA; but you also dismiss as uninformed or extremist any scientist who agrees with BUAV/PETA. I'm sensing a closed system of thought there. SlimVirgin(talk)12:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a valid point, SV, if it were the case. However i challange you to show me where i have suggested any scientist is an expert on animal testing. I have suggested certain scientists are experts in their fields and, as such, are qualified to discuss the importance, or lack thereof, of animal experimentation in furthering that field. For example, Colin Blakemore is a world authority on brain and visual development, moreover as head of the MRC he is essentially Britain's most senior scientist in medical research. He is perhaps the most qualified person i can imagine to discuss to the relative importance of animals in medical research. That does not make him an expert on animal rights philosophy, however, and as such he would be innapropriate as a source on such matters and i would never support using him as such.
I acknowledge Vlasak could be considered an expert in commenting on how animal testing has helped or hindered surgical techniques (but no more so than any other surgeon, i would suggest). I can't find any record of him publishing anything in the peer reviewed scientific literature, so evidence of participation in research of any kind appears to be absent. Thus why on earth should his opinion on anything research related be considered credible? Notable, perhaps, in that his calls to murder vivisectors were widely reported, but not credible. Thats the basis on which i think the CCF should be used. Their credibility on these issues are as dubious as Vlasek or Ferdin's, however, they are still notable in that they are critics with a media profile.
I have no problem with credible critics, SV. People like BUAV do have experts working for them and i think you will find i have never queried BUAV as a source. I have a lot of time for Gill Langley, for example. Although i personally disagree with her on certain issues, she is very well respected in her field and has the qualifications and track record to make her criticisms on animal experimentation highly credible. Again, i would never question the use of her opinion as a critical source. Andrew Knight also has some credibility as an expert on animal experimentation. Alan Goldberg at JHCAAT would be a credible source. There are plenty of people that have a proven track record in experimental research, demonstrating a level of understanding, who criticise the use of animals. Vlasak isn't one of them, as far as i can tell. Rockpocket18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
CCF again
Please can all editors aquaint themselves with WP:V and WP:RS. The CCF is not a reliable source of information as it is self proclaimed to be funded by the industries that it supports. It is therefore biased and should only be used as a source about itself per the mentioned policies.-Localzuk(talk)23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's also that it's an attack site and we don't know exactly who currently runs or finances it, because the person who set it up won't give details. SlimVirgin(talk)23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is an attack site, but I can't be bothered to start arguing about this when there are links to such reliable sites like FBI Witch Hunt in the article, do as you please. -Lapinmies23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst you don't agree - you can see it quite simply by looking at the sites that they run.
Regardless, the site has many other flaws which discount its use as well.
I have removed the only link to the FBI Witch Hunt site which can be seen as contentious (it was a copy of an AP report so I just found another AP publisher). The remaining link is an example of the use of the term 'witch hunt'.
I find this article very confusing. He was arrested in February 2006 for having demonstrated an incendiary device in 2003. He was imprisoned, is that right, presumably on remand? In September 2006, he sent people an open letter from his cell. In March 2007, he was released (but why if he was on remand?). In 2007, date unknown, his case went to trial. In September 2007, the judge declared a mistrial. Nevertheless, he then pleaded guilty (but why, if there was a mistrial?). In March 2008, he was sentenced to a year and a day.
He plead guilty because they threatened to retry the case. My memory is that his imprisonment in 2006 was not for the incendiary demo but for another charge - possibly related to a mountain lion hunt sabotage in Arizona. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. He also faced charges for possession of eagle feathers, but that may have been dropped when he plead guilty. - N1h1l (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the deal was that he plead guilty or they would try him for a similar offence in Arizona. Since he presumably gave the same speech at a demonstration there. Rockpocket17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Correction: they were going to charge him in Washington DC, as part of the deal they dropped that and pending charges on an unrelated case in Arizona. Rockpocket17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
External links
Another editor is edit warring to include external links that seem to me to violate WP:ELNO[16]. If that other editor can justify why they do not violate it, I'm all ears. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The links are legitimate because they are as close to an "official site" of the subject (Rod Coronado) as he is legally permitted to have. The first (now archived) was maintained by his wife, and the current one (supportrodcoronado.info) is maintained by a friend of the family who is in contact with the subject's legal team. They provide original material about the subject. (The ALF link I just noticed was part of Tryptofish's changes -- that I have no defense for.) It is not uncommon for activists' support pages to be included in their external links.--Introspector (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for answering here. And I'm glad that we at least partially agree, about the ALF link (appropriate for Animal Liberation Front, but not here). I've looked at both sites, taking into account what you explained here, and here is what I think. Both sites can, as you say, be at least in part regarded as "official" sites of the subject. However, they are both set up, and indeed titled, as sites seeking financial and other support for Coronado. Although they provide information about factual material, such as news developments in the legal proceedings, they are principally set up to solicit money (and there are already plenty of other external links to interviews with the subject). The news developments can be easily sourced to secondary sources, and the websites tend to fall under WP:ELNO number 11 in the way they present the information. Importantly, the support-seeking aspects of the sites fall under WP:ELNO numbers 4 and 5. Using the example given in the policy, although there are certainly lots of websites that sell mobile phones but also contain interesting information about mobile phones, the article about mobile phones does not link to them, because they seek money, regardless of the information that they also contain. When WP:ELOFFICIAL allows certain official websites on biography pages, these are normally of persons who provide information about themselves, not sites like these, that are set up by their supporters to ask for help. The effect of allowing these external links on this page is to use Wikipedia to advertise for support for a cause. I still think they need to be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Introspector, the rule for using self-published websites in BLPs is whether they're under the control of the subject. Whether they also exist to ask for donations is irrevelant; if that were the rule we'd have to remove sites like Save the Children. The second consideration is whether they include personal comments about third parties; see our BLP policy for our approach to sources about living persons -- the basic rule is no self-published sources about other people. Some commentary is okay (Prosecutor X did this, and he shouldn't have), while other comments would not be okay (here is Prosecutor X's photograph and home address). But if the site is primarily offering information about Coronado, and if it's under his control and isn't being used to host personal criticism of other living people, then I see no reason not to use it. SlimVirgintalk|contribs23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The sites seem to me to be offering summaries of information that is also available from other sources, and whether they are under Coronado's control is a matter of parsing, since he is imprisoned, and strictly speaking they are controlled by his supporters. Given that, the interpretation about donations seems dubious to me in this particular instance. These are websites that exist primarily to solicit money, and secondarily provide information, available elsewhere, in order to more effectively solicit money. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that the page is also being revised, a possible work-around just occurred to me. Perhaps there is a way to use these websites as inline citations, instead of as external links. If we can justifiably do that, I wouldn't be concerned about the donation issues. It's just as ELs that it strikes me as a WP:EL issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that these sites do not exist primarily to raise money. The old site is certainly not for that -- the domain has been pirated and the old site now exists only on archive.org and is most certainly not trying to raise funds. It has *tremendous* primary source material in it that is not in fact available elsewhere -- at least not obviously so -- including personal messages from Rod via his wife. The new site mentions financial support among numerous other ways people can contribute, and it also promises to provide updates about the subject's circumstances, which I do not see being provided by other resources. As for your workaround, Tryptofish, I wouldn't normally be inclined to try to work sources into citations just to get the links. I did add a sentence noting the date Coronado entered prison, which I don't think was reported by other sources already cited. For what it's worth, I do think both of these sites offer significant value to the Wikipedia readership in exactly the way external links are intended. My original intent was to correct a bad link that has existed in this article for years (the original supportrod.org site, now defunct), and it was in the process of doing so that I realized the new site could be added just as the old site had been. I even copied and pasted the code from the old link, then altered it.--Introspector (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
What I saw at the older site was a PayPal link right at the beginning. Perhaps the way these links appear is in the eye of the beholder, in which case the most productive thing for us to do would be to get advice from other editors, especially those with experience in external links. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
With that need for advice from other editors in mind, I am posting a request at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. For editors who are new to the page, the two links that we are discussing are these:
SupportRod.org, a website set up by Coronado's supporters following his February 2006 arrest; now archived only.
SupportRodCoronado.info, a website set up by Coronado's supporters following his 2010 reimprisonment.
The majority of the items in the EL section should be slowly migrated to the references or furtherreading sections. Of the two specific links in question, the archived site would be best used as a reference, and the currently active site could remain as a suitable EL per SlimVirgin's rationale. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiddity, thanks very much for the fresh eyes. Perhaps I reacted too much to the fundraising component, so I'll certainly go with consensus here. Introspector and others: I really would, though, like to see the archived site used instead as an inline citation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Quiddity for chiming in. And thanks Tryptofish for helping work this out so congenially. I'd love recommendations for getting the archived site linked as a reference instead of an EL. (I still think it has exceptional interest value as an EL or FR link, because of all the original source material from the subject's wife, but I realize that's not really a criterion for inclusion as an EL, right?)--Introspector (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Taking a cue from your own comment, I'd say take a look at that material from his wife, find one or more facts that are relevant to the account of his life, and add those facts to the page, sourced to the website. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Involvment with PETA?
Is anyone going to talk about his involvement with PETA and him receiving money in exchange for firebombing a lab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.174.23 (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There was huge involvement with PETA during and after this terrorist act. Problem is they'll just keep removing it from the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.120.11 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
An edit I made included adding "eco-terrorist" to the attributes/descriptions of Coronado. If anyone has a problem with this, provide a good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.109.133 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
![[6]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:StevenBest.jpg){kind=link}
Monkeyman(talk) 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)