 :You consistently say it is not eco-terrorism and relate it to pseudoscience. I will concentrate on that if since your primary reasoning is that you obviously disagree with the definition of it being eco-terrorism. Wasn't meant to come across smarmy it is just the way it is.  :In regards to the cat getting listed. It was accidentally listed here on the talk page during a discussion since editors kept on sticking it in the article inappropriately. It was removed but #68 was adamant about it. I removed it until we received more feedback and that is what we got. Now you and T-Base revert it every time relying on a)comparing it to an unrelated pseudoscience ruling (I get the what you are getting at but disagree with its relevance) b)The government of Japan along with leaders in Canada, Iceland, and Norway  official position does not matter. Read the complete discussion next time. If it meets the definition of eco-terrorist at the related article and is labeled as so by government officials it makes sense to include it. :In regards to the FBI mention on the talk page, there is a fun essay here. I think the important thing to pull from it is that people will make changes when there is silence and that consensus can change. I for one have adjusted my position on inclusion. The FBI source has been used inappropriately in the article before but is important since it was used by an official to mark the start of eco-terrorism.  