Talk:Anti-Racist Action/Archive 1

Archive 1

removing

I´m removing NPOV notice... since nobody has left anything on the talk page or anywhere else that i can find to indicate where the bias in this article exists... Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute

Beta_m — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 23 August 2004 (UTC)

Auto-biographical bad, right?

The use of "we" and heavy bias were present in the last edit. I've restored an earlier version, that wasn't so bloody self-congratulatory. The ARA is not an unblemished organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Wakelin (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

No real factual errors

Everything on the page is more or less true.

A balanced page about ARA would be wonderful, but balanced does not mean it must be laudatory of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.172.61 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has contradicted the above statement, I'm going to remove the {disputed} tag. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User2004 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Choice Vs. Pro-Life

There is a debate over when life begins. But there is no debate whether or not abortion is a choice. Except for instances where aborition is forced on someone, which doesn't apply to this issue. Therefor I feel the word "anti-choice" should be left and linked to "pro-life". --Mista-X 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, so we use the term as it is used, not as you feel would be most accurate. See WP:NOR. Sam Spade 21:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And even further, such a piped wikilink would be really bizarre: If "anti-choice" is really the neutral term, then we'd have an article at anti-choice and wouldn't need a piped wikilink. The term "anti-abortion activists" would be acceptable in place of "pro-life activists" though, if people prefer it. Also, the now-removed scare quotes around "activists" were very odd. --Delirium 02:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I added in brakets the ARA would refer to them as "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion"... hopefully this is acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mista-X (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

ARA is non-ideological

Therefore it should not be associated with Anarchism. It is fair to mention that the majority of the members are usually Anarchist, but for example this is not the case anymore in Toronto, where most of the members are now communist. --Mista-X 05:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though the membership does change; so this may no longer be the case. --Mista-X 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pro life vs Anti Abortion

Can everybody at least click on the link anti abortion. Do you see where it goes? The wikipedia community has already decided what the correct term is. Please respect it. Prester John (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. - so according to the page you are talking about pro-life goes further than simply being against abortion, when there is an widely used term, that deals exclusively with abortion, then perhaps it would be the correct term to use, however according to the pro-life page, pro-life also means being against the death penalty, are you trying to say that the ARA are pro-death penalty? Can you cite an example of them being pro-death penalty? if you can, please do so, so that this issue can be clear.Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you tried the link anti abortion. Try it again. where does it go? Why do you think that is? Stop throwing Red Herrings around about the death penalty. Prester John (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

shall we ask for a third opinion regarding this? My opinion is that there are many people who are anti-abortion, however are not pro-life. There are many people who are anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty, what does that make them? Semi-Pro-life? anyway, lets discuss this and see if we can come to a solution that everyone is happy with Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You probably should. Since the link anti abortion infact goes to the page pro-life, I will keep "Bypassing" your POV redirect attempts. Prester John (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I respect the fact that you are honest, and are willing to admit the fact that you are willing and plan to enter into an edit-war, despite it being in clear violation of wikipedia guidelines. I however, will try to solve this issue with discussion, and yet again, I am asking you to discuss this issue. Do yourself a favour, John. with the greatest respect Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is correct policy to bypass any POV redirects. Prester John (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

anyway problem solved, thanks to spylab. Sometimes it is best for the 2 people who have a difference of opinion to step back for a moment, and let someone else deal with it.Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

File:ARA-logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ARA-logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ARA-logo.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Leftist political ties

I think the group's overt connection to several communist or far-left socialist political groups must be mentioned. In Canada there is a very definite link between the Marxist-Leninist Party and Communist Party of Canada.

I think you are going to have to provide a source. I doubt you have anything "very definite", since it's not true. --Mista-X 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide a source for it not being true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.80.113 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I've seen a couple clips on Youtube of the ARA disrupting some sort of neo-nazi demonstration/protest. There were definitely some communistic phrases and quotes mentioned in the clip. I'll try to post a link if I can track it down again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

One or two "Communist phrases" spoken by someone in a video shows that person might be a communist, but I don't see how it would show links between ARA and any of the CPs. --Mista-X 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Checked. Can't find it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Mista-X, and agree that until there is confirmed evidence it only seems like there is a large number of communists associated with ARA in Toronto, but no link between the group's leadership and established leftist political parties.

Who is the leadership of ARA? By the very bases of the group's organizational structure (anarchist principles) I would think there would be no such thing as a "leader". Also, what is your bases for saying there is a "large number of communists"? How do you know who are members of ARA, who are supporters who simply go to their events, rallies or actions, and who are members of other organizations that go to their rallies? How do you then break down the communist-anarchist-non-ideological ratio of the membership? How do you know if the membership is the same as that of two or 3 years ago? etc. etc. You must either be deeply involved with the organization, a CSIS agent, or you are simply just speculating. --Mista-X 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I've dug up the old Youtube video I was talking about previously, MistaX. Search yourself for "ARA Toronto Confronts Neo-Nazis" and you'll note that in one video there are key organisers in the film mentioning communistic phrases and others holding a FLAG OF THE SOVIET UNION and FLAG OF EAST GERMANY. Now, as a casual viewer of the clip in question I would come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, a definite connection between ARA and the Canadian Communist movement.

Not a member of the group. Not a CSIS agent. Not speculating. Just a person who sees the hypocrisy for what it is.Cashcleaner

It's important to understand how political and activist organizations work. You can have people part of one who also happen to be part of a political party. This doesn't mean the political party endorses, or even has anything to do with one or more of those organizations. If you are speaking of the Nerve video (which can not be used as a citation), one person quotes Mao and another Mandela. So you might come to the conclusion that those individuals are communists or communist sympathizers. But have you seen these quotes in any ARA literature? Has ARA in Toronto declared communist politics or displayed Marxist ideas? So now, what hypocrisy do we have? Organizations change all the time and the same people that may have been "key organizers" may not have been involved anymore a year later. However, ARA is a decentralized network based on 5 points (avail online) and clearly doesn't identify itself with any political ideology, nor does it act as a front for any party. Hope this clarifies. --Mista-X (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So by this logic you're using, although the flags of the USSR and East Germany are waving widely in the air and pro-communist slogans being said in the videos, that's NOT identifying anyone with the communist movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.214.21 (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblemished?

While certainly not unblemished, ARA is not the violent hate group that it's made out to be in this article.

If one took the time to research those so-called riots that are mentioned, one would learn that nearly none were shown conclusively to have been started by or involved ARA members.

Neo-nazi's have murdered ARA members (and many, many others) in the past, not the other way around.

   Where's the proof?

" where's the proof " ? http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/2011/10/a-history-of-violence-1970-2015.html

It's all well documented, actually. Mista-X (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anti-Racist Action. 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/20120803021740/http://www.citypages.com/2008-02-20/feature/skinheads-at-forty/ to http://www.citypages.com/2008-02-20/feature/skinheads-at-forty/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.loveandrage.org/?q=taxonomy%2Fterm%2F27%2F9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310092230/http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1581/index.php to http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1581/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310122356/http://antiracistaction.org/Battle-of-Pemberton to http://antiracistaction.org/Battle-of-Pemberton
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525045538/http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/neo-nazis-opponents-brawl/article_e6d4a41d-5036-5140-bffd-a9ed115bcf11.html to http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/neo-nazis-opponents-brawl/article_e6d4a41d-5036-5140-bffd-a9ed115bcf11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523190617/http://oaklawn.patch.com/articles/black-hooded-group-attacks-patrons-with-bats-at-tinely-park-restaurant to http://oaklawn.patch.com/articles/black-hooded-group-attacks-patrons-with-bats-at-tinely-park-restaurant

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The Torch Network is not a rename for "Anti-Racist Action"

Even their website doesn't make that claim, it says "“The Torch Network is a network of Militant antifascists across (but not limited to) the united states. We are born out of, and pay our respects to, the Anti-Racist Action Network."[1] See also [2], [3] and Mark Bray's book[4]. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Torchist blocked for 24 hours for editwarring, love the use of the organisation as a source for the rename.[5] Hell, it doesn't even claim a rename, it says "Out of the old Anti-Racist Action Network rises a new, militant anti-fascist network. This isn’t a fracture or schism coming from internal strife but the result of the realization that the blueprint laid out in a time before the internet no longer serves as a sufficient model for combating fascism. We acknowledge that many of our comrades have lost much, some their lives, under the banner of ARA. Their sacrifices will not be forgotten and their fight is still our fight. Because of changes in the current political climate as well as our own political development, our understanding of what fascism is and how it relates to other political entities such as the working class, capital, and the state has evolved. We wanted to build a new network that fit our needs and politics." "rises a new" "wanted to build a new". Doug Weller talk 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It is funny when you consider the last post on the official (no longer updated) Anti-Racist Action website in 2013 announcing the name change and carrying on activities under the new name of the Torch Network instead, including continuing ARA's Points of Unity and annual conference. It explicitly states in that final post on the official ARA website "We are still on the prowl. We will still continue to expose, confront, and act. Fascist beware… we are TORCH." Bray's book also treats the two as continuous.

The South Side Chicago Anti-Racist Action branch hosted the rebranding conference in 2013 and all the other official ARA chapters attended. This isn't a secret, this isn't some kind of controversial point the group is trying to hide, its openly declared on their own website. As far as I can see the only person that has ever tried to suggest otherwise, for whatever reason, is you, Doug Weller. I am more than happy to take the time to create a Torch Network (2013-present) article to complement an ARA (1987-2013) article if that is your main course of reasoning for obstructing content development. Though it does seem to me ridiculous to have two articles on the exact same organisation under different names... just because Doug Weller. Also, if that is your bone of contention, then you need to put citation needed tags or tags suggesting an article split instead of wholesale revision of referenced content (most of the content you reverted covers pre-2013 activities in any case). Torchist (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Torchist: as I was the second person to do the revert, your comments about me are confusing. You haven't actually dealt with my points either. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your "point" has been addressed specifically with a quotation from the official website of the organisation announcing its future operations in 2013. So you have been shown to be categorically mistaken on that point. The single-purpose account which fly-by reverted (who you ostensibly follow-up reverted for) hasn't replied here for four days. Are you now going to respond specifically to constructive ways to move forward in regards to the content itself or are you just going to leave vague messages to try and obstruct development of the article? Specifically, are you suggesting that there needs to be two articles, or what? You're not been very clear. The reason I am addressing you specifically on the name issue, is because its just you trying to use that as an excuse to try and remove referenced content: there is no realiable evidence that anybody other than Doug Weller has ever claimed that ARA is not Torch (they say they are, their members say they are, academic coverage of the topic like Bray says they are). Torchist (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also note that you are now making patently false statements in your edit summary in your latest revert. Not a single messageboard is cited anywhere in the article content at all, this is an outright falsehood. Which "messageboard" is cited? The Doug Wellerism "name issue" has now been conclusively addressed with a reference added to the article of the official statement on the organisation's official website. If certain elements of the article are not referenced in your opinion, then those elements need highlighting or removing, not the entire thing which has over 80 references (there is no excluse for removing the whole thing if your quibble is unspecifified bits which you say needs referencing). List what needs referencing here and I will provide references for it. Torchist (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your rewrite was contentious. Maybe you should start over, this time making sure that your edits are properly sourced. And when someone disputes your edits, don't revert them but come to a consensus on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bray says: In September 2014, Chicago hosted the first annual conference of the new Torch Network, which inherited the legacy of the ARA Network. It now claims twelve chapters including Philly Antifa, South Side Chicago Anti-Racist Action, Rose City Antifa, and Atlanta Antifascists. (This is the only mention of the Torch Network in his entire book.) This fairly unambiguously states that it was a new organization and not a rename - and as an academic who studies anti-fascism, published work by Brey obviously takes precedence over an editor's interpretation of something posted to an organization's personal website. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In case people haven't noticed, Torchist has created a new page Torch Network where much of the material deleted from this page has been added. ×BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken them to WP:COIN. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 rewrite

This article was more-or-less rewritten from scratch in June 2020. The sourcing is pretty terrible – it relies on a lot of primary sources and self-published blogs. Parts look like they're well-sourced because they have citations to newspapers following the statements. However, checking the sources reveals that they don't verify the text in the article. For example, this article was cited to say that ARA was inspired by the Anti-Fascist Action, which comprised Trotskyists who were expelled from the Anti-Nazi League for "squadism". The Tribune says absolutely nothing about any of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of use:ful new material, but definitely needs going through with a fine-toothed comb, as lots of the cites are problematic. Some verification needed tags are in order. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It also should be about the Torch network, not Antifa in general - and it seems to be promoting various individuals without policy or guideline rationale. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Would people consider undoing the June 2020 rewrite? First, as pointed out the sourcing is terrible - often, the citations do not actually support the statements being made.

Second, the rewrite names several individuals who the editor claims to be involved in antifascist groups. These claims are not supported. This is close to doxxing.

Finally, the entire rewrite is seemingly based on a report about Torch Network from a far-right blog, "The William McKinley Institute for the Study of Anarcho-Terrorism". Editors can have their personal opinions but the whole rewrite is extremely agenda-driven, from an "anti-antifa" perspective.

What do others think about this? I'm going to give it a couple of days before making any changes.GNO23 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The expansion is based primarily on the main academic treatments of the topics Mark Bray's Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook and Jeffrey Kaplan's The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization, as well as various news media articles on the group and the wider anarchist and punk scene in Minneapolis which cover the Baldies/ARA/Torch, all of which are presented in the article.

The individuals who were involved in setting up the group like Knutson, Nevilles, Mic Crenshaw (who even has his own bio page on here), Bello, are all publically named individuals in reliable sources and freely conduct public interviews about their history in the group with media to this day (and indeed the main founder Knutson does so in Bray's book). Others have been named in media reports as a result of arrests in high profile incidents. Nevertheless, there is no Wikipedia policy that says referenced individual political personalities should be redacted if the group they are involved in is somewhat controversial or fringe to the mainstream. All other political organisations on Wikipedia mention the movers and shakers who are noted by the media as playing a significant role in their respective groups.

You should really familiarise yourself with policies such as assuming good faith before positing conspiracy theories and making ad homenim attacks. Not that I have to "declare" an interest either way, as a private Wikipedian, but my "interest" is as a student of underground left-political grouping and the socio-political history of modern racism. As for the website that you've linked, I've never heard of it before until you posted it here. As far as I can see from their document, the only vague "similarity" is that they list the official chapters and conferences of ARA/Torch.... which are openly listed on this groups own official websites. Their report also adds in as "affiliates" groups like Redneck Revolt and Smash Racism DC, which while similar, don't seem to be officially part of the Torch Network, though their information about the expulsion case of Great Lakes Antifa from Torch/ARA in 2018 is interesting, if there are reliable sources for that it should probably be included here. So thanks for the link.

I'd love for you to point out any part of the article which suggests a supportive or oppositional stance to the group, its just descriptive information inline with available reliable sources, trying to stick to NPOV, ie - the basis of Wikipedia. Also I would love for you to give a clear example of references not conveying what the sentence before it states (obviously we can't just cut and paste an entire text from a work and pass it off as our own, that is plagarism, but any that are particularly contentious could have specific quotes if requested -- as I have provided with Kaplan, when that was requested). The correct tag you are looking for is the "citation needed" tag, or if you dispute the neutrality of elements of the article, then specifically the NPOV tag, you don't get to just remove vast swathes of reliably referenced material without providing contructive suggestions for content development. As far as I can see your objective for stifling the development of content on this group seems to be to keep information about it deliberately vague and esoteric. Why is that? Torchist (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, there are no "vast swathes of reliably referenced material" in the June 2020 rewrite. Users NinjaRobotPirate and BobFromBrockley have already noted misleading or dubious citation within the rewrite. One other example among many is the use of this Oregonian article to name someone as a member of Portland Anti-Racist Action. The article makes no such claim. GNO23 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@GNO23: I've been meaning to reply. Yes, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Appreciate the feedback. I have manually reverted to the last version before the June 2020 rewrite.

Torchist reverted you calling your edit vandalism. They have never responded to any warnings or my question about a possible COI. I've warned them about disruptive editing and personal attacks. User:NinjaRobotPirate do you think COIN should be involved? Or just ANI?

I've not been online much in recent weeks so missed most of this. I feel there was some useful detail in the June rewrite material so it is a pity to junk it all, but there was undoubtedly a lot of really problematic stuff (bad sources, tendentious use of good sources, unsourced stuff) as well as undue biographical details, so I think it is right to get rid of it. It would be good to go through the deleted material and see if anything can be salvaged, but it should definitely be done with caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted as well. The editing makes it far too difficult to sift through and review. Please work in small edits with descriptive edit summaries. Work from independent sources first. Avoid working on the lede until it's clear the material is appropriate in the article body with proper weight. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)