Talk:Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

relocating reference storage from article space to talk[edit]

The article space is not for hosting "in the press" type stuff and I am relocating them here just so they're available for editors to use if needed.

Graywalls (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

czar 14:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition review[edit]

I was told to discuss this on here. I thought we should add another review, so I added one by Paul Gottfried in Chronicles magazine. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@3Kingdoms: Why did you choose to add a review by Gottfried, who's associated with the fringe perspectives of palaeoconservatism and the alt-right, rather than a review by a writer with more mainstream views? There are dozens of good sources that could be used to expand this article without giving undue weight to minority perspectives (several are linked in the section above). As I mentioned in my edit summary, we could cite Gottfried as one of a number of reviewers and commentators, but citing him as one of only three reviews, and as the only review by an academic, risks creating the inaccurate impression that his views are commonplace or representative. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I chose Gottfried because he was one that I found first and read. I disagree about the Fringe view. Gottfried has to my mind never expressed any racist views. His connection to the Alt-right is rather small. He associated with Richard Spencer in 2007-2008 and spencer didn't go full on White Nationalist and Fascist till 2010. Also as you noted he is and academic who still teaches, so I do not find him to be a problem. Finally I did not intend for him to be the only source, I thought others would then add some more. Since his view was negative and the other two were positive I thought this could provide balance. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously we were citing both a review in Chronicles magazine and a review from The American Conservative; both are published by conservative think-tanks. I think even citing one publication by a think-tank is already dubious unless the source or think-tank are extremely notable and have a sterling reputation, but it's certainly inappropriate to cite two that are employed to advance the same perspective. --Aquillion (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed Gottfried; see a related discussion here, especially my comment further down. Chronicles isn't notable, Gottfried is a fairly fringe figure, and altogether it's published by a think-tank, which (like most things cited only to think-tanks without any particular reputation) implies it's an insignificant enough view that no one has taken note of it unless they're specifically paid to advance that point of view; all of this adds up to very WP:UNDUE indeed. --Aquillion (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gottfried is an academic published in Universities. He arguable much better than any of the other posts. TAC is more reliable than Green Left Review [1]. And GLR is published by an effective left-wing think tank. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection of removal of Gren Left Review as non-due. Agree that Gottfried and in particular Zachary Yost have no place here, as very much undue fringe perspectives. As per the Antifa (US} talk page, we shouldn't just add in any review whose politics we agree with; we should go with authoritative, recognised sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is about book reviews i.e. opinions which as the wiki rules note is different than something being cited as fact. There is nothing fringe about the review from TAC. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see our policy on due weight: WP:WEIGHT. Our job is not ensuring that all opinions are covered, but ensuring that the range of opinions in RSs are given due prominence in proportion to their prominence in RSs. Key point: Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. Chronicles are not really reliable sources, and giving them equal prominence to mainstream publications such as SF Chronicle or Washington Post would create false balance. It's not that you want the article to push a particular POV is it? I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policies on book reviews and can't find it: if it departs from the general due weight policy, please link here. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TAC s not a fringe publication. I'm not going to get into a another discussion on Gottfried again, so simply put it he has the qualification to review works on fascism and anti-fascism. There is no false balance adding in a review. Yes the rules are different when you are smply including what one person thinks as opposed to saying something as fact. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re TAC: our RSP listing just describes it as highly opinionated, but in the most recent RSN discussion, never closed,[2] it was clear a majority (14-8) considering it generally unreliable or worth deprecating rather than generally reliable with or without caveats. Re "the rules": "when you are smply including what one person thinks as opposed to saying something as fact" is WP:OPINION and therefore guided by principles of due weight and balance, as per my links above. I'm wondering if there are specific guidelines for how to give due weight to reviews on the WP pages for books. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well since it has not been deprecated, it doesn't really matter. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3Kingdoms: given TAC is deprecated and there is a strong consensus against inclusion, can you undo your reversion of my removal please? Thanks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TAC is not deprecated. [3] 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I got confused! Nonetheless there is no consensus for inclusion and should be removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem happens to all of us. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was a bit tired when I commented above. Thanks for understanding. Correct, TAC is NOT deprecated, although there is a consensus against its reliability. However, it is clear that there is no consensus for inclusion in this particular article, as three editors have removed it and one has argued for it. Per WP:NOCON, that means it should be removed. It is bad practice to revert twice, so I won't, but I believe that 3Kingdoms the right thing to do would be undoing your revert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry was away for a bit, was going to revert, but I saw it was already done. Have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian antifa police[edit]

I'm not really sure what to do with this recent edit by Nicole Bazarov. While the anecdote and Bray's explanation of his perspective is interesting, I'm not really sure why this particular bit of content's been taken from the quite wide-ranging interview cited. I'm also not sure that the source supports the vague claim that "Bray's book was the target of a controversy", though without an introductory sentence of that kind I'm not sure how we'd incorporate the material. I'd be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not due here in such depth. Have trimmed. The interview is interesting but doesn't say a lot about the book - might be worth looking at it for Bray's own article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy around the book[edit]

Mark Bray has in the past promoted the use of violence and has justified the use of illegal actions by antifa, which lead to Dartmouth University president Philip Hanlon distancing the univeristy from him and his book which was a big story around the time back in 2017. Hes also said some pretty bizarre and contradictory things such as comparing antifa to slaves or holocaust victims and promoting the idea of "preemptive attacks" while also saying he doesnt promote violence. In response 100 faculty members came out in defense of Bray, saying he did not violate any university rules. Ironically enough, they disagreed with the president and claimed that his statement distancing the university from Bray for what they perceived as advocation of violence, he was putting Bray at risk of "physical harm"

https://dartreview.com/controversy-surrounding-mark-bray-on-vice-news/

https://www.fosters.com/story/news/2017/08/29/dartmouth-faculty-condemn-statement-over-antifacomments/18971948007/

https://www.vermontpublic.org/vpr-news/2017-08-29/dartmouth-faculty-and-administration-at-odds-over-lecturers-comments-about-antifa Friedbyrd (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa:_The_Anti-Fascist_Handbook&oldid=1216237703"