Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GI's Against Fascism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. OK, people (Cullen328 and JohnKent for example) are arguing that it seems like there are sources covering this and these sources have only partially been contested. So keep, although some coverage appears to be thin enough that some folks are thinking of merging - that may be discussed on the talk page. Allegations about misconduct by Carrite or Anmccaff should be discussed elsewhere; I'd also like to state that even obvious falsehoods can have articles written on them Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GI's Against Fascism

[edit]
GI's Against Fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe, based on a self-published book, out 8 years now, yet held by only one library in Worldcat. Other sources include one from Haymarket Books, never a good sign for mainstream ideas, and a source which is probably overstating the effects of his own life's work. Ditto for the UNC published work. Anmccaff (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Politicized challenge of a topic meeting our General Notability Guideline based on footnotes already showing in the footnotes. The catty comment about Haymarket Books — the largest publisher of left wing books in the United States, bar none, and including in their catalog work by a broad spectrum of writers including Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, Ian Birchall, Ray Ginger, Alex Callinicos, Angela Davis, Philip S. Foner, and scores more is ample evidence of the bad faith of this nomination. Wikipedia is not a repository of "Mainstream Ideas," it is a comprehensive encyclopedia. (Full disclosure, I have one book forthcoming this summer in a Haymarket paperback edition and a contract for four more over the next five years; the sum total I will realize from all of these publications from Haymarket is zero dollars and zero cents.) This is a terrible biting of a newcomer article creator as well, I will add, but hey, it's all just collateral damage, eh? Carrite (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects with general notability aren't usually found principally in a self-published books with limited availability. Haymarket is hardly the largest publisher of left wing books, bar none; it's the largest publisher of stuff so left-wing, so fringe, or so marginal that others rightly don't want to touch it, bother with it, or have their names associated with it. It specializes in political fringe; anything it publishes is suspect until vetted otherwise. Note, too, that Haymarket is the Dover Books of the leftian world; "scores' of its authors are dead, and were before it even began operation. Whether you like Foner, or see him, as many do, of one of the worst academic fraudsters of his time, he had nothing to do with their decision to publish him. Anmccaff (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haymarket is the designated paperback publisher for titles by Brill publishing, a Dutch academic publisher. Keep up the content warriorism, your stripes are showing. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC) "Leftian?" What the hell is "Leftian?" That sounds like a Donald Trump word. Do you mean "radical"? "Left wing"? Haymarket publishes stuff by moderates, liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists, trotskyists, anarchists, independent radicals... I'll bet if I dig deep enough in their back catalog I can even find a conservative or two. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to protest Anmccaff creating multiple edit conflicts during my attempt to rewrite for NPOV. This is an absolutely appalling example of obstructionism in an attempt to "win" a deletion debate. Let me rewrite the fucking thing and THEN you can tag it to your heart's content. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWNership at its finest. I've already opened several of the objections to your version of reality on the talk page; you should address them there, not here. Here we should be discussing whether a subject that can really only be sourced to self-published minor sources and COI-laden fring publications is separately notable at all, much less to be spread as coatracked sections into other articles. Anmccaff (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I call attention to THE TALK PAGE and the edit history for the bad faith effort of Anmccaff to halt any rewrite of this article to correct NPOV problems. The article was started by a newcomer to WP and there are, indeed, NPOV problems. I'm not gonna edit war a content warrior over it, however, the bad faith of this nominator is there for all to see. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the General Notability Guideline. There is no requirement that any subject at WP be "widely covered to show notability." Nor does the time since a subject's existence matter a whit. What does matter is that a subject be covered in a substantial manner in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability — which is the case for this particular subject based on two books, various newspaper stories, and a participant memoir. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; see WP:NTEMP. FourViolas (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published, nearly uncirculated, if libraries are any guide, memoirs are not, in themselves, a reliable source for anything. Minor mention in two books suggests a non-notable flash-in-the-pan in most contexts. Why shouldn't it here? Anmccaff (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep because no valid deletion rationale has been advanced; even if it were legitimate to say that all books published by Haymarket Books are not RS, which it is not, and setting aside the self-published memoir for the sake of argument, multiple reliable (academic or news) sources demonstrate that this article passes WP:GNG. In addition to those in the article, there are mentions of the group or the paper they published in an AP report, Lewis Media History 2001, Gibault Le movement sociale 2003, and Lewis 1972.
With that said, most of these sources aren't very in-depth, giving the group or its paper not much more than passing coverage in the broader context of the group they eventually merged with, the Movement for a Democratic Military, or the even broader topic of GI dissent during Vietnam. Even if the subject technically passes GNG, I feel the material would ultimately be better served by a move to a section in something like Dissent in the United States military during the Vietnam War. This broader topic is unquestionably notable, and is barely touched on in Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. FourViolas (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad concept. This is an article created by a new Wikipedian and he obviously didn't quite get the NPOV tone right, but there's a huge learning curve here. I've been keeping him abreast of what the heck is going on here — going through the AfD wringer can't be fun as a newcomer. Anyway, this alternative solution strikes me as reasonable... Carrite (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to sources already in the article, this group was covered in an article published by the Arizona Republic on October 29, 1969. The attack by the nominator on Haymarket Books is unseemly and unjustifiable. According to our content guideline WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." I believe that books published by Haymarket are generally reliable in the context of left wing political topics. The fact that this publisher sometimes republishes works by deceased authors is evidence of nothing, and personal attacks on individual authors that it publishes are evidence of nothing and completely irrelevant to this debate. There is nothing in our policies and guidelines that requires that our sources be "mainsteam", which is an arbitrary and subjective standard. This deletion nomination is fundamentally flawed, and normal editing should proceed to improve the article. I have no objection to a possible later merge into an article about a successor organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Certain publishers are more likely to publish fringe material, and Haymarket is one of them. The fact that a publisher prints a particular living author may say something about it, based on the author's standing, but the "Dover" model does not. The broad spectrum" (What? Red to infrared?) of authors Carrite listed include a few who have no say about who prints their work, and naming them in that context is silly.
Merging it into one of the obvious targets make sense. Anmccaff (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the following reasons a - its periodical Duck power appears in multiple libraries and a year or so of it is available online b - it is cited in RS sources, such as newspapers from the Vietnam war era c - ok, one single self published book isn't a lot to go with, but the group has been mentioned in more mainstream sources, as a quick Google Book search will show.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What libraries have you found ""Duck Power in? WorldCat shows only 43 holdings total; that's not a significant number. "A year or so" was all it lasted, remember. Anmccaff (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 43 is a pretty good number for a periodical such as this.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
43 holdings on WorldCat for a periodical is a ton. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly (Astoundingly? Astonishingly?), Carrite may be be correct here; like real newpapers, these seem to have been special victims of the War on Paper. The opvious counterparts -Counterpoint (not the Cockburn version) , L-McCh FP, Fed Up and G. I Voice all show similar, and in fact, lower, numbers. That certainly wasn't the case 25 years ago. Anmccaff (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm the original author and, as has been stated, am very new to this. Although a longtime fan and supporter of Wikipedia, I have only recently begun adding content. I felt my original 5 sources were enough, especially with the provided link to copies of the group's publication, Duck Power. I have, however, found 5 more reference articles from the San Diego Union which I would like to add. They refer to several of the original members of the group, the destruction of posters, the court martial of one member, civilian support, etc. I like the suggestion made above about merging this group with the larger group MDM. I have in mind contributing an article on MDM once I find enough information and sources, and I will see if that makes sense.JohnKent (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep to allow for a later redirect and merge into Movement for a Democratic Military. I started by reading the article, which is pretty thinly sourced - especially when you think of the number of academic careers that have been spent combing the 60s for dissertation, article and book topics. I next proceed to search for sources, and there is really very little. A Proquest news archive search turned up only a single mention, in a 1969 article that ('Free Thinking' GI Frustrating Elders, Endicott, William. The Austin Statesman (1921-1973); Austin, Tex. 06 Nov 1969: A16. [1].) I began to think about possible merge topics. Do we have an article on the radical/movement newspapers of the 60's? At this point I began to read the discussion and found User:K.e.coffman's suggestion. It makes a lot of sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Moser, Richard (1996). The New Winter Soldiers: GI and Veteran Dissent During the Vietnam Era. Rutgers University Press. p. 88. ISBN 9780813522425.
  2. ^ Barnes, Peter (1972). Pawns: The Plight of the Citizen-soldier. Alfred A. Knopf Incorporated. p. 129. ISBN 0394436164.
TNWS doesn't even identify it by its proper name, but claims that an organization called "Duck Power" merged with an organization called "Green Machine" to form MDM. That is a fleeting mention, and inaccurate enough to question what else it got wrong. I haven't been able to check P:TPOTCS, but it seems to also make only a fleeting mention, and of the paper (and Mr. Mahoney himself) rather than the organization. Do you know otherwise? I'd have to ILL it to read it, although there's a library copy a few miles from me I could skim, but not take out. Anmccaff (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: @JohnKent: When you add a reference, it's sometimes a good idea to add {{reflist talk}} after it, so it stays pinned near the the section of the discussion its connected with. Otherwise, as others add refs, they can all get pilled up at the bottom of the page in a confusing mess. Anmccaff (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: @Anmccaff: Thank you for the reference tip. The history in TNWS is fairly accurate if a big confusing. GI's Against Fascism which originally published Duck Power merged with the group MDM at Camp Pendleton which operated out of an office or coffee house called the Green Machine.JohnKent (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No charge (pronounced "chahhdj"). No, I would not call that confusing; it's confused. As you and I know, it conflates the organizations with the publications, and, like I said, that hints at further superficiality or sloppiness. I think, though, it might be time to switch some of this over to the article talk page if we continue it, here it's a little too peripheral. Anmccaff (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GI%27s_Against_Fascism&oldid=1137866058"