![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Group designation
I think it would be good to have at least a bit of discussion on how the group is designated in the lead. First the (probably) less controversial aspect is I don't think 'organization' is quite correct. The majority of sources ascribe terms that hint at less organization and centralization with the most common being simply 'group' including the first source we have in the article regarding the matter. Second, calling them a 'terrorist' group. While there's certainly enough sources to say they have performed and threatened terrorist acts to keep that in the article, and considering those seem to be the only activities that they engage in, it does make sense for them to be called a terrorist group, but perhaps not in Wikipedia's voice if only because most sources so far avoid the term themselves including the ones that do refer to their actions as such. We do however have one source that specifically refers to them as a terrorist group is from the National Review which currently has no consensus on reliability for Wikipedia. My current suggestion is, unless and until we get better sources describing them as a terrorist group, to have the opening sentence describe Jane's Revenge as "an American far-left group, which has perpetrated and threatened domestic terror attacks in the name of defending abortion rights." Kensai97 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the sources currently support describing either the group or their activities as terrorist, and definitely not in Wikivoice. So far we have exactly one source that describes the group as terrorists: the article from the National Review. That one source can't outweigh the multiple sources that do not use that terminology. I also don't see that any of the sources describe their actions as terror attacks. Squeakachu (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- The source describing the acts as terrorist activities is currently the 4th citation from the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center which, while not using the word 'terrorism' within the text of the very short incident report itself, it does use multiple keywords which it uses for its internal searching purposes identifying the attacks and threats as terrorism. Being a government source, albeit a state one yet also one that works directly with the DHS, it seems to be a pretty good one for the designation of the threats as terrorism. Though for anybody reading this in neither the text nor keywords does it refer to anything such as a terrorist group or terrorist organization. It does reference extremists but just calls it an anti-abortion organization (so contrary to what I had above, I guess there is at least one source that uses 'organization' then). Kensai97 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that search keywords should be considered a source for our articles. More to the point, that keyword list on the right side of the article appears on every single article in their "Homeland Security News" section. For example, this article does not appear to have anything to do with terrorism but has that exact same list of keywords. If I'm understanding it correctly, that keyword sidebar is just a list of their most common article keywords in descending order. The keywords that actually apply to a particular article are listed at the bottom of that article, usually after a "Read more" link to an external news source. The keywords applied to the Jane's Revenge article are "domestic extremist threats & trends" and "fire & arson." Squeakachu (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, very good. I only looked at a couple myself and they were all fine, but I'm guessing it's safe to say you didn't dig through all however many thousand it linked to to find just the one, so odds are certainly that yes it's a very broad keyword for them. So until better sources come up describing either the group or their actions as 'terrorist' in nature (now that the FBI is formally investigating them, apparently) I'm in favor of removing the term. Now there's just the matter of 'group' vs 'organization'. I know it's perhaps less heated than the other term, but despite the one source I noticed calling it an organization, most say 'group' which I am currently favoring as a result. Kensai97 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you regarding group vs organization. Thanks for taking a second look at that source, and for updating the article. Squeakachu (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, very good. I only looked at a couple myself and they were all fine, but I'm guessing it's safe to say you didn't dig through all however many thousand it linked to to find just the one, so odds are certainly that yes it's a very broad keyword for them. So until better sources come up describing either the group or their actions as 'terrorist' in nature (now that the FBI is formally investigating them, apparently) I'm in favor of removing the term. Now there's just the matter of 'group' vs 'organization'. I know it's perhaps less heated than the other term, but despite the one source I noticed calling it an organization, most say 'group' which I am currently favoring as a result. Kensai97 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that search keywords should be considered a source for our articles. More to the point, that keyword list on the right side of the article appears on every single article in their "Homeland Security News" section. For example, this article does not appear to have anything to do with terrorism but has that exact same list of keywords. If I'm understanding it correctly, that keyword sidebar is just a list of their most common article keywords in descending order. The keywords that actually apply to a particular article are listed at the bottom of that article, usually after a "Read more" link to an external news source. The keywords applied to the Jane's Revenge article are "domestic extremist threats & trends" and "fire & arson." Squeakachu (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The source describing the acts as terrorist activities is currently the 4th citation from the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center which, while not using the word 'terrorism' within the text of the very short incident report itself, it does use multiple keywords which it uses for its internal searching purposes identifying the attacks and threats as terrorism. Being a government source, albeit a state one yet also one that works directly with the DHS, it seems to be a pretty good one for the designation of the threats as terrorism. Though for anybody reading this in neither the text nor keywords does it refer to anything such as a terrorist group or terrorist organization. It does reference extremists but just calls it an anti-abortion organization (so contrary to what I had above, I guess there is at least one source that uses 'organization' then). Kensai97 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Terrible article, delete
The article starts with the assertion written in right-wing weasel-speak that this is “a far-left extremist group” when there’s no evidence that this is even a group, or whether it’s made-up provocateurism. Amateurish and speculative. It should be deleted. 24.186.142.146 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input, but I suggest you read some of the sources before making that assertion. As far as right/left goes, you'll notice that while two of the first 5 sources lean towards the right, you'll notice that both Guardian and Vice are quite to the left and both also refer to the group as far-left extremist (Guardian even going so far as to call them militant). The final of those 5 sources is a government agency based in Maryland. As for there being no evidence that there even is a group, I'm not sure what you mean by that as there clearly are, as reported by multiple reliable sources, multiple attacks by groups or individuals referring to themselves by the same name in various locations. The only real question is if the groups are all connected as an organization, or if it's a more loosely organized group. If you'd like to participate in that discussion, then please see the "Group Designation" section of the talk page. Kensai97 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Loaded language
Perhaps this is pedantic, but is the use of "pro-life" in this article considered loaded language? I believe "anti-abortion" would be more neutral and less vague. And if it's directly used from the source, shouldn't it be in quotes then? 2600:1006:B167:FBBC:63B2:BBED:5453:2C9C (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The compromise Wikipedia uses for this conundrum is to call them the Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both loaded in a way that is preferable for its supporters, so I think that Wikipedia's compromise is more neutral. Endwise (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Some problems with this article
- The sources report uncertainty over the groups claims of responsibility for the attacks, or at least attribute those claims. E.g. The attacks on these centers are believed to be linked to Jane’s Revenge..., Jane’s Revenge claimed responsibility after..., Jane’s Revenge, which has claimed credit for.... We need to attribute these claims as well, we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that Jane's Revenge carried out these attacks if reliable sources don't.
- Use of partisan sources, particularly for political designations. National Review is a conservative magazine focusing on commentary/opinion. Influencewatch.org is a Capital Research Center venture, another conservative org. "Far-left American extremist group" is a designation only found in partisan conservative sources, whereas more neutral sources like The Independent, The Guardian, Vice, Newsweek, and Axios, call it a
militant pro-abortion
ormilitant abortion rights
group.
I'll go ahead and make changes to remedy some of these issues in a sec. Endwise (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Vice and Newsweek aren't considered any more reliable than the National Review by Wikipedia and Wikipedia warns against Axios' and The Guardian's bias when it comes to political matters. I haven't been able to find an official Wikipedia stance on either Influence Watch or their parent Capital Research Center, so one can't say it's unreliable, but it's also not reliable and thus should be left out. Either National Review should be added back in or Vice and Newsweek removed. I opt toward the latter as removing other bad sources is better than balancing out the bad sources. That only leaves The Independent as the best remaining source (though I think Guardian and Axios are fine enough to leave in for now as additional sources). It's also false to say that only partisan conservative sources list them as 'extremist' when the Guardian leans left and also refers to them as such. So while I agree we should remove and mention of being to the left, calling the group a 'militant extremist abortion-rights group. It seems a little clunky having both, but it's worth noting that the actions are significantly above and beyond the norm for groups with similar goals.
- As for attributing the claims, I fully agree. I think that falls under BLP and so I think that's the case even if sources did directly attribute the actions to them, though for now they don't anyway. Kensai97 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding labeling, I was more talking about "far-left" there. "Extremist" is somewhat similar to "militant", and e.g. CBS News does use it in place of militant as well, so it's not that out of the picture. (BTW, "militant" is sometimes media speak for "terrorist but we can't call them that", so it's not exactly obvious that "militant" is that much kinder than "extremist"). But the parity of usages in reliable sources is definitely still with "militant", so I think it's what we should use. As well as the ones I've listed above, here's some more: The Tablet, a local ABC affiliate, a local Michigan newspaper, The Guardian (different article), The Independent (different article), etc. It really is just what sources call them. Hell, even pro-life orgs get in on the fun, as do less reliable conservative news orgs like NY Post and Daily Wire.
- Regarding source reliability, Newsweek wasn't used for the labelling, but point taken on Vice (I'll take it out after I publish this comment). There are additional existing sources one could add, but 3 is probably enough, and after journalists are given time to write about the aftermath of Dobbs, I'm sure there'll be more sources to look at too. Also, I was a bit clumsy in my original comment, but I want to make sure there's some nuance about reliability vs. bias here. For example, The Guardian leans left and (say) WSJ leans right, but they have robust fact checking and their non-opinion pieces are still reliable sources that count in the determination of WP:DUE. National Review is in general commentary/opinion of a partisan nature, and in general arguably less reliable, so they should matter less in the determination of WP:DUE than non-opinion Guardian and (say) WSJ articles should. Basically, bias is a factor for political things like this, but it's not the only factor. Endwise (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose I can see the point about only one or the other being needed and I definitely agree that if having to have just one, militant is currently the better between it and extremist just based on the sources even without the additional ones you listed. I do think the the two terms do confer slightly different meanings that don't necessarily overlap, but not enough to think it takes away from the article and thus to debate about changing it.
- As for source reliability, I think we're pretty much in line on that as well. Basically, according to Wikipedia standards we should just plain avoid both National Review, Vice, and Newsweek if possible. And instead of your example I'll just use The Guardian and Fox News because Wikipedia considers both reliable, but gives both a similar caveat regarding politics albeit in opposite directions. They can be used to give additional weight as well as if they report on something the opposite direction of how they typically lean, but in situations like this they should be used to reinforce less biased sources (The Independent, in this case) on "contentious" matters I guess is the best word, while still being able to rely on them on matters of simple facts (who, what, where, and when, but perhaps not the why). I hope that's not too far off from what you're basically saying too? Kensai97 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at some more sources published after the release of the Dobbs decision, I think "extremist" is actually used a fair amount. A DHS memo called them "suspected violent extremists", and the "extremist" language seems to be uncritically quoted by the MSM in response, e.g. ABC News and WaPo. Possibly a bit clunky, but if I google "militant extremist" it is a phrase that people use, so I think we should probably actually go for it.
- The difference between The Guardian and Fox News, at least according to the Wikipedia community, is that The Guardian is still reliable for political matters, whereas Fox News is listed as "no consensus". I agree that especially for labeling an eminently political group, more neutral sources are better, but (again at least according to the Wikipedia community) The Guardian is still significantly more preferable to Fox News for something like this. Endwise (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kensai97: how about this version? Endwise (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Suffragette bombings
Should these be included in the “See Also” section as well? 2600:1014:B000:5EE6:753A:613D:724A:6B66 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have added it (it fits the same general topic of pro-women's rights terrorism). Endwise (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Timeline of Jane's Revenge attacks into Jane's Revenge
I don't think that Jane's Revenge is WP:TOOBIG at the moment, nor will it be if the timeline is added to the article. I don't think a WP:SPINOFF is necessary at this time. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. No need to split it off just yet. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. For now it's small enough still that the list has just as much or more information on each incident than this page and also includes more of them without being too overwhelming with the current size Kensai97 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support, per nomination, and the two comments above. Storchy (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. List is unrealistically long for a merger and it standard to keep separate lists of attacks. Juno (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)