Talk:Red Guards (United States)

Untitled

Hey! This is a new page on the subject of The Red Guards, a de funct activist group that originated within city of Austin, Texas. This page is in development, feel free to expand it! S1d6arrett23 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

New name

Might be worth mentioning the Red Guards groups are now referring to a "Committee to Reconstitute the Communist Party of the United States of America" that they're aligned to SaoiDunNeachdain (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

26 December 2019 Edits

Despite the fact that we may not see eye to eye on a number of issues regarding the article, I have to admit that Arms & Hearts has done some excellent work cleaning up. However, I do feel that some of the edits were a bit overambitious.

Support

• 1. Good call with WP:WEIGHT in regards to Jason Unruhe's statements.
• 2. The following was removed:

They are militantly opposed to other leftist groups including the DSA, Workers World Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and the Industrial Workers of the World, and have disrupted events and gatherings hosted by these groups in Austin, Kansas City, and elsewhere.

Support because unlike the preceding edit, this does genuinely appear to be a WP:BLPRS issue, especially as one of the sources is a non-journalistic blog post made by an individual.

• 3. In general, the added citation needed tags are warranted.

Oppose

• 4. A number of references (and later, some content) was removed with the comment "rm references that don't seem to be supporting any claims in the article". The references were given after the following:

  On December 17, 2018, Red Guards Austin dissolved; on May 18, 2019, Red Guards Los Angeles went defunct. Remaining Red Guards and Serve The People organizations remain unaffected and are still operating.

As mentioned in the discussion, the organization's activities extend to its various fronts. Thus, sources that attest to boycott activities and actions/campaigns carried out by the Student Front (RSF) that succeed the aforementioned dates do support these claims. However, the claim that the organizations have dissolved must, as correctly pointed out, be properly sourced.

• 5. The following was removed, with the comment "source appears to just be a translation of a statement put out by the u.s. organisation, doesn't support the claim made here":

The Red Guards received statements of solidarity and support from Maoist organizations internationally when one of their leaders, known by the alias Comrade Dallas, was arrested.

It is not correct that the source is a translation. The Norwegian text is original, while the statement made by the US organization was reproduced in the English. Among other things, the Norwegian text reads:

Red Guards fight with the masses in the imperialist belly of the beast, and their struggle and courage inspire us all the way in Norway.

Mixed

• 6. The following was removed:

The Red Guards formed in 2015 as a reaction to the growing gentrification of Los Angeles and Boyle Heights, as well as a response to the "growing neo-fascist movement." The group is named after the Red Guards that operated under Mao Zedong in the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution that were composed of militant students who campaigned against the "reactionary and bourgeois" culture of China.

The following comment was given:

not supported by the source cited -- better to do away entirely with claims in the lede that (1) aren't sourced, (2) don't appear in the article body, and (3) include unattributed and possibly fabricated quotations, than to tag but leave in place

The primary issue is that the first sentence is unsourced, and this is particularly problematic given the quotation marks. I'm entirely unconvinced that claims in the lede that don't appear in the article body pose a problem. However, since the anti-gentrification and anti-fascist fronts are relevant to the organization, later sections of the article should be expanded to include this. Moreover, the second sentence does not need a citation (WP:BLUESKY).

• 7. A Unreliable sources tag was added. Again, as mentioned in the discussion, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" (see WP:BIASED and WP:POVS). Note, moreover, that this is just my guess as to why the tag was added, as aforementioned editor has not indicated their reasoning for adding the tag. Likewise, a Primary sources tag was added, which I partially endorse. While there is a diversity of secondary sources and a handful of tertiary sources, many have been removed in the aforementioned edits; their restoration and further work on the article should be able to address this sufficiently.
• 8. The following was removed, citing "possible blp implications":

On October 12, 2019, members of the Red Guards were involved in an attack on Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members in Kansas City.

Can the aforementioned editor clarify why they believe this is a WP:BLP issue? As for "unreliable source", this is again something that needs to be justified. AndersLeo (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added numbers to your bullet points above for ease of responding and reading, I hope that's okay. I'm also glad you agree with some of the changes I made, and that you've not reverted wholesale. I'll respond to each of your points (setting aside points 1, 2, and 3), but can't promise to stay engaged in working on this article in future – it's my view that the topic isn't notable, so I'm not inclined to expend too much energy on it. So you or anyone else can feel free to take what follows into consideration or ignore it:

• 4. For a claim that "organisation X is still operating" you'd really need a source that says that in almost exactly those terms. A source that says "organisation X defaced some campaign signs" can be used to support the claim that organisation X defaced some campaign signs, but is such a minor irrelevance of an event really worth including in an encyclopaedia article? We're not here to list everything a given organisation has ever done, and shouldn't use routine coverage of this sort as the basis for an article. Incendiary News is not a reliable source (I'll return to this below) and shouldn't be used at all for claims of facts (it can perhaps be used with caution for claims like "Red Guards said xyz"), especially controversial claims about recently-deceased persons, such as accusing them of domestic abuse in the absence of a criminal conviction (regardless of whether the accusations are true).
• 5. I misread a Google Translate version of the source here and assumed that the English-language material in the translation hadn't been in English in the original – my mistake. Still, this probably has the same issue as the Jason Unruhe statement – who is this (presumably non-notable) Norwegian Maoist organisation and why should we care what they say about the subject of this article? If it's going to be included (and I don't think it should be) then we should certainly avoid exaggerating, as I see no indication of support from Maoist organisations in the plural. There may also be WP:BLPCRIME issues again: should we be mentioning that a low-profile individual was arrested at all?
• 6. Per MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic ... significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It's not the most pressing concern, but (with the exception of very short articles) material covered in the lede but not in the body is probably in the wrong place. I also disagree that the origin of the name is a "sky is blue" statement: as Red Guards (disambiguation) indicates, there are at least four other notable organisations they could be named after, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a lineage that emphasises the U.S. Red Guard Party or the Red Guards (Russia) (the first group to use the name, I think) over the Chinese movement. It's a claim that's unsurprising if you know about the history of the left, but it's not WP:BLUESKY material.
• 7. Reliable sources aren't required to be unbiased, but they're required to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". 11 or 12 out of 14 sources cited in the article, as far as I can see, lack such a reputation: two are unquestionably independent reliable sources (Austin Chronicle x2) and one is questionable but not disastrous (Media Matters, see the gloss at WP:RSP), while the rest are unknown left news blogs or primary sources. It's reasonable to use self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves to an extent, but not to base an article on them.
• 8. WP:BLPCRIME applies again to any claims about a "attack" (which from the context I take to be physical in nature). Given that no one's mentioned by name it's not the most pressing issue, but again, given the absence of coverage in independent reliable sources, it's worth asking the same question as I posed above: is this really a significant incident that's worthy of note in an encyclopaedia? Better to avoid it altogether in my view. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

What on earth is going on here? The antisemitic vandalism happening is absolutely absurd, why does the leader's name keep getting changed to "Vile Shlomo"? I can't fix this all myself, More hands on deck please 74.109.28.47 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Off topic) 24.113.250.23 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

A particular user seems to be targeting the page trying to rouse the site. I suggest this be put into a severe warning or a report to an admin. Johnny Conquest (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reported the vandal, awaiting the result. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)