Talk:Jane's Revenge

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

Group designation[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia itsrlf defines terrorism as: "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence and fear to achieve an ideological aim. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel)."
The group is being investigated by the government, while social medias have already declared it a terrorist organization.
While I do not know what wikivoice is, it would be odd if accuracy is sacrificed, in a way that promotes a terror group.
If this was far right or islamic this conversation wpuld probably less easily removed the designation "terrorist" because theese groups are seen, weather correctly or not, as more prone to terrorism then the left in the post-communist west.
I was not aware of this talk page while editing.
I will undo the reintroduction of "organization" until more sources on the matter are brought to tye table. 147.235.207.162 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That description you quote is from terrorism, an article about the subject. It's not how "Wikipedia itself defines terrorism" as a policy.
You can read more about Wikivoice at WP:WIKIVOICE. And please don't threaten to undo the edits of your fellow editors. Wikipedia runs on WP:Consensus. You're welcome to continue making your case for the change here though. Storchy (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "threaten to undo the edits of your fellow editors", but stated I will undo a mistaken edit I did: "I will undo the reintroduction of "organization" until more sources on the matter are brought to the table." Ho ho ha hay (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification. Storchy (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible article, delete[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Loaded language[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some problems with this article[edit]

I'll go ahead and make changes to remedy some of these issues in a sec. Endwise (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Kensai97: how about this version? Endwise (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with it. Thanks. Kensai97 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragette bombings[edit]

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)[reply]

I have added it (it fits the same general topic of pro-women's rights terrorism). Endwise (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Timeline of Jane's Revenge attacks into Jane's Revenge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus over here supports a merge for now. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree. No need to split it off just yet. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support, per nomination, and the two comments above. Storchy (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per above. Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terrorist claim[edit]

We should rely on official sources, not the media. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept reference added a few minutes ago [1] describes an internal policy document at Facebook, which recommends censoring material connected with the group. We could potentially add a sentence about Facebook's policy on the group in the body of the article, though that wouldn't justify using the description of "terrorist" in the lead. Storchy (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Official sources" as in the government? I don't get what youre getting at, and why claiming facebook was designating it as a terror group needs "official" backup... Ho ho ha hay (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ho ho ha hay I mean when government sources classify it as terrorist, we can. If you disagree go to WP:RSN and ask if your sources are sufficient. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would pretty much restrict terrorist designations to either major or at least bold groups, while including every group, that opposes a government, of such notebility as terrorist. It would make slightly more sense if states like Iran, China, Russia ext... are not considered official or if there are more criteria, but I really don't get the rules Ho ho ha hay (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ho ho ha hay It would mean that the media aren’t a source for it, yes. But as I told you you can ask elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New article from VICE pertains to this "group" (which isn't necessarily a group).[edit]

This article is not up to the usual Wikipedia standards. It should be rewritten.

This is the latest article I've found about it:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3ppmj/what-is-janes-revenge-abortion-rights

VickiMeagher (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a group in the conventional sense, or even a movement. And since nobody has been convicted of (or even arrested for) any of the crimes listed in the "Actions" section yet, there's not even a useful way of knowing which (if any) of the "actions" listed were committed by people actually opposed to the repeal of Roe v Wade.
To clarify this, we could start by citing what the public information officer for the Nashville Metro PD said, quoted in that Vice.com article you linked. Storchy (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead and attempted that myself: [2] What do you think? Storchy (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Storchy, if it's not a "group", is it an individual writing a blog? Is the group responsible for only the blog, only the attacks, or are we forced to conflate both types of activity until proven otherwise? If it's an individual, they're very busy traveling! I feel that consensus among sources indicates that we can safely call them a group. In cybersecurity terms, they would be deemed a threat actor which doesn't make a one-or-many distinction. Elizium23 (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we have only the blog writer's (or writers') word for it that they have anything to do with the attacks. Is there a law enforcement statement somewhere verifying that the blog author has knowledge of the attacks (e.g., proof by a phoned-in code word to police before an attack on a building) demonstrating a link, beyond reasonable doubt? Thinking out loud, is Anonymous (hacker group) a reasonable analogy? There were spotty-faced kids joining in, performing online vandalism with the LOIC app, but that didn't make them part of a group. To my mind, we'd be on shaky ground comparing DDOS-ing a website with burning down a church.
The fact that it's difficult to describe them shouldn't mean that we must default to calling them a group. "A series of acts" is accurate either way. Storchy (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you just said there's nothing definitely connecting the group to the acts. Jane's Revenge is not acts. I do not understand how a reasonable person could say that a blog is an act, or a group is an act, or a movement is an act, or that an individual writing the blog is an act. Jane's Revenge has been linked to acts through multiple WP:RS. Yes, the links are tenuous and unconfirmed, and amount to claims or matching slogans. But the RS are doing the links and we're reporting the way the RS describe those links, and we'll just avoid linking them ourselves. But Jane's Revenge is an actor, not acts. If we wrote that "Jack the Ripper is the murder of a woman in England" we would be contradicted right quick. Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, there's nothing definitely connecting the hypothetical group to the well-documented acts.
Nobody is saying a blog is an act, or a group is an act, or a movement is an act, or that an individual writing the blog is an act. Actions have been taken by individuals, who sign it with "Jane's Revenge". Does that make them part of a group? What if some of the vandalism is being carried out by pro-life extremists, for political reasons?
And Jack the Ripper was an individual, not a group. We're talking about whether or not Jane's Revenge is a group. Storchy (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Intercept and Facebook [3] consider it a group.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by Wikipedia's usual standards, we go with what the press call it. So I won't change the designation in the article from "group", because as with Anonymous (hacker group), most reliable sources use the word "group" as a convenient shorthand to describe something that's not-quite-a-group. But unlike Anonymous, there is no evidence yet of any coordination, beyond people reading about Jane's Revenge and going out to firebomb a CPC. I suspect that the FBI will come up empty-handed when they try to find a group, and there will eventually be a case for renaming the article to Jane's Revenge attacks or similar. Or maybe, America being America, they will eventually morph into an actual terrorist group. Storchy (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments indicate that "group" has a connotation of organization or coordination, and I agree with this. I also agree with the lack of evidence of any of that. The media wants to call it a group because that's easier for their readers to visualize. But you cite Anonymous, and I'll cite Black Lives Matter and Spartacus (film). Jane's Revenge may be no more significant than someone who distributes posters. And at the risk of WP:OR, I'll wager that that's how it works. There's a blogger who writes incendiary stuff, and there are completely disconnected sets of people willing to carry it out. How much more coordination do you need for a racket like this? But a group that's not organized or coordinated is still a group, and our sources want us to think it's a group, and Perry Farrell has not responded to our requests for comment at press time. Elizium23 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that they cannot be a non-group. If Jane's Revenge were a single individual, they would not be a group. Otherwise, they are a de facto group. One or more person has chosen a name and that name has now been applied to a category of crimes which have multiple aspects in common. Even if the FBI finds no links, and even if all perpetrators never read the blog, and even if the blogger was just epically trolling the cucks, Jane's Revenge is still a group of people who have been categorized by their common cause, because the fictitious name is simply a convenient label for this group which fits a category defined by our sources. Lacking coordination, knowledge, or organization does not disqualify them from being a group. If you find a way to do so, then you have defined "group" too narrowly and need to revisit a dictionary. Elizium23 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They can be a very loose group of individuals only bound together by joint ideology and using the name in attacks, but without any organizing structure. Antifa (United States) or Black Lives Matter are also very decentralized.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23, we are slowly drifting toward incivility here. A bit less of the "you're wrong", "you need to" would be helpful. Thanks. Storchy (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Storchy, but I'm not sure that these delicate semantic arguments are productive. Why is it important to you whether they are considered a "group"? Why is it important for you to narrowly define "violence" so that it excludes the crimes listed in this article? These objections would seem very strange by objective or uninvolved standards; is it not surprising that they are raised in to defend the name and reputation of "Jane's Revenge"? Elizium23 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against...[edit]

@Storchy, you've removed Category:Violence against Christians and Category:Violence against women in the United States because you claim no people were attacked. That's fine, because Category:Attacks on churches in North America is a child cat of the former, so it's still in the tree. So why is that a child cat? Perhaps because 'violence' can be directed against inanimate objects while still affecting protected groups of people. It would seem to me that firebombing and vandalism is violence. If you wish to narrowly define these categories, perhaps seek a larger consensus and remove the child cat from its containers, because the current consensus disagrees with your narrow evaluation of violence. Elizium23 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the churches cat is a child of the Christians cat. I suppose that's a separate discussion, and one worth having. I'm reluctant to change the categories, BRD, before that discussion has taken place. For the purposes of this article, and according to the article, there has been no explicit violence recorded (yet) against people, by anyone claiming affiliation to Jane's Revenge. Certainly people are deeply affected by attacks on public buildings, especially places of worship. But we risk casting the descriptive net too widely, by having those categories in the article without clarification. I'd be interested to hear your ideas. 21:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Having slept on it, I've gone ahead and BOLDly removed Category:Violence against Christians from Category:Attacks on churches, since Category:Persecution of Christians is already a parent of Category:Attacks on churches, and I think "persecution" covers it without implying that an attack on a building is necessarily violence against a person. Storchy (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you haven't finished the job. Category:Attacks on buildings and structures is a subcat of Category:Workplace violence, and Category:Attacks on religious buildings and structures is a subcat of Category:Religion and violence; all you've done for now is to erase the specifically Christian nature of the hate crime violence. Elizium23 (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's work from this end: can you assure me that every page under a supercat such as Category:Violence in the United States includes human casualties? If we go up the tree far enough and then find what's categorized as violence, I think you'll realize that this is already a settled consensus against you, and this is not the venue to overturn it. Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Category:Violence against Christians from Category:Attacks on churches, because of the words "against Christians", which means "against individuals". The other categories you mention don't have this problem. There's no need to walk up the tree and remove other categories which describe violence against buildings. Storchy (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider it a problem, and you're wrong, because you also can't guarantee us that every article in Category:Violence against Christians describes human casualties. 2021 Canadian church burnings is explicit that there were none. Yet, it is violence against Christians. Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland) is under this cat wholesale, casualties or no casualties. You're denying consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization is a pretty blunt instrument on Wikipedia. There are gray areas and inconsistencies to be found throughout the category tree. I don't think 2021 Canadian church burnings should be in Category:Violence against Christians, and there are probably other articles that don't belong in the category either. That doesn't mean consensus is being broken.
There were countless incidents of violence against individuals, mostly Christian, in the Troubles, as well as violence against buildings, so that belongs in Category:Violence against Christians.
But in the case of this single article, Christians have so far neither been targeted nor injured in any of the attacks.
Army of God deliberately targeted individuals, including at least one Christian, for kidnap and assassination. But I likewise wouldn't add that article to Category:Violence against Christians, because that would imply that they were an organisation that more generally targeted Christians. Storchy (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source of their name[edit]

We authoritatively claim that their name is an homage to the Jane Collective and I'm unable to access the Intercept source backing it up. Did the Intercept decide this for us, or did the group make a statement on it? Why wouldn't it be related to Jane Roe? Elizium23 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to list both as "possible" references. The Intercept article seemed more like an opinion piece rather than a definitive reporting on the facts and the blog affiliating itself with Jane's Revenge has not made any definitive claims for its namesake either. Gangway Ghost (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Militant, extremist[edit]

@Horse Eye's Back: you claim that these six sources are "unrelated to the topic" of what? They are written on the topic of Jane's Revenge, and they are cited to support the adjectives "militant" and "extremist" which are applied by the authors of the article to Jane's Revenge. Could you restate your objection in clear terms, please? Elizium23 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of that page (not sure why you would open a discussion here) is Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, this source[4] for example doesn't mention Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the citation is Jane's Revenge and sources do not need to explicitly relate to the core topic of the article; you are making up rules that don't exist. Elizium23 (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how citations work, they need to be for the whole thing they're being used to cover not a single word... For example here any source used must support"A week prior to the release of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June 2022, activists vandalized an MCCL office in Minneapolis, breaking glass and spray-painting slogans. Responsibility was claimed by Jane's Revenge, a newly-formed militant" not just "militant" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source at the end of the paragraph supports the whole paragraph. The sources next to the adjectives support the adjectives. I'm not sure that you understand how to add sources on Wikipedia. Have you ever added a source here? Elizium23 (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source at the end of the paragraph supports neither "militant" or "extremist." What you just laid out is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source at the end of the paragraph is not required to support everything in the paragraph.
You have repeatedly removed material which is sourced to seven reliable secondary sources and you're unable to cite any policy or guideline to justify it. I am again failing to assume good faith editing. Elizium23 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you are again failing to assume good faith. Please review WP:AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even understand your rationale, and since you don't have a coherent rationale, then why are you hell-bent on keeping out validly sourced information from multiple articles? Elizium23 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to be alleging SYNTH from the get-go, but you've been mincing words and throwing around terms that don't make sense and aren't used in our policies. You don't seem to understand what SYNTH really entails: it means extrapolation to draw a conclusion not found in sources. Nobody's extrapolated anything here. In fact it wasn't me who found or added these sources in the first place. I merely found them useful and valid. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell you are the one who added these sources to the pages in question (which again does not include this one). Diffs:[5][6][7][8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also claimed we can't "stack" "unrelated sources" and I'm afraid I have no idea why not. Multiple citations from independent sources support the claims in our articles, that's how reliable sources work. Elizium23 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These sources don't support the claims being made, thats entirely the point. See WP:SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are "militant" and "extremist" and yes, sources can be used to support single words; the reason there are three next to each one is because of their contentious nature and the need to prove consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP:SYNTH works. I haven't stated any such conclusions. Elizium23 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • JR is militant. source, source source.
  • JR is extremist. source, source, source.
  • JR claimed responsibility for something that happened. source.
  • All facts, all supported explicitly by sources. Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But not explicitly stated by any source, you're piecing together unrelated coverage to push your POV and you need to stop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each fact is explicitly stated by discrete sources. You've just misrepresented the sources and accused me of bad faith. Good job. Elizium23 (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these sources for the most part have nothing to do with the pages you're trying to use them on... SYNTH is part of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, you seem unaware of that as you've accused me of being "unable to cite any policy or guideline to justify it" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's rephrase this: You're saying that all the sources cited anywhere within a given passage need to explicitly support all the assertions in that passage. Is that what you're trying to tell us? Elizium23 (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying you need to read WP:SYNTH for the first time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted to WP:ORN and let's ping @Revfulop1994 who authored this article. Elizium23 (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about this article, why in the world do you keep thinking it is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Horse Eye's Back: I don't understand what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying that it is never acceptable to refer to Jane's Revenge as a "militant" "extremist" group on any page other than this one, because to add sources in support of that would be WP:SYNTH? Are you saying that if for example, a Wikipedia page referenced the group Proud Boys, and called them far-right with a source to support that (e.g. this one), this would also be WP:SYNTH -- and that therefore no page on Wikipedia other than Proud Boys may refer to them as far-right? Endwise (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This would be like having an article about a house the Proud Boys burned down and using that article there (which doesn't discuss this future house fire at all) to source the descriptor and only the desdriptor "far right" in a sentence about that house burning down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be fine to me, no? Have a look at articles like Enrique Tarrio -- e.g. the 6th reference is a bundle of sources just there to support an accurate description of the Proud Boys as a group. If this is synth, then labelling groups accurately when referencing them would in general be synthesis, I think. The point of WP:SYNTH is not to combine sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources you've combined; I don't think this is something that the accurate labelling of groups does.
Regarding the content dispute on Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, I don't think it's necessarily an issue to leave out the labelling, though. Endwise (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used there mention Enrique Tarrio, we're talking about when the source doesn't mention the subject at all. Its also not just MCCL, theres four pages [9][10][11][12]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. The practices Horse is objecting to are all routine. Sennalen (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not routine to use sources which do not mention the subject of an article at all to push a prefered single word which the source which actually does talk about the subject of the article does not use... Note that its not the use on this page thats being objected to, even if for some reason the discussion was opened here and not at any of the relevent talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a low-quality topic in Wikipedia[edit]

Is there any proof that “Jane’s Revenge” is actual group?

The website pointed to doesn’t even claim to be affiliated with “Jane’s Revenge.”

Someone should try to make this topic fact-based.

VickiMeagher VickiMeagher (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest news info I can find about Jane's Revenge[edit]

It's from Fox News, September 2022:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/zero-arrests-16-janes-revenge-attacks-pro-life-organizations VickiMeagher (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latest vandalism was in the Detroit area. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2022/12/17/pro-life-pregnancy-center-board-members-house-graffiti-spray-painted/69737422007/

"Purported"[edit]

It is ridiculous to attach "purported" to the lede description of this very real organisation that is described by multiple WP:RS as active and doing things. Elizium23 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane%27s_Revenge&oldid=1215246180"