Talk:GI's Against Fascism

This etymology would lead to "Power to the Ducks!
I suspect it's far more likely that "Black Power" and its offshoots influenced "Duck Power" more than "Power to the People." Is there a decent source for this? Anmccaff (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This etymology is based on the self-published memoir of Robert Mahoney, one of the three principal founders of the organization and the paper. Many key facts in his memoir have been extensively cross-checked and confirmed with other sources. As a result there is no reason to dispute the genesis of the paper's name. Additionally, "Power to the People" was more identified with the Black Panther Party, which had a significant impact on the founders of Duck Power and on MDM.JohnKent (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV, accuracy.
Obviously, every article contains a certain slant based simply because of its subject, and that often draws certain writers and researchers, but this one draws conclusions about effectiveness, motivations, and long-term influence based solely on partisan sources. That's not acceptable for something with pretenses to being an encyclopedia. Anmccaff (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to edit war with you over your refusal to respect removal of your POV banner during my CONSTRUCTION banner protected rewrite, but your rudeness and battleground attitude is noted. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason to remove a POV banner when the trend of your edits is to increase the partisan slant of the article. Anmccaff (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You are being ridiculous. I invite scrutiny of the edit history by anyone interested. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The possible over reliance on a self-published memoir has been corrected by the addition of several additional sources.JohnKent (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Numbers, size, area of influence.
The article is written as though this was an organization with large membership or support and wide influence. The major source used suggests...no states... exactly the opposite regarding size. This grew out of concerns over part of one building, and never grew that much beyond that at San Diego among the sailors. There are no mainstream analytical sources describing its actual effect, Cortright's book is essentially a rewrite of the one he wrote with Raskin, at best a persuasive work occasionally bordering on polemic. Anmccaff (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

While true that the group was small, they did have an important long lasting impact on further instances of antiwar and resistance activity with the U.S. military, both due to their pioneering emergence within the U.S. Navy and in being involved in the formation of the much longer lasting and influential MDM. JohnKent (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV rewrite
I am temporarily halting my rewrite for NPOV due to obstructive tactics by Anmccaff, who has nominated the piece for deletion. Things will be cleaned up later. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It was nominated for deletion before you began your self-described rewrite for NPOV, which, frankly, looks more  like an attempt to increase the slant and water down the factual accuracy.
 * There are several points raised here already on the talk page; if you can't address them here, you should stop edit-warring them into the article. Anmccaff (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit war you; I've got better things to do with my day than edit-war you and your pathetic attempt to "win" a deletion nomination by overwriting an attempt to correct your own POV flag, an attempt I made under a CONSTRUCTION banner. It's a transparent and pathetic attempt to manipulate the content of WP, in my opinion, by deleting that which you do not like — how better than by flagging for POV and nominating for deletion and then attempting to stop any changes to render the material in a NPOV manner? Absolutely pathetic, bad faith to the maximum... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The article as it now stands is a blatant attempt to manipulate content; a single-purpose account adding factually questionable material based on questionable sources...none of which you have been able to address here or elsewhere.  It's unfortunate for Wiki that you are substituting dishonest ad hominem for real discussion, but I suppose you go to (edit)war with the arguments you have, not the one's you'd want.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)