讨论:反法西斯主义运动 (美国)

这里是讨论页，用于讨论如何改善条目反法西斯主义运动 (美国)。
这里并非讨论条目主题的论坛。

将新的发言放在旧的发言下，点击这里开始新的讨论。
请不要随意更改或删除别人的留言。
维基百科新手？欢迎您！学习编辑；提出问题。

请保持善意，不要伤害新人；
请保持礼貌，避免人身攻击；
遇到争议时请寻求解决方法。

条目方针

来源搜索：“"反法西斯主义运动 (美国)"”——Google：网页、新闻、学术、图书、图片；百度：网页、新闻、学术、图片；知网工具书；JSTOR；维基百科图书馆

虽然生者传记方针无法适用在这个条目的主题，它仍可能包含跟在世人物有关的内容，例如已逝者的亲属及朋友、或牵连在世人物的主题。跟人物有关联的争议性内容都需要提供可靠的来源，确保内容可以查证。
缺少可靠来源或是无法查证的内容都需要“立刻移除”，如果有人不断加入这种内容、或是任何跟方针有关的疑虑，请前往互助客栈。

本条目页依照页面评级标准评为丙级。
本条目页属于下列维基专题范畴：

美国专题

（获评丙级、低重要度）

	美国主题查论编本条目页属于美国专题范畴，该专题旨在改善中文维基百科美国类内容。如果您有意参与，请浏览专题主页、参与讨论，并完成相应的开放性任务。
丙	根据专题质量评级标准，本条目页已评为丙级。
低	根据专题重要度评级标准，本条目已评为低重要度。

政治专题

（获评丙级、低重要度）

	政治主题查论编本条目页属于政治专题范畴，该专题旨在改善中文维基百科政治类内容。如果您有意参与，请浏览专题主页、参与讨论，并完成相应的开放性任务。
丙	根据专题质量评级标准，本条目页已评为丙级。
低	根据专题重要度评级标准，本条目已评为低重要度。

社会学专题

（获评丙级、低重要度）

	社会学主题查论编本条目页属于社会学专题范畴，该专题旨在改善中文维基百科社会学类内容。如果您有意参与，请浏览专题主页、参与讨论，并完成相应的开放性任务。
丙	根据质量评级标准，本条目页已评为丙级。
低	根据重要度评级标准，本条目已评为低重要度。

社会主义专题

（获评丙级、中重要度）

	社会主义主题查论编本条目页属于社会主义专题范畴，该专题旨在改善中文维基百科社会主义类内容。如果您有意参与，请浏览专题主页、参与讨论，并完成相应的开放性任务。
丙	根据质量评级标准，本条目页已评为丙级。
中	根据重要度评级标准，本条目已评为中重要度。

犯罪专题

（获评丙级、中重要度）

	法律主题查论编本条目页属于犯罪专题范畴，该专题旨在改善中文维基百科犯罪类内容。如果您有意参与，请浏览专题主页、参与讨论，并完成相应的开放性任务。
丙	根据质量评级标准，本条目页已评为丙级。
中	根据重要度评级标准，本条目已评为中重要度。

提前解释一下回退

@維基百科最忠誠的反對者：引题部分第一段最后一句的引用文献1：“Antifa, a highly decentralized movement of anti-racists who seek to combat neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and far-right extremists whom Antifa's followers consider 'fascist'”，明确没有“认定为是新纳粹”（认定的是“法西斯”而不是“新纳粹”），文献2同样没有说是认定“But President Trump's election has rejiggered the antifa-versus-white-supremacist struggle.”，文献3有提及认定，但后面跟的是“authoritarian movements and groups”，而且后面明确的写了“aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements.”，最后一段明确有对右翼假旗行动和误以为真的来源，麻烦多读来源。至于学者，我不觉得这个描述有什么大问题，因为引言段有总结的作用，下面明确有了记载各种学者的反应，MOS:WEASEL原文是“以下是几种模棱两可的表达方法，条目中有这种说法的话，则有检讨的必要，因为它可能隐藏着非中立的意见或是调查不足”，下面还有“请提供相关的支持证据”，这里显然是一个带有参考文献的事实陈述，为什么要说其模棱两可？--ときさきくるみ 2021年6月3日 (四) 01:16 (UTC)[回复]

额外多说一下您最不认同的最后一段：

很多另类右派和4chan使用者会在Twitter上假装成安提法支持者，以进行假旗攻击
- 对应此前版本参考文献18“They did so without realizing or noting an important detail: the Twitter and Facebook accounts are fakes, run with the aim of mocking and discrediting anti-fascist groups.……Bostonians who are involved with anti-fascist organizing warned about fake accounts several months ago and the people behind the fake Boston accounts gave an interview to walking avatar of bad ideas Gavin McInnes in April.……That these outlets are being duped by fake accounts is unsurprising.”（同一来源，足够支撑目前条目内的叙述，不构成SYN）、参考文献19“Far-right activists are using fake Twitter accounts and images of battered women to smear anti-fascist groups in the US, an online investigation has revealed. The online campaign is using fake Antifa (an umbrella term for anti-fascist protestors) Twitter accounts to claim anti-fascists promote physically abusing women who support US President Donald Trump or white supremacy.”（同一来源，足够支撑目前条目内的叙述，不构成SYN）
右派媒体有时会把该些恶作剧误信为真，然后进行报导
- 对应此前版本参考文献18“They did so without realizing or noting an important detail: the Twitter and Facebook accounts are fakes, run with the aim of mocking and discrediting anti-fascist groups.……Bostonians who are involved with anti-fascist organizing warned about fake accounts several months ago and the people behind the fake Boston accounts gave an interview to walking avatar of bad ideas Gavin McInnes in April.……That these outlets are being duped by fake accounts is unsurprising.”（同一来源，足够支撑目前条目内的叙述，不构成SYN），参考文献22“And both right wing and Massachusetts media outlets took the bait, reporting on the claim, describing the group as identifying with the Black Lives Matter movement and quoting their purported motivations -- which included the claim that baseball itself is racist and that they were inspired by an ESPN column that described baseball as a "white man's game."”（同一来源，足够支撑目前条目内的叙述，不构成SYN）。

我觉得以上这些足以证明大部分内容不构成SYN了，欢迎您找一个反例。--ときさきくるみ 2021年6月3日 (四) 03:08 (UTC)[回复]

@維基百科最忠誠的反對者：您前一次回退说的是最后一段SYN，这里已经列出了不SYN的理据，请您回应一下为什么SYN。另，WEASEL中明确有一段是“在大中华地区等华人社群里，孔子被视作最伟大的思想家和教育家之一”，如果按照您的标准这一段恐怕也是黄鼬主义。--ときさきくるみ 2021年6月3日 (四) 11:23 (UTC)[回复]

再补充一下SYN问题，SYN是指对已发表材料的总结并提出立场，英维的SYNTH不是什么： “如果你认为的SYNTH包括维基百科上90%的内容，那么你对SYNTH的理解就是错误的。如果你认为阅读表格的所有实例都是SYNTH，因为阅读表格需要将表格中的条目与表格的标签进行“综合”，那么你对SYNTH的理解是错误的。客观的、直截了当的、对插图的基本描述不是SYNTH。如果你对SYNTH的理解包括任何声明，其来源从在线文章的一页延续到下一页，因为这涉及到从两个不同的URL“总结”内容，那么你对SYNTH的理解是错误的”^{[注 1]}。“如果你想以“SYNTH”为由撤销某些东西，你应该能够解释引入了什么新的论点，以及为什么它没有得到来源的验证。你不必把整个解释放在编辑摘要中，但如果有人在讨论页上问起，你应该准备好比“当然是SYNTH，不然应该由你来证明他不是”更强的论述。举证的责任很轻：只要解释有什么新的论断就可以了，然后由其他编者来证明你的解读是否合理。但在任何分歧中，最初的举证责任都在提出主张的人身上，而关于某物是SYNTH的主张也不例外”^{[注 2]}。另外，“SYNTH是指在对材料总结后进行原创研究的情况，不是指对材料进行总结这件事本身。2004年的时候，吉米·威尔士实际上反对的是在对材料进行总结后进行原创研究这件事：‘在许多情况下，区分原创研究和总结已发表的文献这两件事，需要编者的深思熟虑’（In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment. [1]）。所以，对已发表文献的总结这件事本身是被维基百科所允许的”^{[注 3]}。 --ときさきくるみ 2021年6月3日 (四) 11:42 (UTC)[回复]

参考资料

^ If what you consider to be SYNTH includes 90% of what's on Wikipedia, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. If you consider all instances of reading a table to be SYNTH because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. Objective, straightforward, and basic descriptions of an illustration are not SYNTH. If your understanding of SYNTH includes any statement whose source continues from one page to the next of an online article, because that involves "synthesizing" stuff from two different URLs, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong.
^ If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.
^ SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] It seems clear that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia.

[1] If what you consider to be SYNTH includes 90% of what's on Wikipedia, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. If you consider all instances of reading a table to be SYNTH because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. Objective, straightforward, and basic descriptions of an illustration are not SYNTH. If your understanding of SYNTH includes any statement whose source continues from one page to the next of an online article, because that involves "synthesizing" stuff from two different URLs, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong.

[2] If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.

[3] SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] It seems clear that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia.

[注 1]

[注 2]

[注 3]