Talk:A.N.S.W.E.R.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Anti-war, a group that organises and unifies articles relating to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A.N.S.W.E.R. article.

Contents

[edit] WWP

Do we know how many of their leaders are actually from the WWP?

Are the WWP _actual_ Stalinists or just described by their opponents as such? Secretlondon 13:06, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

you actually don't have to support Stalin to be called stalinist. You just have to do politics as Stalin has... see: Stalinism


But we also know that stalinist is a general insult thrown around the left. I've seen Trotskyist groups described as Stalinist, for example. I think that use of stalinist is POV.

This article also needs some evidence as to how many of the leaders are actually WWP. It looks like an unsubtantiated slur otherwise. Secretlondon 13:14, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

It has been established by several knowlegeable activists that ANSWER is a front organization for the Workers World Party. The domain registration uses the same address as the New York offices of the WWP. The spokespeople for ANSWER, at their press conferences and rallies, have consistently been WWP cadre members. These are people who are known to be leaders within the WWP, activists who lead their other front groups, and people who write for the WWP's newspaper.

I don't know if they're really Stalinist so much as Maoist. The WWP does, after all, exhibit strong support for China, even going so far as to laud the Tiananmen Square Massacre, characterizing it as a battle against counterrevolutionary elements that were rightfully put down by the "People's Government," an odd choice for a protest group.
But that's neither here nor there. The discussion of the WWP's exact political leanings within the Marxist-Leninist system should probably go in the WWP article. Rogue 9 02:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, as many have demonstrated that ANSWER is just a front-group for the radical WWP. Maybe the articles should be joined instead. Morton devonshire 20:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Founding date

Does anyone know the founding date of ANSWER? I know they started up very soon after September 11, but I don't know the date. Also, were Muslim groups part of ANSWER from the outset, or were the founders all secular leftists? -- Jmabel 05:00, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic material cut from article

Some statments by the group New York City, May 17-18, 2003 Included: "Those of us here in this room are the most important people in the United States today."

"Okay. So let's get started on the portion of the agenda where we all get a chance to talk, and I would like to appeal to my fellow European American males to not be the first ones to shoot your hands up or to get up on the floor, but to give everyone else a chance to speak first and try not to dominate the discussion."

"..we need to marry the concept of discrediting the election with the concept of educating people about where the real power lies."

"the Constitution itself sucks; there's a lot wrong with it."

"There's no right to healthcare, no right to education, no right to jobs, none of that is in there. Racism, anti-gay bigotry, none of that is outlawed by the Constitution. Those are the things that need to be in a real peoples' constitution."

Arabian Woman "This country (America) was founded on violence. This country has been doing this since it began and I think that people need to understand that."

"Cuba is an occupied country....the U.S. won't leave" [1]

<end of cut material>

The fact that people made these remarks at a meeting is not encyclopedic. There is no way to know for any of these whether the view expressed is representative of the organization, especially because ANSWER meetings are open to the public, so there isn't even any guarantee these were said by members. I could say a lot more, but I'll leave it at that, unless someone wants to argue otherwise. -- Jmabel 05:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

these things were said behind closed doors but were videos taped

[edit] A.N.S.W.E.R. and its founders

The following conversation is copied from User talk:Jmabel:

I don't know what to think about 207.237.85.184 removing that relevant bit of information about the founders in the A.N.S.W.E.R. article. I know that you and I both have fixed the information back several times, and they don't seem to want to use the discussion page as suggested. I'm curious to know what you think about 207.237.85.184. Please do let me know... Schuminweb 11:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, the above user is me. I apologize for all this. I didn't really understand how the site worked, and thought that my revisions were somehow being reverted automatically. I finally did some investigation, and realized I could just explain it. I hope I haven't agitated you too much.
Regarding my revision, I deleted the reference to the International Action Center in the opening paragraph about A.N.S.W.E.R. because although the IAC was a founding member of the ANSWER Coalition - among a few others - it no longer is a member. In fact it belongs to an entirely different antiwar coalition, the Troops Out Now Coalition. It therefore is an inappopriate sentence for an introduction to ANSWER. If you go the ANSWER website for instance, you will not find any mention of the International Action Center. None of the ANSWER groups refer to it as an "IAC" or "Ramsey Clark" initiative. Of course, if one were to write a history of ANSWER, on the other hand, it would be necessary to describe the IAC's past involvement.
Likewise, I removed the International R.E.S.P.O.N.S.E. criticism of ANSWER, because after a little investigation, that does not appear to be the name of any functioning social justice organization. In fact, it appears simply to be a webpage satirically created to slander and criticize ANSWER. We are, after all, talking about one of, if not the largest, antiwar coalitions in the country, so it has been involved in many meaningful debates, polemics, and discussions. The Wikipedia entry instead unduly highlights a criticism from a made-up group, which could have been thrown together in a few minutes. It doesn't really shed any light on the history of the organization or its involvement in the antiwar movement. It could be listed in the "criticisms" of ANSWER section of the page, but it's hardly the authoritative, or even credible, voice when it comes to describing ANSWER's organizational approach. Really the entry needs to be thoroughly expanded, because at the present time, "International RESPONSE" and the "Lerner incident" - receive an inordinate amount of attention considering everything that ANSWER has done in its 4-year (to the day) history. The "Lerner Incident" really is less than 1% of ANSWER's history - no antiwar coalition backed his claim of antisemitism, and the issue soon disappeared. It shouldn't be written out of the history, but it shouldn't be half the entry. I attempted to cut it down, but had the revision reverted once again.

The pen 00:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)The_pen

<end moved material>

  1. I have no problem with cutting the International R.E.S.P.O.N.S.E. material. I agree, it is at best a fringy group, at worst one guy with a computer.
  2. This article, like any encyclopedia article, is in equal doses about the present and the past. If WWP, IAC, and Ramsey Clark were just two unconnected groups and an individual who happened to be among the founders, I would agree that it was not important. But, in fact, IAC was a WWP front pure and simple, and Ramsey Clark (who, by the way, I respect quite a bit) has a history of close work with them going back at least to the 1980s. And they didn't just happen to be among the founders: in the early days of A.N.S.W.E.R. they were utterly dominant. They provided nearly all of the group's impressive logistical capability, and leveraged that to effectively dictate the group's line. They are the reason A.N.S.W.E.R. was able to get up and going so amazingly fast after 9/11 when no one else in the U.S. peace movement could achieve anything of the sort. But they are also the reason so much of the U.S. peace movement distrusted A.N.S.W.E.R. from the get-go. This is absolutely central to the story of this group. To leave it out would be like writing an article about the U.S. Civil War and leaving out slavery, or an article about Oscar Wilde and leaving out that he was an incredibly popular playwright.
  3. The word I've heard is that the Party for Socialism and Liberation plays almost exactly the role in A.N.S.W.E.R. previously played by the WWP, and that it is in large measure the same people, organized in a similar manner. I have no idea how accurate this is, and I'd be interested in seeing citation in either direction. I think the article probably needs to have a paragraph on that, and would hope it would be well covered at Party for Socialism and Liberation. Frankly, I haven't been paying that much attention to A.N.S.W.E.R. now that they are not "the only game in town" (although I probably will be at their Seattle rally a week on Saturday 9/24, because on that day they are "the only game" in my town).
  4. I seems disingenuous to say that "no antiwar coalition backed his claim of antisemitism". "Coalition" narrows it down to A.N.S.W.E.R. itself, NION, and UFPJ. Quite a few organizations and important journals of opinion on the left felt he was quite mistreated, although most viewed this as political narrowness rather than anti-semitism. Since Lerner himself urged people nonetheless to support and attend the rally in question, the lines were not drawn as sharply as they might have been. The incident may have been chronologically "less than 1% of ANSWER's history", but only in the sense that shooting wars have been "less than 1% of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict": you can't explain the bitterness on both sides without telling that part of the story.

Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think most of your points about the history of ANSWER and the Lerner Incident are on the money, and therefore could be expounded in the way you’ve laid them out above.

The reason no other peace organizations could "achieve anything of the sort" after 9/11 is not just the organizational abilities of WWP, which certainly existed before 2001. Many peace organizations and anti-globalization groups were at a virtual standstill in the period after 9/11 because of the country's rallying cry of unity. Every antiwar organization was bombarded with calls and hate mail - they were called traitors at worst, heartless and narrow-minded at best. In the face of all that, many peace groups took the year off. This is the other side of ANSWER’s ascendancy—the willingness to immediately take on the Afghanistan war. Rather than some innate propensity for “sectarian” behavior, ANSWER was a coalition based on the groups left standing, and there were very few. Now that’s clearly a position more suited for a subjective work, than for an encyclopedia entry, but if we have the one position, we have to have the other. On the same token, the peace groups’ resistance to ANSWER (which didn’t really solidify until the October 2002 formation of UFPJ) can be attributed not merely to tactical or organizational questions, but political differences that in many cases predate the formation of both coalitions. We can’t simply say that other peace groups criticized ANSWER as being hard to work with, if we don’t take into account those political differences.

I think it’s fine to have the criticisms of ANSWER in the entry, which label it a “front group,” as long as we give the rebuttal as well. I know, for instance, that the label deeply offends the other organizations in the coalition, who put in their energies and resources as well. Those organizations are by no means “front” organizations. I would agree that the label may be applicable for the IAC’s (which never claimed to be a coalition) relationship with Workers World, but that same relationship did not carry over into ANSWER.

You stated, “[WWP] provided nearly all of the group's impressive logistical capability, and leveraged that to effectively dictate the group's line.” To include this in the entry, in my opinion would need a source from a member group of the ANSWER Coalition. How do we know that the group’s political program was arrived at through crude leveraging, as opposed to thoughtful internal discussion? As it stands, it’s an assumption.

I did not delete the IAC passage with the intention of erasing its involvement in ANSWER. I figured that was addressed in the comments about ANSWER being a front group. As far as laying out what the group is about currently—which the first paragraph aims to do—it would serve much better to describe its political stances, its place on the political spectrum, its initiative, etc., not its organizational lineage. Yes, it’s part of ANSWER’s development, but if picked up in a cursory way, it’s misleading.

I’m going to work on a basic history of ANSWER—which explains why it became and remains a force, what it has done, and where it has been criticized. The point is not simply to explain how some movement forces view ANSWER, but what objective political role ANSWER has played. Hopefully you can take a look at it, and we can find enough common ground to come away with an entry that explains these important debates in their proper contexts. The pen 06:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you can add to this. I'd be glad to see a lot added to it; I'm much more skeptical about taking things away. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
"The reason no other peace organizations could "achieve anything of the sort" after 9/11 is not just the organizational abilities of WWP, which certainly existed before 2001. Many peace organizations and anti-globalization groups were at a virtual standstill in the period after 9/11 because of the country's rallying cry of unity."
That, and A.N.S.W.E.R. got a very early start. The organization formed on what, September 14, 2001? 72 hours later? As a note, this fact is found suspicious by several people; A.N.S.W.E.R. is good at organizing, no doubt, but that's a really short time to throw together an entire organizational platform. Almost makes you think it was in the offing prior to the attacks. Rogue 9 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Having once been involved in something that came together almost as quickly, without the unity of a "vanguard party"—in fact, all we had at our core was a group that at the time had mainly been involved in street-level neighborhood activism—all, I can say is you'd be amazed how fast something like this can happen when a number of people align on a goal. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crowd estimates

This edit revised crowd size estimates radically downward. It claims to be a "correction", but provides no citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I made that edit. The news reports on that demo cited a turnout of 8,000 for the ANSWER protest and 2,000 for the Anti-Capitalist Convergence protests held earlier that morning. I was an organizer with the ACC. I also run a news website on activism and have some experience estimating crowd sizes. It is well known among activists that ANSWER routinely inflates crowd sizes for its protests. While many activist groups routinely double the size of the actual crowd numbers, ANSWER has been known to triple the actual crowd count. They claim that their September protest last year attracted 300,000 when most observers put the crowd size at around 100k. The Washington police doesn't issues official estimates anymore, but they unofficially estimated the September protests at around 150,000. There was a lot of fudging going on and people weren't taking into account the large numbers of people attending the National Book Expo which was being held on The Mall at the same time. Chuck0 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well feel free to restore the smaller numbers then but please do so only if you can give a cite for them. It's certainly better to have a more neutral news source than organizers' estimates (both would be too much for a semi-related article); I used organizers' estimates only because that's what was readily available. Kalkin

[edit] WWP and Party for Socialism and Liberation

From the founding statement of PSL, Aug. 2004 http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=40

"As former leaders and members of Workers World Party, we defend that group's historical tradition and mission, particularly that of its founder Sam Marcy. Although we believe that the Workers World Party leadership is no longer capable of fulfilling that mission, we still consider it to be a progressive organization with many honest activists."

As of about April of 2004, there were no leaders or organizers in ANSWER who were in WWP. They resigned from WWP and started PSL, as this founding statement indicates. The above might be useful to put in the article as the ANSWER/WWP meme still floats around. Also, PSL might more properly be called a "revolutionary socialist" party, rather than Marxist-Leninist, as they are not toed to any particular Marxist interpretation.

(I'm new here, and not sure yet of the process for changing articles.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polizeros (talk • contribs) 1 Dec 2005.

We say "Many of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s leaders were members of Workers World Party at the time of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation". I'm not sure what else you think should be added to that. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could fit in a living room?

I've seen several articles that say that the actual leadership of ANSWER could fit in a Middle-class living room. Any truth to that? Morton devonshire 20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Depending on how you define "actual leadership", the "actual leadership" of most organizations—Microsoft, the US Chess Federation, FEMA—could fit in a Middle-class living room. Can't see why ANSWER would be any different. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
All right, I'll revise that to say the card-carrying members of A.N.S.W.E.R. The "card carrying" members of Microsoft could, maybe, fit inside Qwest Field four times. It's incredible how much you leftists inflate your membership.Morton devonshire 01:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANSWER/UFPJ split

I'm confused as to why the content that I added on this issue was removed. I drew from the same two documents that you originally cited, Jmabel. I think ANSWER's position on unity, and the fact that UFPJ has published similar statements in the past (only to reverse them later) is highly relevant to any discussion of a definite break between the two. Perhaps the content I added can be restored with a citation for http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2853, which is UFPJ's May statement rejecting work with ANSWER? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The pen (talk • contribs) 3 Jan 2006.

It should be eliminated because it's insider information that only you and others within the organization find interesting -- to outsiders it's irrelevant. Morton devonshire 01:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
"The pen", FWIW, I didn't remove your material (although I think it is probably a bit excessive: the break between the two groups merits mention, but probably not this much). What happened was that Morton devonshire made significant cuts, including everything you or I had added about the topic. I restored my version. To be honest, I hadn't even looked at yours when I did that. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The break itself is not interesting. Doesn't matter how you describe it. Morton devonshire 07:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Morton, to me the entire topic of Pokémon or American Idol isn't interesting, but I don't go around removing the material that, presumably, interests those who care about the topic. A break between the two most active groups that have organized anti-War demonstrations in the U.S. in the last two years is significant. If you're not interested, work on topics you care about. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to make you mad. Morton devonshire 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly one of the bigger stories within the antiwar movement right now. Yes, the split is mostly interesting to people active within the movement. But non-activists and those people uninterested in the politics within the antiwar movement would also be less likely to look up an encyclopedic entry for a particular antiwar group. I don't see how "criticisms of ANSWER" or "the Lerner incident" or even the origins of ANSWER are in and of themselves more "interesting" than the major political debate within the antiwar movement. I'm restoring the cut info, taking into account, Jmabel, how I can reduce it somewhat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The pen (talk • contribs) 11 Jan 2006.

So the steering committee of UFPJ didn't have full consensus? Let me guess, the ones who wanted to keep working with ANSWER were the representatives for CPUSA and the other Communist parties in the umbrella organization, right? Rogue 9 11:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I wouldn't necessarily share your guess. Usually there is no love lost between vanguard parties. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos from SF parade

The proof is in the pudding - see photos here. 70.85.195.230 07:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof of what, exactly? It's not a secret that most socialists are antiwar and attend rallies. How is this evidence that ANSWER is a front group? Note that most of the pictures of rally attendees on that page are of signs mentioning organizations that are not part of ANSWER, e.g. "International Bolshevik Tendency" and the "One Korea" people. And yes, ANSWER members deny that it's a "front group." That's a hostile term. If there are one or two who don't, I'm not sure why they work for ANSWER, but regardless it's a perfectly fair general statement, as, say, "Democrats deny that they are in favor of appeasement" would be, Zell Miller notwithstanding. Kalkin 22:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

At the least, this group needs to be scrutinized because there are shadow extremist groups that exist in the US. I do not categorize them based on the typical "far left" or "Right wing extremist," that's like differentiating between coke and pepsi. It must be understood that liberals tolerate (in the true sense, you can be against a war without going as far as this group) these sort of groups just as conservatives tolerate theirs. A bottled example would be the difference between the Christian Coalition and the Aryan nations for a complete "opposite" comparison. Progressive Democrats of America and ANSWER would be the "other side." The methods are the same however, despite the labels. These groups change all the time too as shown by the continual splitting and reformation. It's hard to agree on anything when no one is willing to compromise at all. RMartinez

[edit] reorg

I split up the intro section, which IMO was far too long, into a couple of new sections, "Politics and Tactics" and "Founding and Major Protest Actions," the latter of which I expanded a little. The intro is now one sentence, which I think is much more appropriate; Wikipedia conventions seems to be not more than 3 or 4 lines, and it's bad to bury the table of contents. I made a number of minor changes as well, e.g. adding more categories and updating a couple mentions of Workers World-related controversies into PSL-related controversies.

I think the current order of the sections, including the new ones, makes sense, but I'm very open to changes.

We ought to standardize the article's use of "A.N.S.W.E.R." and "ANSWER" - all the first, all the second, all the second except the first time in each section, who knows, just something to make it look nicer. Kalkin 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Protest history section expanded further. Kalkin 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hint

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7683877/give_peace_a_chance/?rnd=1141443516255&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1059

[edit] how much of this is true ?

FACTS ABOUT ANSWER

A.N.S.W.E.R. is a cover up for the Workers World Party, a Stalinist organization. According to Stephen Zunes, chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco,”Basically, A.N.S.W.E.R. is dominated by the IAC, which is largely a front for the Workers World Party.” David Corn, a writer for the liberal publication Common Dreams, stated, “A.N.S.W.E.R. is run by W.W.P. activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a W.W.P. front.”

Entirely false now, largely false before. The WWP split, and many of its members joined a new group, the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The remaining WWP no longer participates in ANSWER. IAC is pretty much a WWP front, yes; ANSWER is considerably wider, though the WWP had a lot of influence and now the PSL has somewhat less.

A.N.S.W.E.R.’s director, Ramsey Clark, has served as the spokesman for the W.W.P since the early 1990s. Ramsey Clark is currently part of the legal defense team for Saddam Hussein, and was part of the legal defense team for Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic in the International Criminal Court. Another director of A.N.S.W.E.R., Brian Becker, is part of the W.W.P. Secretariat.

I don't think Ramsey Clark is the "director" of ANSWER - no such position exists as far as I know. The rest is true, except that Brian Becker's with the PSL now.
  • Slight further correction: while Clark and WWP are (very) close, he is not in any formal sense a "spokesman" for the WWP. I don't think he has ever even been officially a member. - Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The former FBI Director under President Clinton, Louis Freeh, included W.W.P. in a talk about “domestic terrorist groups” on May 10, 2001 when speaking to Senate committees. He also denounced “Anarchists and extremist socialist groups - many of which, such as the Workers World Party, have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States.”

Which suggests that Freeh is operating in the proud tradition of Cointelpro, and is an argument for why charges like these against ANSWER ought to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

The W.W.P. does not want to participate within the American political system, it wants to overthrow our democratic form of government and eliminate private property. LeiLani Dowell of the W.W.P. said at their conference in November, 2004, “I think that these elections proved to many that there is no choice between Democratic and Republican–and essentially no choice for working people under capitalism.” A document on the A.N.S.W.E.R. website entitled “Who is the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition” states, “The global anti-war movement must be a movement of international solidarity against the U.S. empire.”

The WWP is Marxist. No shit; no secret.

A.N.S.W.E.R. supports the Iraqi resistance against US troops. “Having achieved their victory [the US in Iraq], however, the occupiers now confront a people who have a long and proud history of resistance. The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.” Richard Becker, A.N.S.W.E.R. Steering Committee, Downloadable flyer on “Counter-revolution and Resistance in Iraq,” May 2003. A recent Workers World editorial stated, “Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

False. ANSWER has not taken a position on the resistance. The WWP and PSL both support the resistance, however.

A.N.S.W.E.R.’s steering committee and endorsers include the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a Marxist-Leninist organization, and the Freedom Sociality Party, a Trotskyite group. A.N.S.W.E.R. supports Fidel Castro and communist Cuba.

Now the PSL enters, finally. The Freedom Socialist party is a multi-tendency Marxist group with Maoist roots, not Trotskyist ones. It is not on ANSWER's steering committee. ANSWER does not support Castro; the WWP and PSL both do, I believe.
  • Nope, the FSP are Trotskyist. They were a (largish) splinter of the SWP, in 1966. I live in Seattle, where they are actually a detectable factor in the city's politics. - Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • FSP "endorses" ANSWER, but I don't think they have much influence inside the group, except maybe when it comes to organizing events in Seattle where they are headquartered and where they far outnumber PSL/WWP. They certainly are not large enough nationally to influence the national platform. But your basic point holds, despite your confusion: FSP supports both ANSWER and the Cuban government, but that doesn't mean ANSWER supports the Cuban government.

    From past experience at times organizing rallies and dealing with WWP (and I would presume that the same would now apply to PSL) one of their standard arguments is that there will be a broader coalition by strictly limiting the points of agreement as to what the umbrella group stands for. In practice, this does usually mean that they don't try to get umbrella groups, even their own front groups, to adopt some of their own loonier stands, but the flip side is that they oppose the adoption of "points of agreement" that reach out to the mainstream. For example, during the Gulf War era of '90-'91, they refused to be part of any umbrella group that spoke out against Saddam Hussein as well as against the U.S. Needless to say, most of us were not interested in working closely with a group that wanted to soundly condemn the U.S. but take no stand on Saddam.

    (By the way, nothing but positives to be said about FSP in terms of organizing: they may fight with others in advance about what the event is supposed to be, but on the day they are there and working to support the agenda that was agreed upon. In my experience, unlike most "vanguard" parties, they understand the notion of endorsing someone else's action without taking it over. Probably part of why their candidates for office in Seattle have sometime received double-digit percentages in elections, pretty remarkable for Trotskyists running in the U.S.) -- Jmabel | Talk 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A.N.S.W.E.R. sends its professional demonstrators to rallies in order to further its own agenda, not the agenda of the participants. Students were warned by the University of Michigan Daily about the real force behind a January 2003 anti-war rally put on by A.N.S.W.E.R. - “many who read about the rally afterward will assume the crowd showed up to support A.N.S.W.E.R.’s agenda rather than to learn about or participate in the anti-war movement.”

ANSWER sends organizers to rallies. They try to further their agenda. Insofar as their agenda conflicts with that of other participants, those participants have no reason to endorse ANSWER. The fact that "many... will assume" otherwise is the product of right-wing red-baiting, and relevant to serious politics as a phenomenon to study, not a valid theory.

The W.W.P. supports the Chinese communist government, and encouraged its use of tanks against students demonstrating in favor of democracy in Tiannamen Square in 1989, where many died. In the past, it defended Soviet suppression of worker rebellions in eastern European countries, and in 1991 supported the KGB coup against former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. The W.W.P. is a staunch advocate of Kim Jong II.

Yes. The WWP has terrible politics. It split from the Trotskyist movement in 1956 because it (and it alone) supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

Zeq 20:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps. I'm clarifying these points since I'm in a good mood, but I don't see a good reason for posting them on the talk page. The ones actually relevant to ANSWER - including the "front group" accusation - are already covered in the article. Kalkin 02:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critique section is a little weak?

Hey, I don't have the time/resources to update the article, but I was just thinking the critiques of ANSWER section is a little weak. I think most of the problem activists have with ANSWER are there organizing tactics at rallies. For example the most common complaint is that they stack the speakers list at anti-iraq war marches with pro-palistine speakers. although the two conflicts are connected, the complaint is that they monopolize and confuse the message being projected to the media.

Also another complaint recently I have heard is about ANSWER trying claim credit for the immigration protests that are going on and trying to dominate the issue. Thats a completely unsubstantiated rumour, but I thought I'd put it out there because there are probably articles written about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.101 (talk • contribs) 25 April 2006.


[edit] recent vandalism & fixes

I've reverted from an incompletely-fixed version of the article to a better earlier one. The first removal of the vandalism by PlagueRat wasn't a revert, it was partial, and so the subsequent reverts didn't go all the way back.

Some of what I've restored by going back to this earlier version may be controversial. (Some, e.g. removing the characterization of ANSWER as "deliberately misportraying" the Minutemen, won't be.) I've removed all uses of the term "illegal aliens." This is a POV term; "undocumented immigrant" is much more accurate. One of the major slogans of the immigrant rights movement, which is itself a force capable of bringing millions of people onto the street, is "no human being is illegal." Thus for Wikipedia to assert that some people are accurately described as "illegal" violates WP:NPOV. "Undocumented" is a neutral term which factually describes the behavior which is illegal and which is alleged to make a person illegal.

I've seen people argue that using "undocumented" is POV because it disguises the illegality in a way that separates immigrating without proper documents from other crimes - we wouldn't use the phrase "undocumented drug dealer" or "undocumented murderer." Well, for one, even if this were the case it wouldn't make "illegal" less POV, given the existence of substantial, documentable controversy about the use of that word. But more directly, we wouldn't use the phrase "illegal drug dealer" or "illegal murderer" either. We normally characterize criminal behaviors by describing the behavior; the fact that they are illegal is not an essential part of the description. We also normally characterize the behavior as illegal, not the person who behaves. There is no serious objection to the accuracy or appropriateness of the term "undocumented." However, if someone has something more likely to be acceptable to everyone, please substitute. The 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests article compromised on "immigration reform," but this can't work everywhere. Kalkin 06:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You're joking right? The correct term is illegal. If you search for "undocumented immigration," you get redirected to "Illegal Immigration". That means "illegal immigrant" is the standard on Wikipedia. If you google "Illegal Immigrants", you get 18.4 million results. "Undocument immigrants" only yields 1.8 million. The United States government uses "Illegal" in its publications referring to the issue.
Also: you say One of the major slogans of the immigrant rights movement, which is itself a force capable of bringing millions of people onto the street, is "no human being is illegal." Thus for Wikipedia to assert that some people are accurately described as "illegal" violates WP:NPOV. ...... Well, since the pro-immigration movement is opposed to the term illegal, failing to use it would also violate NPOV, as it implies support for the pro-immigrant movement. Perspixx 02:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not joking. Please assume good faith. And if you look at the talk page of illegal immigration, you will discover that illegal immigrant and illegal alien were made redirects to it precisely because of the biased nature of those terms. Within articles, where referring to people cannot be avoided, Wikipedia's use is inconsistent - many articles use many terms, and there is no place for a central policy to be worked out that I know of.
The fact that people oppose something does not mean that using it requires bias in their favor. I don't have to be Black or love Black people to avoid using the word "nigger." The internet suffers from many biases and is not authoritative. The same is true, even if to a lesser degree, of the U.S. government. "The abominable and detestable crime against nature" was until recently a term legally defined in Massachussetts referring to anal sex. Nevertheless it was not an acceptable phrase for a Wikipedia article.
You have yet to give a positive reason for the biased nature of "undocumented." You have given reasons why "illegal" might be neutral, though none of them addresses the problem of referring to humans as illegal. What is wrong with "undocumented"?
Kalkin 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
To put in my two cents, I personally see "illegal" as hopefully POV here. "Undocumented" comes across to me as closer to neutral, and more politically correct, because it doesn't include the stigmas associated with the word "illegal". SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Illegal simply means not in accordance with the laws at the time. The immigrants in question came into the country in a manner inconsistent with the law. Undocumented immigrants would need to be documented to be legal immigrants; they're not, so therefore they're illegal. There's no NPOV problem here. It doesn't really matter whether the law's just or not when you describe something as illegal; that's a real pov issue. For example, you could talk about "Illegal speech in China" Which is a real concept. The fact that most Americans hold that speech shouldn't be illegal doesn't change that fact.--71.141.160.5 10:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But no one here has been arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't talk about "illegal immigration." The problem is precisely that the phrase applies "illegal" to the people, not to their acts. "Illegal speech in China" - fine, yes. "Illegal speakers in China" - at minimum, a very weird way of putting it. Kalkin 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no question that "illegal immigrant" is the standard on wikipedia, as it is for the associated press and other neutral entities. The question has been adressed and resolved repeatedly on othet talk pages. TheKaplan 07:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It was addressed on several talkpages, but never resolved until Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration).--Rockero 18:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Have not posted/changed anything before but just removed this: "In reality ANSWER is Anti-Israeli and Anti-American group who supports and justfies terrorism against these 2 nations. ADL 8/22/2006" as the grammar alone warrants removal. Threezebras 12:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MagicKirin

MagicKirin has been repeatedly adding the commentary "In reality ANSWER is Anti-Israeli and Anti-American group that supports and justifys terrorism against these two nations. ADL 8/22/2006" to this page. He has attempted several times to pass it off as non-commentary by adding sources such as watching C-Span and a report by the Anti-Defamation League from 8/22/2006. I have found the report here [2] but I see no mention of any "Anti-American" mentions in the report . In totality, the report says that A.N.S.W.E.R. supported the actions of Hezbollah (a terrorist group) against Israel on the ground that they oppose Israel because it is the forefront of capitalism in the Middle East. Anything else insinuated from this report is fully MagicKirin's POV.

I think that a mention of this report should be included in the article but MagicKirin's obviously POV comments should not be allowed to remain in the article since they are obvious trolling and an attempt to over-simplify the group. Gdo01 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that my facts about ANSWER are not sufficent for certain people. As I have stated ANSWER can characterize itself as it wants, but it does not make it true. You are being intolerant of otherviewpoints backed up by facts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MagicKirin (talk • contribs).

No, it's a matter of you adding your bias to the article. Just because a group takes a stance against the American or Israeli government does not inherently make them anti-American or anti-Israeli--it makes them opposed to those government's policies. Whether you realize it or not you are adding biased material into the article without any appropriate citation, which is why everyone has been reverting your edits. And please note, I also dislike ANSWER (although for different reasons than you since I openly identify myself as anti-American), but this is not the place for your edits. At best you can say "X says they're anti-american and/or anti-Israeli" if you can find a notable person making that criticism. The way you are doing it is incredibly pov though. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
MagicKirin has a point, but expressing it badly. It's a fact that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) views ANSWER as an anti-Israeli organization that supports terrorists, clearly stated in this article on ADL's own web site as Gdo01 pointed out. In light of that, I think there's room for a statement like MagicKirin's in this article, but expressed in a NPOV way with a citation. Something like this:
The Anti-Defamation League has criticized A.N.S.W.E.R. for being anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and supportive of terrorist organizations.[3]
How is that? =Axlq 18:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Good job. If MagicKirin continues to add POV edits back now that this compromise edit is in, then the user does not truly care about NPOV. Let's hope the user stands down. Gdo01 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. My question is, how correct is the ADL? Should we be adding a response to that charge? I mean, how many people were seriously chanting things about bombing Tel Aviv? I wasn't at any of those rallies (I wouldn't be caught dead at an ANSWER rally except in a breakaway march). I do however doubt it was that screwed up. I could understand some of the leaders of ANSWER taking those positions, but I doubt a lot of the rank and file (ie, the people not involved with the WWP/PSL) would be that stupid. I tend to not trust the ADL on issues regarding leftist "anti-Semitism". Although there are some currents of anti-Semitism within the left, it's pretty ridiculous to characterize any opposition to Israeli policy as anti-Semitic like the ADL often does. IMO, Israel is a racist state (like just about any other one) and it only has it's own actions to blame for the intifada. At the same time, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are incredibly reactionary and although they may be justified in resisting oppression, they do have a lot of serious problems themselves, and would probably be doing the same things themselves if the tables were turned. How many people at these marches really were offering uncritical support for these groups? That sort of position does smack of anti-Semitism in my opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if the ADL was blowing things way out of proportion. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The PSL people who are much of ANSWER's leadership do tend towards uncritical support for Hamas & Hezbollah, though it's not a matter of anti-semitism particularly; they also uncritically supported Milosevic, for example. I doubt that we're going to find any kind of formal response to the ADL, and if the description of their actual claims is worded carefully enough I don't think we need one. Kalkin 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoshop link

Being pretty much tired of User:Chuck0 and User:In the Stacks going on about the link to Infoshop.org, I'm putting forth a bold proposal: Let's consense about it right now. Let's put it all out in the open, and discuss it, come to a consensus on it, and move on.

Personally, I'm supportive of its inclusion, because that's not the first time I've heard ANSWER referred to as a front group for the WWP. Others? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I doubt your noble attempt will help anything because both of those users are so bent on the link's inclusion or exclusion that they won't listen to the consensus of others. But yeah, I say include for all the reasons I've mentioned on the RCP and World Can't Wait talk pages regarding infoshop links. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with you that both of them seem hell-bent on having it their way, but outside of that, at least we will have some sort of documented discussion and possibly also consensus to go on should this continue long-term or if it goes beyond simple bickering. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty simple. The links belong in these entries, because that's what the "Related Links" section is for. That's where you put links to external websites. The person who keeps censoring these links refuses to understand that Wikipedia policies do not apply to content on other websites. External websites should be included if they have content--opinion, factual or otherwise--which is relevant to the subject entry on Wikipedia. The Infoshop pages contain critical information and opinion about these groups. In the case of the Infoshop page on ANSWER, this page has been widely cited around the Internet. I'm pretty frustrated with this continued censorship by a petty authoritarian who can't handle criticism of his precious groups. Chuck0 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
So we basically agree. I'm all for including it as an external link. I'd be leery about using it as a citation, but I think it's a great external link. I actually found that page way back in 2003, and what it speaks of has been demonstrated quite well, particularly at ANSWER's May 20, 2006 demonstration at Malcolm X Park, which was definitely not the ANSWER that I used to know at the forefront of the anti-war movement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Munson's frustration aside: plain facts are simple. This unsigned and unsourced piece of polemical doggeral is unverifiable by its very nature. Should this piece be signed, and its cowardly authors take credit for it – on the linked page in question – then there is no dispute. In that case, the author would assume legal liability for the claims made, rather than hiding behind a political identity or an invented Wikiality. Several similar pieces are no doubt of utility to those who post them: poltiical cowards who are afraid to take the cheers and jeers for their handywork. Further, ANSWER has no ongoing relationship to the WWP. Attempts to imply various guilts by association, by anonymous hacks are not "criticism." I have made no effort to remove external links because I disagree with them. That is not what is at issue. Basic intellectual integrity is, and by the standards of wikipedia: "encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Claims of "front groupsk," and other POV garbage of that ilk are NOT verifiable, and the anonymous authors of this (and similar Infoshop.org hosted) pieces prefer it that way. It makes passing lies off as truth all the easier. Well, this "petty authoritarian" believes that veracity is no imposition, but the very least we can expect. So, that said, there is no consensus here for the inclusion of this link. In the Stacks

I'd also like to hope that Munson can put his attitude back in his pants and keep the issues in dispute. This is not an anarchist meeting, and his use of pejoratives (petty authoritarian, etc) are really beside the point. In point of fact, I am not the one trying to impose lies and distortions as "relevant," which to my understanding of the term is exactly what not-so-petty authoritarians like Karl Rove do for a living. Wikipedia is not a platform for Swift Boat Anarchists to spread disinformation about those they are ideologically obsessed with. In the Stacks
And, for the record, I am not now – nor have I ever been – a member of WWP, ANSWER, PSL or any related organizations or participating groups. I am not the one with a partisan agenda here. In the Stacks

At this point I'm amused at In the Stacks' obsession with using Wikipedia to censor any criticism of groups that he supports. In fact, In the Stacks has shown a single-minded devotion to protecting these groups from criticism and he has shown that he will make up the wildest stuff about other Wikipedians. That's all beside the point, because these links clearly belong in the "Related Links" section of these entries. If you follow the argument that In the Stacks is making, he is basically saying that Wikipedia should vet the accuracy of every external link. And links to opinion and criticism are verboten too, unless he has written the criticism. Chuck0 05:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering your calls to boycott Wikipedia, your new fangled identity as a "Wikipedian" is thoroghly amusing. This is not "censorship," it's intellectual integrity. You don't even bother claiming that what you are trying to post (which is for your own website, speaking of original research) is true. Cyncial isn't even the word for it. Because I am familiar with these organizations does not mean I am a supporter of them. So, be amused. Unsigned, unsourced = unveriable. I assume good faith where that is possible.In the Stacks
To answer your comment regarding the reposting of the Infoshop link, a Web site which Chuck operates, it should be noted that the Infoshop link first appeared in an edit by User:Secretlondon on January 16, 2004, seen here. So this link's presence in the article is not Chuck's doing. So before you go slamming Chuck, do the proper research, please. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This link is unsigned, unsourced, factually incorrect and therefore UNVERIFIABLE. This is really pretty basic stuff. All other links are signed and sourced. The issue is not the merit of the criticisms, but their verifiability. In the Stacks

[edit] Request for Comment re: "Infoshop link"

For the better part of a month, there has been some back-and-forth reverting of a link from infoshop.org listed under the "Criticism" subheading of the external links section (link in question here). One side wants to see the link in place, and the other wishes to see it removed. We attempted to consense on the issue at Talk:A.N.S.W.E.R.#Infoshop link beginning on November 12, but this has gotten nowhere. I'd like to know what other people think: keep the link, or remove it? SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry I also don't see any reason why the link should be added in the first place. I tend to have a high threshold for what can be included as an external link; unsigned pieces certainly don't make it. In any case it's up to those arguing for the inclusion of the piece to make the case for its inclusion — and I don't see any convincing explanation. Zarbat 23:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The link basically, in many words, say two things: 1. ANSWER is a part of WWP. 2. WWP are totalitarian. Both claims appears to be basically correct, but the page in question are written in a rather hysterical style which I think is detrimental to the point they are making. That ANSWER is a part of WWP is already mentioned in the article, and that WWP aren't exactly democratic is quite evident from the WWP page.All in all I don't think the link adds any significant information to what is already available on the ANSWER and WWP pages, so it doesn't need to be included. --Regebro 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the link is a particularly useful source of information (particularly unique, important information); I think it would be best to omit it, since it lowers the threshold for WP:RS reliable sources. John Broughton | Talk 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My thinking on this issue is laid out in (unfortunately) exhaustive detail above. It is worth noting that I have removed similar attack pieces from several other pages, so the issue of intellectual integrity, here called verifiability, is not unique to whatever issues are involved with ANSWER. In the Stacks 18:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No Link. Incorporate any documentedly true claims and criticism of ANSWER from the Infoshop link into the body of the article. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The link is going to stay, or I will at least continue to post it. I'm really tired of the anonymous troll In The Stacks censoring links to my website. He is not a credible source of information and he has demonstrated that he is only reason for being here is to block any criticism of groups that have been published by Infoshop. Wikipedia has really fallen down here in dealing with In the Stacks' abusive behavior towards me and other Wikipedians. Chuck0 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks and spamming entries with links to your own website. I'm not taking your bait. My thinking, among others, is plainly written above. Of note: Chuck Munson doesn't even bother claiming that the anonymous, ideological attack pieces he has attempted to link from his webwite are factually correct. He is mistaken about my motivations, which are also beside the point. Sourced, signed and verifiable criticism has ever right to be here; nobody is claiming otherwise. Anonymous editing is also not at issue. Par for the course. In the Stacks 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Mumia?

How can this article not include at least some info on ANSWER's support of Mumia? An ANSWER demonstration without at least a half dozen 'Free Mumia' signs is a rare event indeed! - F.A.A.F.A. 09:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe ANSWER as such has engaged any work around Mumia. That there are "half a dozen signs" in the massive protests ANSWER has organized does not seem a defining feature – and confuses what coalition members do besides formal ANSWER activities, as well as what people who just show up have to say. Judging national coalitions by individual signs/chants at a protest is intrinsically inaccurate.In the Stacks 16:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stacks. One of the "Free Mumia" campaigns is 'part of' ANSWER. I'll try to find out which one. As someone who attends at least half-a-dozen anti-war protests a year, it's a gripe of mine. Several ANSWER organized protests I attended had speakers in support of Mumia, The following quote sums it up for me. "In addition to the Palestine question, ANSWER has been repeatedly criticized for espousing the cause of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the journalist and former Black Panther on Death Row in Pennsylvania. In the October issue of Rolling Stone, writer Tim Dickinson quotes Paul Rieckhoff, director of the Iraq veterans group Operation Truth, which boycotted the September 24 march. "It's not about Palestine, it's not about Mumia, it's about one focused message: Let's find a way to end this war." Linky - F.A.A.F.A. 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but this demand in some quarters for issues like domestic political prisoners to be banned from the stage of mass mobilizations is distinct from the basis of unity or practice of ANSWER. Because some participating organizations/individuals choose to speak about the war as part of a larger system – that is not to say that all participating organizations/individuals agree on any given instance.In the Stacks 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonkerism

Not exactly on the topic of Mumia (so I'm starting a new section), but this leads to something that I am wondering if we can find a way to take up (that is, whether we can come up with reliable sources for this). Two related things seem to me to distinguish ANSWER from UFPJ or even NION, and were also evident in the WWP-sponsored coalition during the 1990 leadup to the 1991 Gulf War; this divide had parallels in U.S. left politics at least as far back as the Vietnam War and groups centered on the PLP, for example. First, the WWP-sponsored coalitions inevitably allow for what Alex Cockburn once famously dubbed the WWP's Marxism-Leninism-Bonkerism: finding good things in Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Kim Jong Il. Second, given as a justification for this inclusion, is the argument that by having a very limited set of consensus planks—typically, only opposition to certain U.S. government actions or views, bu nothing about the actions of any enemy of the U.S.—one can in theory build a "broader" movement, because one can include both people who condemn the likes of Saddam, Milosevic, and Kim and those who do not. UFPJ, notwithstanding its CPUSA ties, has firmly rejected this (as have many other U.S. antiwar coalitions over the years), arguing instead (and, to my mind, much more plausibly) that one can build a far larger, stronger, and more principled movement by insisting that this be among the basic points of agreement include forthright condemnation of these dictators, so that great mass of people who are not willing to be associated with Bonkerists will feel comfortable joining. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy personally with the points you are making here (more than a little, btw) – it seems a very slippery slope towards POV writing. eg "bonkerism," which, however clever (and true) is tricky to incorporate. ANSWER's position on this is (formally) that opposing imperialism is the task of "antiwar" activists within the USA, and that this is distinct from "upholding" any given foreign regime. This dispute is quite old. In its more particular forms, including the same personel, it goes back to the first Gulf War when the antecedents to UFPJ demanded sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that went on to kill hundreds of thousands of people (according to both UN estimates and US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright). Without turning this page into a debate on the relative merits, or lack thereof, of these arguments – how could this be incorporated without POV exchanges? Would adding something like this to the external links help clarify matters? http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2005/12/ufpj_rejects_fu.htmlIn the Stacks 18:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a useful addition, I think it mostly gets it right, and it seems like Jacobs ought to qualify as citable on this. Still, I'm wondering if somewhere—probably not within this article, but linked from here—we can get into more about this particular split within the American anti-war movement. As I said, it goes back at least to the Vietnam era, so presumably by now some reputable historians have written about it. I would think it would make an interesting article. Obviously, my use here of Cockburn's "bonkerism" indicates which side of the divide I am on, and while I think the Cockburn quote belongs in the (proposed) article, so would something from the other side, ideally something equally pithy and scathing from the WWP/Clark/etc. side would also belong. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/2E/n/Talk%7EA.N.S.W.E.R._c73f.html"