Talk:Michael Anton

Interview and photo?

Is this the same guy?

https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2008/marchapril/feature/the-dandy

If that photo is form the us govt isn't it PD?

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, Victor Grigas! You are correct, the National Endowment for the Humanities *is* a US government website. I read their website policy about content use:

"Generally, materials produced by Federal agencies such as NEH are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. However, not all materials appearing on this website are in the public domain. Images of artworks and other materials on this website are protected by copyright laws and other restrictions as well and are provided with the permission of the individual intellectual property rights holder(s) without charge solely for personal, educational, informational, and noncommercial uses and purposes. We expressly prohibit the copying of any protected materials on this website, except for the purposes of fair use as defined in the copyright law."

I would use the photo of Anton from "The Dandy" HUMANITIES, March/April 2008 | Volume 29, Number 2, deeming it acceptable under fair use (as Wikipedia is educational, informational and non-commercial), but I am hesitant because it is captioned "Courtesy of Erza Gregg". I don't know if Ezra Gregg retains the copyright even though the image is reproduced on a US government website. I hope someone else comes along who can confirm if it is PD. Here's the image URL, which I won't upload to Wikipedia until I am certain it wouldn't be a copyvio.

For now, I will look for an official U.S. government portrait of Anton, which should be available from the Trump administration on the White House website.--FeralOink (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential Bias

This article currently has a line that states "According to commentator Jonathan Chait, Anton's editorial [The Flight 93 Election] claimed that a Trump defeat in the 2016 U.S. presidential election would have meant the end of "white America" and "conservative America".[16]"

From the reader's perspective, Wikipedia is reporting on a commentator's (Chait's) report on yet another commentator's (Anton's) work (The Flight 93 Election). The problem, of course, is that "White America" never once appeared in The Flight 93 Election. In fact, the word "white" only appeared once, and in relation to "white privilege", and which was mentioned offhand.

As such, I submit a proposal for this line's removal, for forming a skewed perception of the topic at hand. Discussion would be appreciated.

24.47.1.165 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am removing the sentence in question. My reasoning is as follows: under the 'Views' section of the article the following claims are made:

• 1

Anton said ... that the America First Committee ... had been "unfairly maligned"

This cites the HuffPo piece "Trump Aide Derided Islam ...", which in turn cites Anton's "Toward a Sensible, Coherent Trumpism". It could be argued what Anton meant by it (which is subjective)- which is not the job of WP- but the fact is that he said it (which is objective), and WP records someone correctly citing the fact.

• 2

he also argued that Islam "is a militant faith" and that "only an insane society" would take in Muslim immigrants after the September 11 attacks.

This also cites the same HuffPo piece, in turn citing the same Anton piece. Once again, it could be argued what Anton meant by these (him saying them is objectively true, the meaning and intention of what was said is subjective), but WP in this case is justifiably recording these statements as reported by the cited source.

• 3

"The Flight 93 Election" compared the prospect of conservatives letting Hillary Clinton win with passengers not charging the cockpit of the Al Qaeda-hijacked flight.

WP cited several outlets which in turn cited The Flight 93 Election, which in turn used that exact language (which is objectively verifiable), and WP does not relay any subjective statements as to what is meant by this. All is within anti-bias guidelines.

• 4

According to commentator Jonathan Chait, Anton's editorial claimed that a Trump defeat in the 2016 U.S. presidential election would have meant the end of "white America" and "conservative America".

This, however, differs from the previous three claims. The previous three claims were objective reporting on what was said, whereas this is based on a subjective interpretation of what was said. The previous three claims explicitly referenced Anton's words, whereas this claim is not able to, since those words were not stated in the piece. (Just to be clear, citing a commentator approving of the subject doing the same thing should be seen as disseminating 'bias' just as well).

As such, I am removing statement 4, but will be expecting an edit reversion such that an argument is made within the discussion page.

24.47.1.165 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, Chait's piece is still used a source for Anton's views. Should it remain, even though other- more reputable and less biased- sources exist? As discussed, the same piece accused Anton of saying/supporting things he never did.

24.184.182.219 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The Coming Coup essay

So I read through the essay in question, and aside from mentioning Soros as having funded the Transition Integrity Project, Anton doesn't mention him again, nor does he say that Soros was funding a coup. This seems like a breach of WP:BLP, saying he wrote something he didn't. So either the paragraph should be removed, or we should find a more neutral reading of his essay, as I tried to edit in. EagleBoss (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Forward thought it was a major enough accusation for an article about it. Llll5032 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that supposed to mean anything? They're a progressive blog, and aren't even included as a perennial source. Reading The Forward article to, it's mostly a rant about Soros as an anti-semetic conspiracy that any serious engagement with the essay. The only content to include from it is that Soros isn't actually a funder of the TIP. So either the possibly defamatory content should be removed, or modified. EagleBoss (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Forward was called reliable on the RSN [1], and its own WP article does not mention factual problems. Often WP wording can be improved but it should stick to WP:RS assessments per WP:PSTS. Llll5032 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)