Talk:Unity of Fields

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israel-Hamas War” vs. “Gaza genocide”

Re . The former is less controversial/disputed and more in line with general Wikipedia practice. However I don’t need to start an edit war, so…ip, could you explain your reasons for making this change? Prezbo (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I would assume it is due to the the groups stated reasoning for protest would it not make more since to include both the genocide as their reason and the genocide being a consequence of the war. 208.70.31.232 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether Israel’s actions constitute genocide is a matter of dispute, so it’s not appropriate to state in “Wikivoice” (as we call it) that a genocide is going on in Gaza…it would be ok to state that Unity of Fields considers it genocide, if that’s information that reliable sources have reported… Prezbo (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR means IPs should not be editing the article or participating in consensus forming discussions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Twitter account not currently banned

the twitter account of Unity does't seem to currently be banned but i am unable to confirm that this is the organizations original account talked about in the article. 208.70.31.232 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It links to the website and visa-versa so i guess it's safe to say. SP00KYtalk 16:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Name change & Political pivot

Does anyone have any references to why exactly Unity of Fields changed/split from Palestine Action and became a (seemingly based on their website) an ideologically anarchist orientated project? The article mentions the name change but i think the why would be useful to the article. SP00KYtalk 16:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what Wikipedia’s sourcing conventions are here. Without doing a deep dive, my guess is that we won’t find much info on the groups internal deliberations in the mainstream press, but there are undoubtedly interviews, communiques, maybe articles in radical publications, etc. Prezbo (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to go through the insurecto blogs and maybe Telegram if i can bring myself to install it. I think you're right in that I'm also to not-confident i'll find any suitable secondary sources on it though.

Don't think i'll put to much time into this generally, as interesting as it is, as (Conjecture, if educated and experience based) likely it will be that in the long run the group will produce little in terms of notable actions and thus create relevant media for us to write on, with this pivot/split I do not expect them to do much in the vain of Palestine Action and it to probably stall and remain as not much more than an arguably unnotable news aggregation blog. I mean there is a reason Palestine Action, despite containing anarchists within it, portrays itself explicitly as a very 'legit' Non-Violent Direct Action org, does not take an ideological position outside of what directly related to the campaign.

By know means do i mean to dissuade anyone, it is, to me, simply the most likely outcome and simply something to bare in mind. SP00KYtalk 20:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 3 July 2025

‘’'The URL in the infobox does not go to the correct website. It should be .net instead of .org:

Diff:

−

www.unityoffields.org

+

www.unityoffields.net

Fifthcoastbobcat (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Latest changes

@Marquardtika I've reverted your latest edits and want to clearly explain why. The new content relies mostly on Honest Reporting and the Jerusalem Post. Honest Reporting is, according to its article, "an Israeli media advocacy group" whose stated mission is "combat[ting] ideological prejudice in journalism and the media, as it impacts Israel". Sources of this type should be used with caution, if at all, particularly for controversial claims. They should not be relied on for factual statements unless there is an exceptional reason, such as secondary coverage, and never without attribution. As for the Jerusalem Post, per WP:JERUSALEMPOST, It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited. Beyond the issue of sources, there are several reasons why the content was removed:

• Labeling the group as "far-left" requires more than a single source. Per MOS:LABEL, ideologically loaded terms like this need to be backed by multiple high-quality, independent sources that apply the label consistently and in context.
• Mentioning that Palestine Action was proscribed in the UK is WP:UNDUE for the lead, especially since it is not discussed in the body of the article, violating MOS:LEADPROPORTION. More importantly, Unity is a US-based group, so the UK designation has no legal or direct practical consequence for them. At most, it could warrant brief mention in the body with proper sourcing and context, but it does not belong in the lead.
• The description that the group focuses on "spreading 'militant propaganda' against the United States" is misleading, which is consistent with what you would expect from these sources. It reduces their stated target ("the US-NATO-Zionist axis of imperialism") to only the US, which is a major oversimplification. The phrase "actively spreading" also introduces editorializing per MOS:EDITORIAL, and presenting it in wiki voice without attribution goes against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
• Critics say the group actively promotes terrorism and violence within the U.S. and spreads radical propaganda. Who are these critics? Per MOS:WEASEL, vague, unattributed claims should be avoided. If this is a notable criticism, it must be attributed to specific reliable sources and placed in the body of the article. The current sources do not meet that standard.
• The claim that Unity "condoned" the killing of the two Israeli embassy staff is not supported by the only cited RS (NYT). That article states only that the group compared public reactions to the embassy attack and the killing of Brian Thompson. While their rhetorical question may suggest approval, it does not amount to an explicit endorsement. Even if a reliable secondary source interpreted their statement as condoning the attack, I would still argue that including it would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. A single remark that has not received sustained secondary coverage is not central to the group's notability. Highlighting it without wider context gives undue prominence to one statement and risks turning the article into a WP:ATP.

Thank you. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I need more time to look into this, but just so you know, you made quite a few changes to the article that did not relate to my edits. So you changed a number of longer standing pieces of content, not just things I had recently added. Marquardtika (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I added some templates, and in some cases I expanded or adjusted the existing content based on the sources provided. I'll be happy to clarify any specific edits if something is unclear! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)