Jump to content

Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Principal feature is violence and harassment?

I think this edit is totally wrong. Of the two sources for the claim that antifa's principal feature is use of violence, one[1] simply says they "sometimes" use violence, and the second[2] says they do, but not that it is a principal feature. None of the sources added for the new claim that a "principal feature" is harassment even use the word harass that I can see. Plus, the lede is a place for neutrally summarising the body, so this heavily footnoted text which introduces a claim not in the body is inappropriate. I am deleting the word "harassing", but I'd like support for reverting the whole edit. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ditto Bob and Simon. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There's overwhelming support for the statement that violence and harassment are key components of the group in question. OnceASpy (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onceaspy: Would you provide the sources saying that so we may add them to the article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Just did. OnceASpy (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What's going on right now is activism. You are desperately trying to down play the fact that the majority of what this group does is violent or in support of violent. It's their most prominent feature and the majority of people coming to this article will have done so because of this. OnceASpy (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel that that accusation could very easily be made in either direction and hence doesn't really advance the discussion. We don't want to get bogged down just screaming "You are bias!" at eachother. That gets us nowhere.
Also, you need to stop thinking about Antifa as "this group". There is no group. No organisation. It is a movement without a centralised structure. If you are still thinking in terms of "this group" then you have misunderstood the subject at a fairly fundamental level. I also feel that your interpretation that people are only interested in this article to read about violence is incredibly unlikely. Even if it was correct it would make little difference. We are here to give people the best summary of the reliable sources on the subject, not what they might want to read.
Rather than slinging mud the best thing would be to pull your proposed addition apart, line by line and source by source and see which bits are good and bad. That may be tedious but it might actually get us to a point where agreement is possible. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That's some pretty interesting Original Research. And I'm very sorry that your opinion is not supported by sources. I have sources and facts in my edit. What you're doing is activism. OnceASpy (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Were you replying to me there? If so, I am confused. There is no research, original or otherwise in what I said. I was trying to help you to frame discussion of your proposed edits in a constructive way that might enable you to get them agreed, at least to some extent. If you don't want to discuss the edits and work towards agreement then I think the only other option is for you to drop them completely. It is up to you. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Sources crammed into lede by OnceASpy:
  • Williams, Katie Bo (September 14, 2017). "Antifa activists say violence is necessary". The Hill.
  • Swenson, Kyle (August 28, 2017). "Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley". The Washington Post.
  • Bowden, John (August 21, 2018). "Liberal activist assaulted by Antifa members in Portland: report". The Hill.
  • Benson, Guy (August 17, 2017). "CNN's Tapper: People Need to Know That Antifa Has Assaulted a Number of Journalists". Townhall.
  • Ernst, Douglas (September 29, 2017). "Steven Crowder and producer infiltrate antifa prior to Ben Shapiro event, rip media silence". The Washington Times.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems like the kind of thing one would come up with after doing a google news search for "antifa violent", which is a backwards approach. It also roped in a couple of dreadfully unreliable sources and pandering. The reliable ones don't seem to actually support that this is a defining trait of the movement, they just seem like high-profile examples. Nobody, I hope, is saying that antifa are never violent, nor should anyone claim that the article cannot mention violence, but this seems like a sloppy attempt to prove a point. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@OnceASpy:I wouldn't consider anything involving Steven Crowder a reliable source for anything other than what Conservative propagandists are up to. Furthermore, four American news publications with political spectra that range from center-right to hard-right are not sufficient sources to be WP:DUE making a statement about a movement in Wikipedia's voice. I mean Townhall was founded by The Heritage Foundation and is currently owned by Salem Media Group - these are hardly unbiased sources for opinion. The Washington Times is the Unification movement newspaper. And the Unification Church has a really clear bias here. The article from The Hill is published as a blog, but let's be charitable and allow it as a WP:RS. This would mean you're making a statement about the entire, loosely connected, national movement in Wikipedia voice based on the actions of a small group in one borough of one city, and the second-hand report of a single person who claims to have been a "liberal protester" and claims to have been struck by an ANTIFA member in Portland. Keep in mind that Bowden did not witness the event in person and his article meticulously sources all statements in that article to the accuser, Paul Welch. But even if Welch is telling the truth, it's one person - not the movement. This is not WP:DUE your statements. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The argument isn't whether ANTIFA groups are linked to violence. The argument is whether these biased sources are WP:DUE a statement in Wikipedia's voice that political violence is the principal feature of the ANTIFA movement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Would you say the sources I gave are biased? (Besides Fox obviously) PackMecEng (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Only to the extent that I don't trust any American newsmedia. Let's just say that with the extent that antifa groups have been covered by actual scholarship I don't think it prudent to be making definitive statements on their defining characteristics based on the opinions of American journalists. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And I've pointed out in the past that there are many journalistic sources that don't define political violence as the principal feature of ANTIFA groups. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggest referring to the sources in this archived talk thread as several of them touch on that issue. The CBC source is a good starting point. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay I have had some time to sit down with the sources a little closer and explain why I think they apply to the lead including political violence.
Vox - I switched the Vox source here since the first article is quoting this main one. It explains "The argument for antifa activists is that the current crop of right-wing protesters — which are partly but not entirely made up of neo-Nazis, KKK members, and other white supremacists and nationalists — are so extreme that they must be stopped swiftly and even violently". Directly before that explaining the issues with political violence and Antifas roll in that.
NBC - Pretty standard article explaining Antifas used of violence against political opponents, specifically the Proud Boys. It compares violence used by both sides in this situation. "The clearest difference between the Proud Boys and the Antifa protesters — political ideology — is not protected by either state or federal hate crimes statutes. So whichever group started the fight, if it was over their political ideology, existing laws do not categorize these types of attacks as hate crimes."
Esquire - As noted below not the highest tier source but still generally a RS. They are referencing an article from the Missoulian here so we could use that one instead if you want. It is another one about the Proud Boys, again stating they both use political violence. "Last weekend, melees broke out in New York and Portland between members of the antifa and the far-right Proud Boys nationalist men’s club. Both groups condone political violence."
Yahoo - This one is weaker since it is quoting someone else saying it, not as much in their own voice it could also be dropped if you like. "If Kaine opposed political violence, he’d have disavowed ANTIFA long ago" quoting Corey Stewart.
Washington Post - Another one on the Proud Boys incident, "ideologically opposed movements that both condone political violence and practice it with some regularity on their opponents".
So even if we drop Fox and Yahoo it is pretty strong sourcing identifying Antifa with the use of political violence. The body of our article also states the same thing "The groups have been associated with physical violence in public against police and against people whose political views its activists deem repugnant." so it is certainly supported in the body as well. One of the things almost all sources talk about their use of violence against people they disagree with politically. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
As you have noted, your sources identify Antifa with the use of political violence. I think it is true that most Antifa do not reject the use of political violence. But your sources do not sustain the claim that political violence is a 'principal feature' of the movement. Making such a claim implies that if you are not into political violence, you are not Antifa.
Incidentally, I have some limited knowledge about Antifa in Europe, but none about Antifa in the USA. In Europe, Antifa is a highly-decentralised movement; in fact it has no centre at all. Any generalisations made about European Antifa will be wrong, because there will be some Antifa group that disproves the generalisation. I suspect that USA Antifa is much the same. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
As noted by pretty much every source on Antifa, they use violence to make their point and they do it against people they disagree with politically. If we are getting hung up on the "principal feature" then we have an issue with the others in the lead since the sources for those do not use those words either. PackMecEng (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Re PakMecEng sources: Vox doesn't say violence, harassment or assault is a principal feature of antifa and adds nothing to the lede not already there. If the 2018 Unite the Right rally is noteworthy, could include it in incidents section. NBC doesn't say violence, harassment or assault is a principal feature of antifa and adds nothing to the lede not already there. It seems to say it's unclear whether Proud Boys or antifa started a fight. Again, possibly include in incidents, but hard to see it as noteworthy. Esquire doesn't seem to be a news article? It absolutely doesn't say violence, harassment or assault is a principal feature of antifa and adds nothing to the lede not already there. All it says is that one obscure Republican politician is concerned that antifa might cause violence. Yahoo absolutely doesn't say violence, harassment or assault is a principal feature of antifa and adds nothing to the lede not already there. In fact, it is basically about another Republican, Corey Stewart, spreading false rumours about antifa (or ANTIFA, as he calls it) being linked to Soros. I'm not logged in so didn't look at WaPo and I don't think that Fox is considered RS, so unless the WaPo piece adds something, I don't think these are worth much. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
They all support the text that was challenged in the lead. Also Fox is a RS, it just is. Later today when I get more time I will go source by source explaining why they support that information. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, when you do, please show how they support the claim that violence is the principal feature, as that is what I am contesting in particular. Apologies, you're absolutely right about Fox - I'll look at Fox now.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The Fox piece looks like opinion not news, and it mentions antifa once, very briefly: "In the last few years, we’ve seen supporters of President Trump encouraging the jailing of a political opponent, Hillary Clinton and so-called Antifa members breaking windows over a conservative speaker at University of California at Berkeley." In other words, it briefly mentions one incident of violence, and attributes it somewhat shakily. That absolutely doesn't mean violence is the principal feature of antifa. I guess these sources could all be used as citations for a sentence like "Right-wing commentators associate antifa with violence." But that seems a bit of an odd sentence to include in an encyclopedia article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
With regard to Fox: Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to properly attribute statements of opinion. So no, it's not appropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice what is or is not a primary feature of a political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope, it is perfectly acceptable. Caution is not exclude and this particular Fox source is acceptable by all measures. Though that is not even the issue being discussed here. If you want we could drop the Fox source since you dont like it and there would still be plenty supporting the info. PackMecEng (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right that it's not the issue: the issue is whether the sources support the specific claim that violence is a "principle feature" of antifa groups. The Fox article clearly says no such thing, so let's disregard it and move on from the irrelevant question of whether Fox is a reliable source in a general or abstract sense. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to a statement in the lede that says that Antifa groups sometimes engage in political violence. I have deep objections to calling it a principal feature. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Simonm223 has expressed my position perfectly; I have nothing to add. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
So currently the sentence reads "The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action, harassing those whom they deem to be fascists, racists and right wing extremists."
We could drop the principal feature and just go with "Antifa groups use direct action, political violence, harassment, and assault." PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
How about Antifa groups have used various tactics, including direct action, political violence, harassment, and assault when confronting far-right groups. That provides a bit more context than your list of sins above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I would be okay with that but add back the those whom they deem to be fascists, racists and right wing extremists instead of just far-right groups. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In my view we should take care to distinguish between what all (or very nearly all) Antifa groups do and what only some do. My view is that all are involved in protest but not all are involved in violence. Coverage of those that do engage in violence is perfectly proper but we should not be spreading the claim of violence wider than is justified. To do so is unfair to those it lands on without cause but it also lets those who have committed violence off the hook by spreading part of their blame onto others. Nobody benefits from that. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

By that definition what could we say about them? Do we have sources talking about the ones that do not condone or participate in violence? PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:DanielRigal. Willingness to use direct action is a principal feature, I think, as captured in the BBC article which is currently used to source that phrase: "Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence" (emphasis added). Assault and harassment are more questionable, and I think we'd find it hard to find good sources which say these are distinctive or universal features. The "harassment" claim there now is sourced to the ADL, whose wording makes it clear that harassment is short of actual in-real-life violence, not an example of violence: "Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life. Antifa is not a unified group; it is loose collection of local/regional groups and individuals. Their presence at a protest is intended to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle" (emphasis added - note that violence is attributed to some not all). These sources don't mention assault, and assault is not mentioned in the body of the article which this lede is meant to summarise, and so we'd need a new source if we wanted to include that. So I would use something like User:Simonm22's suggestion above, amended: Antifa groups are distinguished by using direct action when confronting far-right groups, and among the various tactics they have used are political violence and harassment.
(This is a different discussion, but I personally also oppose the "those whom they deem", as (a) it's weaselly and a form of scare-quoting, (b) all of the groups the article currently describe them as having physically challenged (e.g. Proud Boys) are described in our own articles as "far right"; and (c) the solid sources, such as the ADL I just quoted, don't feel the need to the scare-quoting, so nor should we.)
This would give us a a nicely concise and neutral lede, and then readers who want to read on can read the actual article, which has detail and citations for antifa ideology and activities (including attitudes towards violence) and for notable street protests and violence. There's no need to fill the lede with citations - it should simply summarise the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I support Bobfrombrockley's ammended text. It provides the information the sources communicate clearly and in context. The "Antifa groups do this and this and this full-stop" construction is to WP:WEASEL for my liking. It's not like Antifa groups are doxxing Nazis for lulz. They're doing the things they do for a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley: There is a whole discussion above above that deals with the rest of the sentence which decided on "those whom they deem to be fascists, racists and right wing extremists. So lets not re-litigate that just yet. This section is if political violence is an overall feature of the majority of antifa groups. The specific question right now is if the word principal feature is the best wording. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: Sorry but you don't get to set the terms of discussion here. Bob has proposed a revised text alternative. Which has support at least from me. Which your proposed text does not. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: I was aware that there was a previous discussion, which is why I put it in brackets, caveated and acknowledged it was a different issue. However, I don't think the above discussion was particularly conclusive - there was no strong consensus for a single version, and as we are talking about the same sentence here, I thought it best to aim for a nice, simple, concise, encyclopedic sentence and lede. Apologies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. It's mostly redundant to the rest of the lead paragraph. In order to describe something like that in wiki-voice, we would want extensive literature, which we don't have about Antifa. Furthermore, we seem to be citing articles and material written because of recent actions, not a historical overview from a neutral perspective. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Threats

Arms & Hearts are you saying that because the here Washington Post is directly quoting the threats made that they are not threats? Per your revert here that is what it seems like. PackMecEng (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I am saying that five of the six instances of the word "threat" or related words in that article appear in quotations (the exception is the claim that Carlson "is no stranger to threats", which is irrelevant here). This means that if we are to faithfully represent the sources cited, we should similarly present those claims in quotations or reported speech, or not repeat them at all. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
For good measure here are some more sources that call it threats. Slate, Huffington Post, and AOL. Perhaps WP:SPADE might be more appropriate for this. But if you like we could also quote the specific threats they made. I like the pipe bomb one personally. PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Disregarding the Slate opinion piece, which is obviously not a reliable source for controversial claims about living people, yes, those are better sources. I'm concerned, though, that you seem to be going about this backwards: it looks as though you've decided that these claims ought to be in the article, then proceeded to seek out sources for them, whereas in my experience it's better to expand the encyclopaedia by reading the relevant sources and basing our articles on what they say. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The Slate article is not an opinion piece. It is from their news and politics section by a staff writer. PackMecEng (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The Slate piece is obviously an opinion piece, obvious from the title. (The information in it is clearly second hand - and in fact in accurate as it misquotes a protestor as saying “bring a pipe bomb”, which is clear on the video she didn't.) This is a breaking news story, and we need to be very careful about opinion pieces based on the first reports. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
If we must include it, I think the best solution would be to say that Tucker Carlson characterized them as threats. But right now there's enough disagreement among the sources that we should be cautious about using such emotionally-laden language in the encyclopedia's voice, especially about new and breaking news - at least until / unless more reports come in. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Aquillion All the sources I listed above disagree with what you said. Do you need me to find even more? This is not exactly controversial or disputed among sources. PackMecEng (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
From the sources in the article, USA Today doesn't mention the word "threats" at all; the Washington Post is careful to only quote Carlson when characterizing what happened rather than name it in the editorial voice. The Associated Press version is similarly cautious. Coverage from Business Insider is careful to attribute it as well: A source at Fox News explained that the protests at Carlson's home, which Carlson described as "a threat,"... I agree with Arms & Hearts that the Slate source is essentially an editorial (it is unequivocally worded in a tone that takes a perspective right in the headline, after all, and the overall piece is a moral judgment on events rather than reporting on them). Looking over the sources, I'm absolutely not seeing the unanimity among them that you're claiming. If it was uncontroversial, Business Insider, for instance, would not have been so careful to use that attribution. This is still a recent event, and coverage is still developing, so I feel the appropriate thing to do here is avoid loaded or emotionally-charged language, go with the most cautious sources, and update things later if and when a more clear picture emerges. WP:TONE specifically and explicitly holds us to a stricter standard than many news outlets (especially the more emotive and freewheeling ones, which, bluntly, is the category many of the ones you're favoring here fall under.) I think if we're going to go with the framing and tone of one set of sources in a disagreement, it's pretty obviously going to be the more staid reporting of AP or Business Insider. --Aquillion (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Take it to RSN on Slate if you like but otherwise you are mistaken there. Se we have 6 sources so far CNN, USA, WaPo, Slate, HuffPost, and AOL. Out of those WaPo talks about it but in quotes and USA does not use the specific word. So yeah 5 out of 6 mention threats, including the ones you mention, and 4 of those in their voice expressly. You have to squint very very hard to see it as anything but that. Are you doubting the videos of the protests that show them shouting threats? I guess I am not clear on your objection, at least as far as policy is concerned. It is well sources to RS and something that would be fine in Wikipedia's voice. PackMecEng (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You left out the AP and Business Insider (which, as I pointed out, was careful to attribute the term). If you count those and skip Slate, it's split 50-50. And I am honestly confused by the fact that you're still claiming the Slate source is not an opinion piece - it feels like you haven't actually read it beyond searching for the terms you were looking for. If you are certain in your conviction that it is news and not opinion, would you agree to using eg. the line from it in With his Fox News program ranking as the top-rated show on cable news, it’s not a stretch to view Carlson as a leading enabler of the administration’s cruel and racist policies for in-text, unattributed statements of fact both here and in Fox News, Tucker Carlson, and Presidency of Donald Trump? Do you view The truth is, there’s a lot less daylight between the ascendant Trumpist right and violent neo-Nazis than there is between the mainstream left and the violent wackos on their side of the spectrum (who, it must be said, seem less prone to acts of mass murder and terrorism) as a statement of fact that should be added to this article? Right now, anyway, I'm seeing a rough consensus here to treat it as an opinion piece - you can take it to WP:RSN if you absolutely feel you're capable of convincing people that things like that are statements of fact and not opinion, but I find it hard to see that argument going anywhere. Either way, I think it's clear that the more cautious language used in the AP and Business Insider is more appropriate here; I'm baffled that you think characterizing it as "threats" in the article voice is neutral when there's a clear split among the sources. While we often treat it as such, remember that WP:RS isn't a bright line - it's a sliding scale. I don't see how you can argue that the Slate and Huffington Post pieces are better sources than AP and Business Insider. If you weigh the sources by quality, it's clear the higher-quality ones are generally more cautious here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you disagree that they were making threats? Also neutral does not mean suppress negative, all the sources in various ways make the point that they were threats. If you want we could put threats in quotes and then quote the threats from the sources. That would get rid of any ambiguity. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You're going to have to quote the parts of the AP article in particular that you feel "make the point that they were threats", because I'm not seeing it at all; and I think that, generally, that article is a good reference for how we should cover this in a neutral fashion. (The Business Insider source - which is careful to attribute that opinion to Carlson - is an alternative if you feel that the term absolutely must be present in some form.) I'd definitely oppose expanding it with extensive blow-by-blow-style quotes and such right now, though, since even the amount there already is edging towards WP:UNDUE - coverage already seems to have mostly died down. We can always expand it more if additional non-breaking-news sources cover it in more detail later on, of course. --Aquillion (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you disagree that they were making threats? Also we could do something like Protesters chanted “Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night.” While no arrests were made DC Police are investigating it as a “suspected hate crime”. I think that would cover all the bases and that is sourced from the AP article you want to use. PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Gamaliel "Carlson's account has been proven false by police reports"[3] What police reports are you referring to? PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I doubt this is a reliable source for facts, but it describes the police report: https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-the-protest-outside-tucker-carlsons-house-heres-what-actually-happened-665c2dc0cb67/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I did read that source when you made the first removal trying to find something that went with what you said. I agree that it does go against the story of breaking the door. Other sources do as well which is why it is no longer in the article. But it does mention the group making threats while outside. Specifically "we know where you sleep at night.", also at the end of the article it addresses it as a threat. "The point, in other words, is to unsettle and frighten — and I certainly would have been frightened had it been me in that house. But in both embellishing the nature of the threat and papering over Carlson’s own record, the media reaction has blurred the truth of Wednesday night’s events." Specifically embellishing the nature of the threat. So the threat was embellished according to them, but still a threat. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


Another issue is the "antifa" identity of the perpetrators. CNN says "A group of angry Antifa protestors gathered outside of Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson's home on Wednesday evening. The anti-fascists group, possibly associated with Smash Racism D.C., chanted..." (my emph); HuffPo uses the phrase "anti-fascist activists" but not "antifa"; AOL just says "protestors" and doesn't identify them at all. As this is still a WP:BREAKING story, we need to be careful here. Should we say something like "identified in some reports as "antifa""? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean their Facebook page was called AntifaDC before it was taken down.[4] PackMecEng (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Also looking at the cached version of their twitter before the take down. It list #antifa as their first thing for their profile.[5] PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Harvey

Our article says Apart from the other activities, antifa activists engage in mutual aid, such as disaster response in the case of Hurricane Harvey. supported by [6][7]. Neither being a particularly good source but neither source supports the claim. They are both quoting a Scott Crow who is a member of the group. Are there other sources that support antifa actually did anything here or just a reading from a spokesmen? PackMecEng (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Again you WP:IDONTLIKEIT we get it. You don't want this article to suggest that Antifa groups do good; your POV has been noted. Please stop with the attempts to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK attacking Antifa groups. It's getting bothersome.Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Democracy Now is brought to WP:RS/N often and as per @The Four Deuces: it's regularly been ruled a reliable source. See here for a recent example: [8]] Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
They are generally not the best, never said not reliable. My issue was them not putting the content in their voice. Rather them giving a quote which is not how we portray it in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Also nice WP:CANVASING. PackMecEng (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Democracy Now is certainly a reliable source. It differs from mainstream media not by reporting alternative facts, but by covering stories they ignore. That makes it particularly useful for coverage of left-wing groups such as antifa. The second source, The Independant is one of the best newspapers in the world and unanimously viewed as one of the top five in the UK. The article is called "Hurricane Harvey: Antifa are on the ground in Texas helping flooding relief efforts" and the body of article supports the text in this article. TFD (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: For the Independent go past the headline. "are reportedly assisting with search and rescue and first aid. Others claim to have established shelters in poorer neighbourhoods and areas that may be overlooked by larger organisations." Then it goes on to quote Crow. That is them not putting it in their voice. PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
So we can add the qualification "have been reported to." TFD (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
That would work by me I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Aquillion that adding "have been reported to" is awfully WP:WEASEL - literally nobody disputes ANTIFA participants did those things. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I added another source instead. My objection to 'reported to' is that it implies doubt per MOS:ACCUSED without actually stating or clarifying what that doubt is - if it's been reported in reliable sources, and we have no reason to doubt it, then we should reflect those sources. If we do have a reason to doubt it, we could express that reason. But "it has been reported..." goes against the WP:MOS in this context, I think. When something is widely-reported, we just cover it as fact - if we need to use inline citations because we have a reason to be skeptical, then we say who reported it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Response section

I just reversed two earlier edits by u|PackMecEng to the "Responses" section, but with some changes. The old version seemed to list Chomsky, Bray, Reid Ross and West as members of "the academic community". I am not sure what the academic community is, but these people are not relevant because of their supposed membership of it. Bray and Reid Ross are actually academic authors on this topic, while in relation to this topic Chomsky, Kazin and West are noteworthy as political activists rather as academics. (Chomsky is a linguist, West a philosopher.) West is noteworthy because he is a first hand witness. The sources may or not be reliable for statements of fact, but they are fine for attributing opinions, which is what this is, as the section heading makes obvious. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You need brackets around that ping. Also no idea on academic community, that was there before I started trimming the non-notable opinions from non-RS. If you can find a better source than It's going down which even better is a reprint of Anti Fascist News then sure. Otherwise you are reinserting material that is not from a RS. As for the Democracy Now source, that is an interview not a news article. Not really a RS, but I would say eh borderline. PackMecEng (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
See WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF: usually unreliable sources like It's Going Down can be used to support claims about themselves, including quoting things they've published. This is acceptable especially when the author cited is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", such as Alexander Reid Ross. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is not here to promote their views and how they feel about things. In fact it is largely irrelevant how they feel on it. Find a RS that describes them that way and we are all good. Otherwise it is just WP:PROMO. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for messing up the ping. No, the article is not here to promote Reid Ross's or West's views, but nor is to here to promote Kazin's views or Chomsky's views. Very few academics have written about antifa; Reid Ross and Bray are among the few who have, so they are noteworthy. West is noteworthy because he was at the C'ville event. I don't know why Kazin or Chomsky or Laura Ingraham are noteworthy, so if we delete any opinions, I'd start with them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I still feel that Ross fits WP:PROMO pretty well and is not a useful source of information because of that. Honestly I would probably be okay with killing all the opinions that are not in RS voice in general. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with PackMecEng that Reid Ross should be removed from the response section. Not only for the reasons that were given, but a quick google search shows Reid Ross tried to smear left-wing journalist Max Blumenthal (and two other journalists) by tricking the SPLC into connecting them to fascists and radical right-wing groups.[9] Endlist (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)User:Endlist has been blocked as a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enjois
Disagree strongly about removing Reid Ross. He's an established expert in fascist and anti-fascist movements and their interaction in Europe and the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Then get a RS to quote him not It's going down. Which is not even printing the story directly, it was a reprint of Anti-Fascist News which from what I can tell is a joke site. PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Itsgoingdown.org may be an anarchist site, but it's not a joke site. And frankly, I see itsgoingdown as being a more reliable source than something like Fox News, and yet people use it regularly. Effectively it comes down to this: the source is at least reliable for reporting the statements of a known expert accurately. As he is a known expert, we can trust the source is reporting what he thinks about this subject. Reid Ross has not challenged or disavowed the interview so we have no grounds to think it was portrayed inaccurately. Sorry that you don't like the source but your objection is frivolous. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It's really not though, if they are not considered a RS how could we consider they are quoting accurately? Also yeah it's a joke of a site, just is, sorry if you like it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've explained above how an article by Reid Ross in It's Going Down is a reliable source in this context. If you disagree with WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF you are free to work to change them; however you're unlikely to achieve consensus to simply ignore them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
SPS and ABOUTSELF are when the subject is writing about themselves. Not when other low quality sources are writing about them. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've misunderstood the policy. As I've explained to you before, WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Alexander Reid Ross's work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, so an article by Alexander Reid Ross is reliable even if it's self-published (which includes, in this context, activist sites like It's Going Down, which lack the editorial/fact-checking processes we expect of a reliable source). WP:SPS says nothing about situations in which "the subject is writing about themselves." WP:ABOUTSELF says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". This does not only refer to situations where sources are explicitly discussing themselves; it also means that an article by Alexander Reid Ross that says "antifa is x" is reliable when used to support the claim that "Alexander Reid Ross has said 'antifa is x'". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PackMecEng: Your claim was specifically that it is a joke site which is very different from saying it's a joke of a site - I'd suggest your claims that you don't believe it reported an interview with an expert are rather extraordinary, and, honestly tendentious since your objective is to remove a statement by an expert. I mean if you prefer we could throw in any number of equivalent statements from Against the Fascist Creep - you know the book about the history of opposition to fascism that Reid Ross published. But it's slightly less immediately topical and not available as a url so it'd reduce the ability of readers to click through and read the source in full for context, so I'd suggest that's not an ideal solution. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure go ahead, at least it would be a RS unlike what is listed now. I even suggested getting more sources that are you know, reliable for statements from them. I also stand by both what I said above, it is a joke of a site and a joke site with no value to anything or anyone. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that characterization. Please note an anarchist POV media outlet you would consider reliable because I suggest your POV is biasing you wrt the reliability of the source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
We can agree to disagree but do you really want to go around calling people POV editors? PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding an alternate reason why you'd call the site a joke site when it quite clearly is an earnest site, even if one with a non-mainstream POV. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like we have a pretty strong consensus to leave Reid Ross and West as they are now. If we want additional sources, there are some. For West: The Forward says "Cornell West, a student of nonviolence, said that the antifa and the anarchists at the demonstration in the Park in Charlottesville saved his life, and the lives of the other clergy who were under threat of violence from the racist thugs." For RSs describing or citing Reid Ross as an expert, see [10][11][12][13][14] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

it seems like there is no legitimate compromising and just a lot of wrangling to keep a POV.Sperting (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted two edits by User:Endlist: [15]. Mark Bray is a historian and political organizer. He wrote a book about Antifa. But saying he is an "Antifa organizer" is unsourced synthesis that undermines his position on the quote. His position as a political organizer is rather irrelevant for the quote. Alexander Reid Ross is an instructor at Portland State University. He is an academic. Removing this would unwarrantedly undermine his quote too. This is not how we write about BLP. We don't imply things. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a BLP article. Nothing is being "implied", it is relevant for the response section to acknowledge who Bray is...simply stating who these people are is proper since they are not exactly well-known, as was stated above. I changed the wording for Bray since it may have been SYNTH, but as you said he is a political organizer. He has worked with antifa, occupy wall street, and other far-left groups. This should not be omitted from the article, especially for that section. Endlist (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)User:Endlist has been blocked as a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enjois
BLP restrictions apply everywhere and not just on BLP articles. But that's actually beside the point that Tsumikiria was making. They were quite rightly pointing out that your addition was WP:UNDUE WP:SYNTH inserting weasel words to discredit two experts on the topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223 is correct. The article does not have to be about a person to have parts covered by BLP. BLP applies anywhere there is a person basically. I would support giving more background about the person we are quoting to inform the reader, but would need better sources than twitter. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I also added Eleanor Penny's response to Chomsky. The Independent source has great weight in criticisms of Chomsky's assertions. This weight needs to be reflected, and Penny is certainly relative to the topic. Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Far-left, one more time

Very exciting, but the conclusion of these forum posts was provided at the beginning, "the overwhelming consensus was to avoid "far left". Drmies (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@ModerateMike729: before re-inserting the "far-left" claim I suggest you review the archives as this is an issue that has been brought up and resolved several times. The short form is that while sources generally situate antifa movements on the left, there's no clear consensus among reliable sources that these movements are de-facto far-left movements, this is in part because antifa groups are so loosely constructed, and their only real unifying condition is confronting the explicitly far-right movements of fascism; something even centrists occasionally think is a good idea. You know, because nobody likes a would-be genocide. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. We discussed this, with extensive examination of sources, most recently about two months ago, and the overwhelming consensus was to avoid "far left".
I thought it was the far-left that tends to kill the most people? But anyhow it's fine not having far-left in that part of the lead. It is well explained throughout the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
No, that's the far-right you're thinking of. It's just conservatives are better liars. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean we even have a whole article about it Mass killings under communist regimes, also The Black Book of Communism is an interesting read on the subject. But again that is not the matter at hand is it. PackMecEng (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Politifact, death toll by far-right terrorism in the US is on par with islamic terrorism in 2001-2016. Death by far-left terrorism does not even register, effectively zero. A study this year suggests 2/3 of domestic terrorism acts in the US are by far-right extremists. Far-right extremists are actively promoting and trying to kill people. I think we can all agree on ADL here: "it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose"
Of course USSR and China's state capitalism, totalitarianism, Stalinism and Maoism killed millions, but that's a distraction here. Capitalism built itself on the blood of the enslaved and colonizd and continue to lead to millions of preventable death every year due to inaccessable clean water and quality healthcare, but nobody blinks and assume that's normal because they're "not capitalist enough".
Forgive my rants. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Your rants may be forgiven, but they are not helping to reach SDG 6. This is a good analytical report by the World Bank, and while the whole chapter "A General Framework for Investment that Reverses the Cycle of Water Insecurity–Fragility" from page 47 to page 50 is disagreeing with your approach, I will cite one sentence that refutes your anti-capitalist sentence: Investments in visible water infrastructure (such as water supply and irrigation) and in improving services can bolster support for nascent transition governments, helping to strengthen citizen-state relations and to support domestically led development processes. wumbolo ^^^ 19:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
With regards to the Quartz analysis cited by the SPLC, it seems to count all racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations as right-wing. [16] I don't understand how that can leave any terrorism as left-wing, as this list seems to cover most terrorist attacks with clear motivations. Other analyses take into account more specific ideological variables like different kinds of anarchism and religion: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Some count only clear-cut cases: [22]. wumbolo ^^^ 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Antifa is officially not designated as a terrorist organisation

Remember the petition to have it classified as terrorist? The response:

"Thank you for your petition requesting that AntiFa be formally recognized as a terrorist organization.

President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly said that hatred and violence have no place in America. Our country must unite in condemning violence and recognize that the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together are stronger than the wicked forces trying to divide us.

Although Federal law provides a mechanism to designate and sanction foreign terrorist organizations and foreign state sponsors of terrorism, there is currently no analogous mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations."https:// petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0 Apologies for the broken raw url, it's on the spam blacklist, no idea why. I'll ask for it to be removed.

That settles it. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Re the blacklist, I'm guessing that maybe quite a lot of people were spamming links to their various pet petitions and somebody got fed up enough to just ban the whole site? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah most petition sites are blacklisted. I'd much rather see Amazon.com links blacklisted. wumbolo ^^^ 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The link is no longer on the blacklist.[23]. Anyone else want to make the edit? Doug Weller talk 05:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Does this count as primary source? We might have to wait for the press to pick it up. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC Political Violence

There is a consensus to oppose both versions discussed in this section, with no consensus for any specific alternative proposal. I'm also closing the "Renewed attempt" subsection, as it's been a month and it hasn't attracted wide discussion. I would suggest that if editors are interested in continuing to propose the suggestions included in that section, they should open a new RFC. signed, Rosguill talk 22:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the sentence:

"The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action,[1] harassing those whom they deem to be fascists, racists and right wing extremists.[2]"

be changed to

"Antifa groups have used various tactics, including direct action,[1] political violence, harassment, and assault when confronting those whom they deem to be fascists, racists and right wing extremists.[2]" PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ a b Cammeron, Brenna (August 14, 2017). "Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise". BBC News. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
  2. ^ a b "Who are the Antifa?", Anti-Defamation League, 2017; retrieved June 12, 2018.

Survey

  • Support - This addresses issues with using "principal feature" which is not being used by sources and reflects the diversity of the group in general. It also adds the well sourced political violence, which is broadly discussed by sources. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both versions are bad, neither should be used - This whole RfC should be scrapped as PackMecEng has attempted to make it look like it's commenting on a text change to extant article content rather than a dispute over phrasing of a new inclusion. The "principal feature" statement is not supported by the sources presented. The rest is an attempt to insert WP:WEASEL language to continue with this mischaracterization out of any appropriate context. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Per PackMecEng. Histogenea22 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Why do we specifically differentiate between 'political violence' and 'assault'? I much preferred some other versions proposed in the talk section above which are not mentioned in this RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove sentence. Seems redundant to the rest of the lead. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Both versions are bad for the reasons I set out in the unfinished discussion in the previous section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Antifa clearly regards violence as a legitimate method for achieving its political aims, the rooting out of Nazism and Fascism. The whole lead section is pretty awful and it is not hard to understand that those who have formulated it doesn't like Antifa, but the formulation about "principal feature" is just over the top. ImTheIP (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both versions. We already have a sentence for their tactics in the lead further down, so the second version is redundant, while the first one has obvious problems in terms of "principle feature". --Aquillion (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove sentence. The cite does not support a “principle feature” statement. The article has a minor mention (also unsupported) so does not suit LEAD. Also, while Pack says somewhat better things, that’s a bit too much and is largely repeated elsewhere in the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Include "political violence" and "assault" for accuracy, both of which are included in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 22:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both versions - At least the current version is clearer. Both sentences in the proposal are undue synthesis of possible bad faith. "political violence" and "assault" are subjective and imprecise reflection of sources. CNN and many other sources support the "direct action" statement, but not necessarily "principal feature". Probably use "advocate for" instead. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a step in the wrong direction. I looked through the first several reliable news sources I found by Googling "antifa" and "antifa tactics," and neither of these options reflect any of them. None of the sources I found say Antifa engages in direct action, harassment, political violence, or assault. I'm not even convinced the ADL source is reliable. Now, there may be reliable sources out there saying Antifa engages in these sorts of activities, but they aren't cited and they aren't reflective of the bulk of the sources. The editors writing this content are taking the wrong approach, and the sentence should be completely rewritten. For the lead section we should be summarizing the full breadth of the reliable sources instead of using language based one or two cherry-picked sources. R2 (bleep) 20:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Aquillion, Tsumikiria, and Ahrtoodeetoo. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support many high quality sources describe antifa in terms describing direct action, violence, etc. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30][31] ResultingConstant (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both version: not a step in the right direction. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposse both. We already detail what "direct action" entails in the next sentence - They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. I do think we should specify in the lede that they are violent. The proposal creates a duplication with the next sentence. I would suggest presenting a whole paragraph here for evaluation.Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Snoppose both versions, delete the sentence, per above. Levivich (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the following sentence already covers it. In fact I'm not even sure we need that sentence at all since it's largely redundant. Kaldari (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per BBC and others. BBC also mentions property destruction so maybe include that too. I don't like to use activist sources like ADL directly (same for SPLC) but it's fine as a supplement. D.Creish (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Malformed RfC as the statement "to be changed" is not accepted content of the article currently. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? That is not mentioned in the RFC above. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a complaint that you've given what I believe to be your preferred version as the stable version, and proposed the other wording as a "change." I tend to agree that it could be a bit more neutrally worded, but given how long this has gone on and the multifarious nature of the debate, I certainly understand. I also had a hand in that "deem" language, but I dislike it more and more as time passes. More's the pity, I suppose! Thanks all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it is a bit rough, I am just trying to get this settled. I tried to grab the versions from around the talk page and the stable version. PackMecEng (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems like "trying to get this settled" is the same as "trying to put in a decontextualized statement vilifying Antifa groups for punching nazis by leaving out the part where the people they punch are nazis" in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately, this was not a neutrally phrased RfC and I'd consider its results tainted as a result. I would invite you to restructure the RfC to address that concern or withdraw it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
What is not neutral? It is a simple should we change x to y. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
See Dumuzid's comment above. Although I honestly find this whole thing rather tendentious. You proposed an edit. Nobody supported it. Bob proposed an edit. I supported it. You tried to insist he should not have proposed an edit. I told you that wasn't up to you. Then immediately, an RFC.Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah got it, so there is not issue with the neutrality of the RFC wording. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I was pretty clear that I was referincing back to where Dumuzid already elaborated on my concerns about the neutrality of the RfC. The fact that I think you started the RfC to protect your preferred version from an edit you didn't like is apropos to that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we include an option B to this RfC proposing Bob's suggested: Antifa groups are distinguished by using direct action when confronting far-right groups, and among the various tactics they have used are political violence and harassment. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I have an issue with confronting far-right groups, since their definition of far-right is not standard. Basically boils down to anyone they disagree with. PackMecEng (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you give an example, PackMecEng of a group that our article shows has been a target of antifa political violence which is, according to its Wikipedia article, not far right? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
That has been discussed extensively here. Lots of sources and discussion there. PackMecEng (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I am reading that discussion now. It seems to me that you (PackMecEng) and a multiply blocked editor, OnceASpy, were the only editors who actually expressed a need to have a phrase like "deem to be"; all other editors seemed fine with us not having it (DanielRigal, I think, and Arms & Hearts) and most actively argued against it (PeterTheFourth and I think Dumuzid and Simonm223, so I am not sure how anyone can read the consensus there as in favour of the weasel words. "Deem" was preferred to "perceive", but nobody apart from you and OnceASpy actually wanted there to be any qualifier. So, I'm not trying to relitigate, just don't feel we've actually reached a consensus. Also, you didn't answer my question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I am strictly responsible for the word "deem," but I did say the whole clause felt fairly weaselly. I like it less and less as time goes on, for whatever that is worth! Dumuzid (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if we need to seperate the "principal feature" issue from the "deem to be" issue in the RfC? If we need the "deem to be", the version], by Aquillion is actually more straightforward than mine, but I'd prefer to drop the "deem". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I have issues with how you phrased this RfC because I believe you're trying to exclude Bobfrombrockley's proposed text, which I prefer over either of the options discussed. I don't think I should have to remind you that you don't WP:OWN this page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Renewed attempt

This RfC seems to have produced consensus against both the current version and the proposed version. A recent discussion has been archived here without reaching clear consensus but with majority support for the removal of the weasel words "deem to be" and opposing the highlighting of violence as a distinctive feature. Meanwhile, the lead keeps getting edited so we now have an even worse version that has no support from editors on this talk page. The current page says: "The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action", citing the BBC. The final sentence of the lede says: "Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than politically", citing the same source. The source actually says: "Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods", and says nothing about them not fighting the far right politically. I think we should remove that second sentence, and change the first one to what the source actually says: "The principal feature of antifa groups is their willingness to use direct action". This would also fit with the Wired source in the next sentence: "she is sympathetic to antifa’s goal of silencing racist extremists and is unwilling to condemn their use of violence, describing it as the last resort of a “diversity of tactics.”"

The sentence following that starts with "They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment", which we have extensively discussed and seems to have support from most editors. The end of the sentence, though, is problematic, and almost impossible to read: "against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, homophobic, misogynist or on the far-right." This is problematic for the "whom they identify as" bit, but also because of the long list "fascist, racist, homophobic, misogynist or on the far-right" which can be more simply put, something like "fascist or on the far right". It cites six sources. The sources say they oppose "white supremacists" and "racist extremists" (Wired); "right-wing extremists" and "far right-wing movements" (ADL); "white supremacists and white separatists" (AOL); "far-right ideology" (BBC); and "right-wing groups" (NPR). CNN doesn't say who they oppose so is being cited to support the list of tactics. In short, none of the sources we cite say they attack non-extremist racists, homophobes or misogynists. (And none of them say they attack people they identify as far right; they simply say they attack the far right.) So, I think we should change this sentence to something like: "They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against white supremacists and the far right." Or, if we can't get consensus on not using the qualifier, then I guess "those they identify as" such. That is, simply delete the "racist, homophobic, misogynist".

These changes would make the lead shorter and simpler, and actually reflect the sources. Would that have consensus? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The BBC source actually says "Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy." and "Unlike the mainstream left, they do not seek to gain power through traditional channels - winning elections and passing bills into law.". "directly, rather than politically" is an acceptable paraphrase. The list is a bit long and a neo-nazi can include all of that. It can be made concise, if sources does not explicitly raise them. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, you might be right about the "political" term, although I think it is a slight stretch. However, I would be against using "neo-nazi" as the summary term, (a) because it is much more narrow and specific than "far right" or even "fascist" (it can easily be shown that groups antifa have attacked are not all neo-nazi) and (b) because none of the sources we cite here use the term "neo-nazi". BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

Change Anti fascist to fascist. They are a fascist group trying to suppress others with violence. 96.44.72.127 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Gittlitz article

I found A. M. Gittlitz's recent article "Anti-Anti-Antifa" in Commune quite interesting. I wonder if we might use it to source a paragraph in the Response section on the left critique of antifa, associated with Gilles Dauvé and others, that Gittlitz describes. Commune is quite a new publication with a distinct anti-capitalist perspective, but its editorial team includes some established scholars and Gittlitz has previously been published in the New Inquiry, New York Times and elsewhere, so I think a critical essay like this is reliable by our standards. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Really interesting article. Not sure how we judge if it is an RS, but it looks well sourced via hyperlinks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. I suggest that you use intext citation (mention it is Gittlitz's interpretation of the different positions.) TFD (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd concur with TFD on this one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

PayPal

Looks like there have been several stories lately about antifa groups being banned from PayPal along with the proud boys.[32][33][34][35] Where should we add this to the article? PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it's really relevant to the article that some specific antifa groups were banned from PayPal. If said group were notable enough for their own article, sure. Or if this were a mass banning against antifa groups in general, it would make sense. But as is, I don't see it being significant enough to warrant a mention. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No antifa groups in the United States have their own page. But it is a mass banning of several of the most prominent antifa groups. But eh if consensus says it is undue for any mention regardless of the RS coverage that is fine. PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
One person saying "don't do it" is hardly consesus. You have sone sources, go ahead and write something up. Carptrash (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, I mostly mentioned it if after others commented there was consensus not to include. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't speak for the USA; but antifa in Europe is largely an anonymous movement - I would be suspicious about an antifa group that had become famous enough to deserve their own Wikipedia article. Or that thought they needed their own webpage, for that matter; I'm not sure which you meant.
Antifa in Europe is basically an underground movement. You aren't supposed to know who's in it. Is it different in the USA? MrDemeanour (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The banning of a variety of groups (seven apparently) does seem relevant here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: Rose City Antifa have an article, as do Redneck Revolt and Refuse Fascism, who are sometimes described as antifa groups (probably erroneously in the latter case). None appear to be among the groups banned by PayPal last month, though two of the sources linked above mention that Rose City Antifa were similarly banned in the past. It's also worth clarifying, since this is a U.S.-centric article, that only two of the three groups recently banned are U.S.-based: the Anti-Fascist Network is based in the UK (see their tweet on the subject). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I find it interesting that Antifa Atlanta has a Facebook page as well as a web site (on which they "out" alt-right members) but have not seen anything that would lead PayPal to kick them out. My belief (no reference) is that PayPal tossed them so that they could claim to be "balanced" while ditching the alt-right folks. Carptrash (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No need to make up theories when Patreon issued a clear statement: "Striking the necessary balance between upholding free expression and open dialogue and protecting principles of tolerance, diversity and respect for all people is a challenge that many companies are grappling with today. We work hard to achieve the right balance and to ensure that our decisions are values-driven and not political. We carefully review accounts and take action as appropriate. We do not allow PayPal services to be used to promote hate, violence, or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory." (emphasis mine) [36] wumbolo ^^^ 20:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Has PayPal explicitly called anti-fascists discriminantly intolerant? Because if no, that'd be an egregious example of WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
And it is interesting to me that PayPal addresses the "discriminately intolerant" of the right & the left all at the same time. Sounds as if a group that was indiscriminately intolerant might be okay? Carptrash (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Ha, perhaps. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

change antifa's general description to include their label as an domestic terrorist group

[1] Anifa fits very well into the definition of terrorist going by the state department's definition of terrorist ""premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fib118 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Antifa is not a group at all and it has not officially been designated by the State Department. So this is just somebody's opinion. Other people have other opinions and this is irrelevant to Wikipedia. If there is ever an actual organisation called "Antifa" and if it ever gets officially designated as anything by somebody official then we will document that. What we will not do is make stuff up to reflect what some people think should have happened.
Also, this has been asked about 1,000 times before so and it always been rejected. So if you find my answer not convincing enough, please feel free to read through the archives of this page (Links are at the top.) and see what other people have said in the past. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
And the White House made it very clear in their response to a petition asking for Antifa to be so classified that they have no mechanism to designate domestic groups as terrorist. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ MEYER, JOSh. "Senior Investigative Reporter". politico.com. politico. Retrieved 20 December 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_6&oldid=882926280"