Talk:Antifa (United States)

RFC Political Violence

Should the sentence:

"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."

be changed to

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

Sources

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)

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)

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"[1] 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)

• CNN didn't state the word threats in quotes. wumbolo ^^^ 08:56, 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.[2] 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.[3] PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 12 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.[4] Endlist (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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 [5][6][7][8][9] 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: [10]. 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)

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)

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 [11][12]. 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: [13]] 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)