Talk:Antifa (United States)

RfC: antifa and terrorism

Which of the following is preferable treatment of this Politico source with respect to terrorism?

• Option A (status quo): By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism.
• Option B: DHS and FBI intelligence assessments indicated monitoring of antifa protesters before the 2016 elections. By 2017, DHS had formally classified antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence".
• Option C: Exclude both of the above.
• Option D: Per Politico, by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.
• Option E: ???

R2 (bleep) 17:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Option C The statement by Politico has not been verified by any outside source, it's also something of a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim considering the number of people killed by antifascist action in the US since the beginning of the Trump presidency. As such, it has no WP:DUE weight. Furthermore, it is a WP:COATRACK statement to create the erroneous idea that antifascist activity is widely regarded as analogous to terrorism. Simply put, the Politico statement is a perfect example of why WP:NOTNEWS is important to the project - journalistic sources may occasionally be useful, but they often come with biases toward the sensational over the factual. This appears to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B or D Politico is considering a reliable source and the claims are not "extraordinary". Strong opposition to C. Galestar (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B We follow the WP:RSs like Politico, and do not WP:CENSOR just because a Wikipedian thinks that 0 people have been killed by antifascist action in the US since the beginning of a presidency. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that what I "think" is wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

how many people a group has killed in an arbitrary length of time is not the sole measurement of what makes a group terrorist. please see: the definition of terrorism.Mbsyl (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is specifically about content considered to be "objectionable or offensive‍". I don't think anybody has objected to the inclusion of these claims on anything approaching those grounds, and I don't think you really believe that anyone has. The policy is expressly not about material that runs counter to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or is believed to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option D I say mention the terrorism allegation, but attribute it to Politico per WP:REDFLAG. I have some issue stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice given the silence of other reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) --Despite having drafted Option D (rather poorly, I adimt), I have been swayed by many of the arguments here that given some combination of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, the best course is to keep this claim out. Therefore Option C. Apologies for both my flightiness and poor drafting. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid, would you care to draft some language, add it as a new Option D, and create a new Option E as ??? R2 (bleep) 19:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, I thought I'd run it by you here first, but I would want something like,

Per Politico, by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.

I think it's important to note the Politico report, but we also have to say that it's kind of murky. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option C Per WP:REDFLAG, we should not make include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." This story has mostly been picked up in the "echo chamber" of unreliable websites and no one else appears to have seen these secret documents. At most it could only be mentioned with in text attribution saying it was a claim made in Politico not an established fact. TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The story was picked up and cited approvingly by Newsweek, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and The Hill. Hardly an echo chamber of unreliable websites. R2 (bleep) 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I said mostly. It haven't seen the story reported in cable or network news (except Fox) or American quality newspapers. That seems to me that they put little credit in the story or think it is unimportant, both of which are reasons to exclude it. TFD (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option D Attribution might be a better alternative that Option B. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B This is reliably sourced factual content. It's highly significant, and the story was picked up by other reliable sources such as Newsweek, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and The Hill. Option B reflects the source; Options A and D do not. I would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant when it published that antifa's activities were "formally designated" as domestic terrorism. Alas they didn't; but that doesn't mean we should exclude this important information, or add unsourced commentary. R2 (bleep) 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As was explained to you above, the Politico source specifically says that The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public. I'm baffled that you could think that your preferred version is backed by that source while omitting that key aspect, or that you could muse about how you "would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant" while leaving out the one key clarification that the source you're trying to use provides. Without that clarification, you are misusing the source, meaning that B is not a workable option, fullstop - even if you think the source is worth including, you must summarize all of it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per Simonm and TFD. Alternatively, if anything is to be included it should be Option D. That way readers are aware of the full context behind the statement.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option D Except that I'd drop the final sentence unless that final sentence can be sourced. I think attribution is warranted here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like that last sentence either (and I wrote it!), but it feels wrong to leave the "classification" out there as if it were a well-understood and known thing. I'm still mulling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Without additional good sources, I favour Option C or Option A. Options B and D are both absolutely unacceptable based on a single source which is quite likely to be mistaken or mispeaking. We have nothing from the DHS to corroborate the vague claims made by the single source. This is hearsay at best. If a DHS classification list did exist then we can be absolutely certain that other sources would have covered it too. The fact that there is only one source for this claim very strongly suggests that is mistaken. Option B simply gives credence to the unreliable claim and is unacceptable. Option D is its weird, nervous cousin. It makes the claim and then partially walks it back with a caveat that is unsourced editorialising. This is weaselly. Both options B and D are also worded incorrectly by saying "Antifa's activities" which suggests an organisation with agency. Antifa is not an organisation. In short options B and D are both dumpster fires and would need to be reworded even if we had sufficient sources to support what they are trying to say. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, I am now leaning more towards C than A. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option B or D Seems to be the most reasonable description. I do not think D is necessary but would be okay with it as a compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• OPTION A - nothing new has occurred to shift the long-standing text on the 2017 tidbit. I’m thinking it should have been attributed to Politico back when as that seems the source, but the option D goes into an unacceptable too much ‘unclear what that means’ and meanwhile keeping it the same seems OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option D: Its only one sources claim.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B (invited by the bot) if you can find a second source for that, otherwise A or D. BTW you have a structural problem with this RFC as currently arranged. Roughly speaking the "include" sentiment is divided between three options (A,B,D),and the exclude sentiment not divided and all in C. A fix would be combine results from A,B & D into a "include at least a little bit" sentiment.

Agreed re:structural issue. Galestar (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option C - What we have is an issue where an "anonymous DHS employee" provided Politico with documents they claimed classified "antifa" as a terrorist organization. DHS has refused to comment publicly, and there has been no further corroboration of the story. I don't doubt the Politico reporter was shown documents by someone in DHS, but whether those documents were legitimate or provided out-of-context is very unclear. Reliable sources can make mistakes or be fed misinformation, so without further corroboration, I don't think it's due weight to include this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C, or, failing that, A. Strong oppose to B and D; both are both completely unacceptable - they misrepresent the source by giving the impression that the DHS publicly made that designation, which numerous sources (including the Politico article itself) specifically say it did not. Even with proper wording, it would be WP:UNDUE - this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim with very little coverage relative to what you'd expect if it was worth including, and at this point it's clear that the story went nowhere and doesn't really say anything meaningful about the topic; dredging up, essentially, a two-year-old article that failed to gain traction doesn't make sense. But the wording proposed in both B and D completely misrepresents the source in a way that makes them flatly unusable as written. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option D or B - Option D, preferably without the last sentence, unless it can be sourced. Mcrt007 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose B as it states something as fact that cannot be verified and as has been pointed out above suggests that it was a public statement rather than something coming from anonymous sources. Strongly oppose D for the reasons given by DanielRigal and Aquillion and of course the last sentence isn't sourced. Strongly opposed A because it's wrong. The FBI and DHS did not report anything. Anonymous figures within those organisation told, not reported, Politico various things. Which leaves me Support C unless someone comes up with reliable sources other than Politico. If WP:UNDUE applies anywhere, it applies here. Note that I am not supporting terrorism. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per Doug Weller et al. Sources really don't back up the Politico story, and the whole things smells rotten to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C as above. Just don't see the sourcing for such a label. O3000 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per Doug Weller and others. We need context from reliable sources before passing this on, and we shouldn't be intentionally including confusing details just because we can find a flimsy source. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C - A single anonymously-sourced claim reported in a single source doesn't appear to merit any weight here, particularly given the inflammatory context of the word "terrorist." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C - per Doug Weller.--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C - From the news, it is clear that Antifa does have a tendency towards violence, and if the DHS equates "violence" with "terrorism", the source may even be telling the truth. The problem is that most people don't equate "violence" with "terrorism." To most people, "terrorism" denotes random attacks, with murderous intent, on disfavored groups of people, such as 9/11, truck bombings, the Mazatlan or Hasan Nidal shootings, etc. That's quite different from Antifa's preferred form of violence, which appears to be relatively low-level violence, such as thrown objects or nonfatal beatings, against individuals it doesn't like. It's not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend it is.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Terrorism is defined slightly differently by various major institutions in the US. The Department of State defines it (approximately) as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f). The Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political." More US definitions: here. Mcrt007 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• The term used is "domestic terrorism," which as defined much more narrowly by the U.S. government, and would not include this incident. TFD (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option C - per a gross lack of addtional, stronger sourcing failing WP:V for an exceptional claim. The fact that it was all reported as an internal discussion with no further clarifications means policies are against its inclusion. Goverment agency internal discussions usually can generate all kinds of wild shit out of sheer ineptitude alone, we're not going to list them until an official statement is made. Option B and D are completely unacceptable for we're going to be responsible for another citogenesis incident. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 04:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I had not heard the term citogenesis before but I was aware that this is a thing that can happen. I am pretty sure that I have seen deliberate attempts to trigger it on this article and several others. It is good to have a name for it. In a post-truth world, editing Wikipedia can feel like a step towards editing reality itself. We need to take a tough line on this in order to discourage a pipeline that runs along the lines of: Unsupported assertion from an anonymous source -> Credulous journalist -> One RS source -> Wikipedia -> Other RS sources via Wikipedia -> Perceived truth. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option C - per User:Doug Weller.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C cytogenesis concerns appear to be very real... Not currently convinced by any of the arguments for inclusion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per Doug Weller's reasoning. Strong oppose to A, B, and D, none of which accurately reflect the source. An accurate sentence would begin, "Anonymous sources told Politico that..." and of course any sentence that begins like that and ends with an accusation of terrorism would be UNDUE. – Levivich 17:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option D without the last sentence: This information has been reported by several reliable sources and is clearly relevant. The claim that this information is somehow exceptional is wrong; on the contrary this classification isn't much of a novelty compared to how this movement has long been classified elsewhere. Antifa, as the term is understood in Europe where it originated, is a loose movement traditionally affiliated with "anti-imperialist" communism ("imperialist" meaning the U.S./NATO/the western world); as such it was seen as a threat to national security in countries like the Federal Republic of Germany. The "Antifa" movement has long been classified as "extremist" and "violent" in German government reports, and is monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the agency tasked with matters of domestic extremism and terrorism, as openly stated on their website and in their public reports on extremism. This is the main definition of Antifa/"anti-fascism" published by the federal office:

Das Aktionsfeld „Antifaschismus“ ist seit Jahren ein zentrales Element der politischen Arbeit von Linksextremisten, insbesondere aus dem gewaltorientierten Spektrum. Die Aktivitäten von Linksextremisten in diesem Aktionsfeld zielen aber nur vordergründig auf die Bekämpfung rechtsextremistischer Bestrebungen. Im eigentlichen Fokus steht der Kampf gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung, die als „kapitalistisches System“ diffamiert wird, und deren angeblich immanente „faschistische“ Wurzeln beseitigt werden sollen. [The field of "anti-fascism" has for years been a central element of the political activity of far-left extremists, especially violent ones. Far-left extremists within this tradition only superficially claim to fight far-right activities. In reality the focus is the struggle against liberal democracy, which is smeared as a "capitalist system" with "fascist" roots.] ("Aktionsfeld „Antifaschismus“", published by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution)

In order to understand what the term has come to mean, especially in Europe, one has to remember that for decades, the Soviet Union daily used the word "fascism" to describe the western world and "anti-fascism" to describe the Soviet struggle against the western world (the official name of the Berlin Wall being one of countless examples: "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart"); as a result "anti-fascism" and "Antifa" took on a specific meaning, unrelated to historical fascism (even social democrats were for years smeared as "fascists" by the Soviets and their supporters).

The decades-long established official view of the German government on "Antifa" really isn't very much different from what is now reported to be the American government's view on this movement. This is particularly significant since the German government is often regarded as the antithesis to Trump these days. (As most people know, I'm not at all a supporter of Donald Trump, but we should evaluate the relevance of this piece of information based on its merits rather than an automatic rejection of everything the Trump administration does.) --Tataral (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• With all due respect, is American Antifa really the same thing? Are they just adopting a common moniker? I am not sure (though I am far from an expert) that we can really rely on prior or geographically disparate experience here. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that the majority of Americans involved in loose "Antifa" groups in the U.S. have a full understanding of the history of the term/movement in Europe and all its connotations, but on the other hand they have adopted the name and symbols and professed goals of this historical movement from Europe. Regardless, it's noteworthy if the U.S. government considers them to be "domestic terrorists". My main point above was that this isn't very exceptional when the German government has called the similarly named movement in Germany "extremists" and "violent", and monitored them in that context, for decades. --Tataral (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow -your arguments on this rfc are by far the most insightful. Thank you, Tataral! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option D - per verifiable reports in RS, such as The Independent, and Politico ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose option C and support the last sentence of option D. The rest of it should be mentioned, but worded in a way that appropriatly expresses the uncertainty. I'm somewhat indifferent to the precise wording. Benjamin (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per reasoning by Simonm223. If one or two additional RS, that were not simply précis' of the original Politico article, could be presented then it could be revisited. Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option D per multiple WP:RS Loganmac (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There's only one independent WP:RS - other sources are citing the Politico article and don't constitute independent sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B There is a source. Lets not over think this. We have seen numerous cases in which ANTIFA organize to create mayhem and terrorise their political opponents. They frequently talk about using violence against people who hold other ideologies Jeff1948a (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Option A and Option B both work. Im fine with either one. HAL333

• Option D, maybe without the last sentence. As others have noted, some government agency targeting an organization or broad collective for terrorist activity doesn't imply that they are terrorists, and I don't think it's a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, given FBI's history, as hundreds of leftist groups have been watched by the FBI in the same way without any actual terrorist attack. On the other hand, given that in this case it's not a widely established fact, at the moment it should be attributed to Politico. --MarioGom (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Possible amendment to Option D: Per Politico, by 2017, sources at FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." --MarioGom (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe Option A and Option B both function well. They both offer a full neutral view as encouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines. All the others wont work, except maybe D No U 3000 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option B - Summoned by bot. This is accurate sourced content and although Politico is being used as the source, the claim can be supported and verified from other RS listed above. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C. The phrase is no longer needed and should simply be removed because most recent developments [1] have made this issue obsolete. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B ANTIFA has had a long history of violence and far left terrorism. This is simply a fact backed by most mainstream sources. I'd say the wording of option B supports this fact the bestCement4802 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• It's an inappropriate use of WP:NOTCENSORED to argue against the application of WP:FRINGE. The idea that a loose ideological grouping which have killed no people in political violence is considered terrorists by the state without any such indication from the state is the very definition of a WP:FRINGE statement, and the fact that it showed up in Politico should be making people doubt the reliability of Politico, rather than lending credence to this fringe nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Simonm223, there may be an angle to this that you're missing. The fact that a group of people has been labeled as terrorists by the government doesn't mean they are terrorists. This is especially true in this administration, which lacks credibility across the board. I think this story is comparable to other instances in which the federal government has targeted non-terrorist groups as terrorists, for example here. The fact that the Trump administration is targeting left-wing groups is plausible, even likely, and highly significant. It's consistent with Trump's "both sides" rhetoric. And the fact that they would publicly deny it is totally unsurprising to me. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't believe the terrorism claims warrant any coverage on Wikipedia. They're the patently false delusions of the far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does, see WP:RGW and WP:NPOV. I don't care who you love or hate, but this page is not for defending terrorists. wumbolo ^^^ 19:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You've lost me Wumbolo, but the purpose of my comment above is to try to bring us toward a consensus, and I don't know if your response helps in that respect. I don't think anyone here is loving or hating or defending terrorists. R2 (bleep) 19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm also lost, but about the comment about a group of people being labeled as terrorists. R2 I agree with you about credibility, but where were they labelled as terrorists. Wumbolo's post seems an attack on editors who disagree with him. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when asking for reliable sources gets you labeled a friend of terrorists. So which, laugh or cry? Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug, according to the Politico source, Antifa's activities were labeled as domestic terrorism. In my view this is somewhat akin other left-wing groups that the feds have added to terrorist watch lists in the past, like Greenpeace or PETA. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo I'd remind you of WP:NOTFORUM your belief in imaginary leftist terrorists is irrelevant to whether this is a violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone actually described a terrorist act or even planned terrorist act about whomever Antifa is supposed to be. Otherwise, I go with Option E. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but don't believe there's any evidence antifa has ever engaged in any sort of terrorism. But that doesn't seem to be a basis for ignoring this significant development, which, in my view, reflects more on the federal government than it does on antifa. R2 (bleep) 22:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Objectcive3000, but we also have Politico, which might not be a top-tier RS, but I'd say is B+, making a significant claim. I think it definitely merits inclusion, but also needs context to make sure it doesn't veer into WP:UNDUE. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I look askance at declarations from this gov't. I suggest we wait a tad and see what comes of this. My own opinion, which is irrelevant, is that antifa is a disconnected bunch of drunken, pissed off assholes with nothing better to do. But, I was wrong when I missed the fun in 1789 at the Bastille. O3000 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't breaking news. 2017. FWIW these weren't "declarations" by the government. This was investigative reporting using multiple sources and documents. R2 (bleep) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)*

• Your version still carries the implication that they have been publicly designated as domestic terrorism, when the source specifically says otherwise. I'm baffled that you can continue to make that mistake despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you. I don't think the source passes WP:DUE at all, but your consistent insistence on misreading it in a way that makes it seem more dramatic and important than it actually is only undermines your arguments for inclusion, since it seems like an implicit acknowledgement that once the The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public bit is included in the summary (as it would have to be, in any version we put in the article), the whole thing becomes a nothingburger not worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dumuzid I don't know what is meant by "formally designating" something as domestic terrorism, but I suspect it has something to do with this. There was a DHS office that tracked domestic terrorists, and according to the reporting there might still be one. R2 (bleep) 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, and I also suspect that maybe the journalist phrased it in a way that the source might not have; all that said, it's still just...terribly unclear! So it goes. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Do we have anything other than an unconfirmed story almost two years old, not mentioned in any of the major mainstream news outlets and with zero followup? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This was exactly the point I was about to make. The "concerns" highlighted in the Politico article amounted to precisely nothing. There was no sign of widespread coverage at the time, and none since. More likely is that it was useful for the Trump administration to portray Antifa in an unfavorable light at the time, statements were made by government officials to that effect, and Politico and a couple of other Beltway media organs lazily reported them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And what are these acts of domestic terrorism they are supposed to have carried out? The Weather Underground article says the FBI considered them a terrorist group, then outlines various terrorist actions they carried out such as bombing the Capitol, the Pentagon and various other U.S. government installations. I haven't seen any coverage of antifa carrying out these sorts of attacks. On would expect that Politico's article would at least explain the reasons for the label, if in fact their story is accurate. TFD (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well you see, someone who might or might not have been a member of an antifascist group threw a milkshake at (Redacted), and that's exactly the same as what the Weather Underground got up to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a plain violation of BLP to call Ngo a racist blogger without providing RS to that effect. Also, they didn't just throw a milkshake at him; they sucker-punched him in the head, repeatedly kicked him. Then they threw something that looks like milshakes on him. He had to go to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a brain hemorrhage. Relatedly, here is a video of Antifa smashing private property and terrorizing people: [2]. There are, of course, many other examples of this sort of behavior. It's very surprising that people are acting like we've never seen this sort of thing from Antifa. Obviously both 'antifa' and 'terror' are going to be disputed words. But we have RS reporting something about this dispute, and with attribution it seems clearly to be due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why have you posted a video from an anti-Trump demonstration in January 2017 (see DisruptJ20) in a discussion about an entirely unrelated anti-fascist demonstration in June 2019? Neither the video nor the description anywhere mentions "Antifa". Are you confused or are you actively trying to mislead people? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The video was relevant to the question whether Antifa has committed acts of terror, which was also under discussion. I figured some would deny that the black clad "protestors" in the video were Antifa. The matter is disputed. In my opinion, the existence of this dispute is part of why the Politco report is worthy of incusion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean finding examples of academics talking about Quillette pushing a bias in articles on race is a trivial task. Quillette is a racist blog. Ngo writes for a racist blog with articles under his byline including this one and this one. Basically quack quack. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say he writes for a racist blog; you said he's a racist. That's a violation of BLP. An opinion piece in Arcdigital is not RS for such a claim. Quillette is not a blog. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia describes Quillette as an online magazine, not a blog, but I can't find any description for "arcdigital" which seems to be an obscure (Medium hosted) blog with only 1500 followers. Nicholas Grossman, the author of the article you linked to, seems to be an academic, in the so-called Political Sciences field but he has virtually zero citations and peer-reviewed research. He laments the Quillette article pushes "bad Social Science" - that's quite likely, especially since the entire Social Science field is full of junk research and bad statistics which affect (though to a lesser degree) even so-called "top-studies" like those peer-reviewed and published in the highest impact "science magazines" (Nature & Science) where less than 1% of "researchers" active in the field get to publish. The argument of "pushing a bias in an article" can easily be used against any publication which chooses to publish this kind of research, statistically week or, even worse, invalidated by future experiments (even for Science magazine) if the qualification criteria is just pointing to an anecdote (e.g.: an article presenting what could be junk statistical findings). Mcrt007 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: This is not a "dispute", it's a clear-cut case of someone drawing connections that are not only original research but also straightforwardly false. You're either not possessed of sufficient grasp of the factual issues to provide anything of worth to this discussion, or you're not attempting to provide anything of worth, but rather to soapbox and distract from the question at hand. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It. Is. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think this is one we're going to reach any sort of agreement on. Though I hate invoking it (because I think it very much overused), this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I'd like to suggest we agree to disagree here and get back to what we're doing with the article. Feel free to ignore me, however. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. TFD (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply the actions carried out by antifa are not politically motivated? Also yes calling Andy Ngo racist is of course a BLP vio and should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• TFD - the most commonly used definition in the US is that of the Department of State, e.g.: (approximately) "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (per Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f). More US definitions: here. Mcrt007 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's about international terrorism. Domestic terrorism is defined as: to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."[3] Attempts to intimidate a minority population are not considered terrorism, but hate crimes. Attempts to intimidate a political group, such as neo-nazis, do not come under either category. PackMecEng, no, why do you ask? TFD (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Because above you mention Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. which I took as you implying it was not to change government policy or the like. Is that incorrect? Apologies if I am mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, let's remember WP:NOTAFORUM - this is largely irrelevant to the question at hand which centers on WP:DUE when dealing with a statement made by one publication and never verified in another independent source. Frankly US law could call tuna sandwiches terrorism and it wouldn't be relevant to whether Politico is due mention. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Close Request

So this RfC has been up for 4 weeks now? Can we please get an uninvolved admin to interpret and close? Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC to add a new section

The purpose of this RfC is to gain consensus for adding a new section titled Antifa activism for the purpose of creating and maintaining a timeline of notable antifa events, demonstrations, riots and various other forms of anti-fascist activities. Antifa supporters are recognizable by their black bloc attire, the targets they choose and/or their ideological behavior which does not rule out violence. They are also referred to as anti-fascists, or they could be individuals who act out and identify as antifascist but are not connected to a specific antifa group. Following is an example of a timeline with notable dates of past events involving antifa. Each date will include a description of the event per cited RS, and will closely adhere to WP:PAG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anarchism#RfC, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Socialism#RfC - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa activism

• Jan 20, 2017 - DC - Trump inauguration
• Feb 01, 2017 - UC Berkeley - Milo Yiannopoulos
• Jun 29, 2019 - Portland, WA Ngo
• Jul 19, 2019 - Tacoma, WA - Willem Van Spronsen

Support adding new section

• Support - antifa events have historic significance and lasting encyclopedic value. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support WP:POLITICS member. I agree this should get its own level 2 section. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely, this article is heavily biased. According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we must represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." To exclude violence, an integral column of Antifa, would violate this. We must provide a full picture, from the positives to the negatives. HAL333 18:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support the page certainly needs to be much better organized, and this sounds like a good step in that direction. Mbsyl (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Violence appears to be an important part of Antifa's modus operandi, and it is dishonest to exclude examples.

Oppose adding new section

• Oppose. Just no. Hope everyone is having a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per below for clarity due to the existing section that covers everything WP:DUE and reliably-sourced proposed here, but noting that this is an invalid RFC because most of what it suggests is already in the article, which it doesn't acknowledge. Note that I would not oppose bumping the existing section up to level 2 as a compromise, of course, provided the overall structure remains the same and the Ngo and Tacoma incidents are not added. --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose First. two of the four items have not been shown to be antifa and shouldn't be in the article at all. Those discussions are elsewhere and should have been allowed to conclude before an RfC of this nature was created. The RfC should be closed. Secondly, a timeline is usually used to indicate some sort of progression, like a Gantt chart. It suggests organization and planning that simply hasn’t been shown to exist here. Thirdly, the existence of a timeline makes it all too easy to include items that don’t belong, as occurred in the DailyWire article and has already occurred here. Fourth, a timeline suggests some sort of equality of weight in items. Fifth, this would generate unending discussions on what to include as time goes by. Also, the text at the top of this RfC indicates a POV, which is improper in an RfC. O3000 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal involves duplicating existing content pointlessly and then adding additional content, some of which may not even be on topic for this article, with the scope for people to add even more later. It may not be intended as such, but it would become a coatrack for regular spurious additions. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above – the section already exists and the RfC is an exercise in wilful ignorance – but also because converting prose to a "timeline" (however fuzzily defined) is bad writing and contravenes the manual of style (see MOS:PROSE and WP:PROSELINE). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in its current form, per the above and discussion below. --MarioGom (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lots of reasons, but O3000's points seem worth reemphasizing. Presenting this as a timeline is implying to readers that these events are similar to each other in ways which aren't supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose + malformed RfC - per O3000, Arms & Hearts above and Aquillion below. The first two incidents are already featured and the last two are rejected by the current consensus as undue. This is just an attempt to re-assemble a single unreliable and skewed source's conclusion using other reliable sources - which is textbook WP:SYNTH and absolutely unacceptable. No reason to cherrypick certain "violent incidents" to justfy an editors's idiosyncrasies and feature them far more prominently than what is already neutrally written. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 09:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - However, the article could be expanded a bit. See https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html for example. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but would support promoting current section to Level 2 as Aquillion mentioned. There are several things that need improvement with the current "Notable activism" section and are being discussed but new duplicate "Antifa activism" section would be confusing and counter-productive. Galestar (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The bot summoned me. So based on MOS:LIST I have to say no. Essentially I'd say you are calling for an embedded list. The items you want to list are already contained in prose. This does nothing unique for readability and in the end it seems to me it's just an additional listing of statistics already contained in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Serialjoepsycho's post just above and Tsumikiria. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • And where is the source that all Antifa supporters wear black bloc attire? Doug Weller talk 18:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Section already exists / Invalid RFC

• Strong oppose and invalid RFC. First, half of what it suggests is already in the article, under an existing section on "notable activism" that already covers the well-sourced Milo and Trump protests at length (which makes it non-neutral by burying the actual controversial additions under uncontroversial ones we already cover with an implication that the inclusion of those two is somehow at issue or under debate; someone who didn't read the detailed discussions above or didn't read the article could be mislead into believing that the first two are absent or that we lack a section on antifa activism, which is false.) For the other two, the Portland and Tacoma incidents, which are the actual ones at issue, no sources have been provided describing them as "antifa activism", and a simple look at the list shows that the focus requested for them is WP:UNDUE compared to the Trump inauguration and UC Berkley, which received extensive coverage as Antifa protests rather than the brief scattered mentions of Ngo or the pure, groundless WP:SYNTH being applied to Tacoma. Describing every event in which we have a source saying that the people involved supported antifa (or looked like antifa supporters, as the more cautious sources about Ngo put it) as "notable antifa activism" is comparable to describing every event involving a Republican as "notable Republican activism" and amounts to original research; furthermore, the way this RFC and, I presume, the implicit rewrite to the existing section it is asking for is structured (especially in light of discussions above) seems clearly intended to form an overall narrative that is not present in any of the sources and therefore can only be WP:SYNTH. The attempt to describe Tacoma in particular as "antifa activism" based on such sparse and far more cautiously-worded sourcing is frankly a bit startling, especially given that numerous people pointed this problem out above - a handful of sources mentioning in passing that Van Spronsen may have had sympathy for antifa does not make the incident "notable antifa activism". In any case, given the problem I outlined above with this RFC, I strongly advise closing it and opening another one focusing more specifically on the actual changes you're requesting. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and invalid RFC Per WP:TEND and WP:DEADHORSE - the proposing editor should review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and please cease with this protracted attempt at WP:CIVILPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• The section suggested already exists, which makes the format of this RFC ("add new section" vs. "oppose adding new section") invalid. Additionally, two of the events it suggests "adding" are already covered, which makes its wording misleading; any casual visitor who skimmed this RFC would think that they were weighing in on a dispute of whether to include / exclude the Trump protests or the UC Berkeley incident, which is plainly absurd. No useful consensus can come out of an RFC whose initial wording is so severely flawed; I suggest deleting this and starting over, ideally with separate RFCs for each of the two things you're actually proposing adding. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What did you do? You changed the format of this RfC. You need to fix what you screwed up. Move your iVote into the Oppose section, the way I had this thing set up. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: I restored the original sections as you had it, but I don't feel comfortable moving Aquillion's comment at this time. Sorry. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MJL - I have asked Awilley to take a look at what Aquillion did because it was disruptive. You just don't change an RfC from the way another editor had it formatted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

First, I disagree; it is WP:BOLD, but refactoring RFCs that were malformed or misleading immediately after they're posted isn't unusual (in part because such fixes have to be made quickly to keep the RFC's outcome usable); your RFC is clearly malformed or misleading, and reacting like that rather than accepting a more agreeable format as a compromise obviously makes it even harder to accept any useful outcome from it as structured (since you now know one of the people you're in a dispute with has expressed serious issues with the structure of the RFC and have chosen to push forwards with it in a contested structure regardless.) To reiterate - since the section on notable Antifa activity you're requesting and the bulk of the material you're proposing be present in it is already plainly in the article, this RFC's structure, at a glance, requires that anyone who !votes oppose express disagreement with having the currently-existing, entirely-uncontroversial section on "notable Antifa activity" covering the Trump inauguration and UC Berkeley incidents - and anyone who wasn't heavily familiar with the article's existing content is obviously going to find having nothing about antifa activity or excluding the Trump and UC Berkeley incidents absurd (as they should.) This makes any outcome from this RFC unworkable because you've constructed it in a non-neutral manner that inaccurately represents the dispute at hand; based on discussion above, you would, I presume, want to use the outcome of the RFC, if it goes for support, as justification to include Ngo and Tacoma, but you've structured the RFC in a way that makes it unclear that they're what's really being discussed or that those are actually the locus of dispute. Again, if you want to resolve that dispute, you need to close it and open a more narrowly-formulated RFC specifying the things you actually want to change about the article, rather than suggesting that we "add" a section that is already there, with material that is largely already there, with your changes tacked onto the end with no comment regarding their focus as the center of the dispute. If you don't emphasize the actual dispute and what you actually want to change, the RFC cannot produce a useful outcome either way. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, quite frankly, I couldn't care less about your opinions or fallacious accusations. You just don't reformat another editor's RfC based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. There was a reason I formatted it the way I did, starting with (a) it keeps the discussion separate from the iVotes, (b) makes things easier to manage for the admins who are watching over this hodge-podge TP, and (c) makes reviewing the RfC a lot easier for the closer. We'd all be a lot happier if you'd stop the WP:OWN behavior and WP:POVPUSHING. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You haven't answered the key point of my objection, which is why you requested a section that is already in the article, and coverage for two things we already cover. I'm aware you disagree with me, but if you want to resolve the dispute, you'll at least need an RFC that actually focuses on it in a clear and neutral manner. This one does not - do you deny that there's already a section on antifa activities in the article, which already covers the Trump and UC Berkeley events? Do you feel that there is an actual dispute over whether to include those things? If so, why is the bulk of your RFC requesting uncontroversial things as though they're in dispute? Per WP:RFC, resolving disputes like this requires finding a reasonable, neutral description of the disagreement, which you've failed to do here. If you want to (as I assume) add the Ngo and Tacoma material to the article, you will need another RFC focusing on them specifically. Finally, remember to assume good faith; obviously part of this dispute is that everyone involved thinks it's extremely obvious that certain things should / shouldn't be in the article, to the point where the other side looks like WP:POVPUSHING to them. But it's possible to reach that point simply by having different views of the sources, the exceptionality of the claims involved, and the extent to which relying on the collective things they say is WP:SYNTH or not. The way to resolve that dispute is to lay it out plainly (include / exclude disputed material), not this sort of confusing RFC that asks us to add an already-existing section with your preferred changes tacked on at the end. I don't doubt that you feel that this RFC expresses the dispute from your perspective, but you should listen to what the people you're in dispute with say at least a little bit in order to get an RFC that accurately offers a choice between the two options we're in disagreement over, and should consider an RFC about the inclusion / exclusion of the disputed material in particular (certainly, if I feel this RFC's outcomes are at all unclear on that point, I'll open such a specific RFC myself, though I'll wait for this one to end to avoid having two at once on similar subjects.) Either way, accusing me of WP:POVPUSHING just because I don't see things your way and don't even agree with your description of the dispute isn't a useful way to move forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is a mess. My proposal is for a clean cut, orderly timeline. I've grown weary of your BATTLEGROUND and will not take your bait. You've been non-stop with the gaslighting and I do not appreciate it. It's late, and I need to get some sleep. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 07:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If all you want is an orderly timeline, would you agree to spin off the question of whether to include Ngo and Tacoma into a separate RFC? Combining every aspect of disagreement into one big "fix the entire article" RFC isn't helpful and makes disputes intractable. I wouldn't necessarily oppose some restructuring, but that's unrelated to the dispute over what incidents to include in that timeline (by default, I would assume that, as a restructuring, it would include what's already in the "notable activities" section - mixing several unrelated changes together obviously makes it harder to resolve anything or to reach a consensus. (And, obviously, accusing people of gaslighting and WP:BATTLEGROUND is also against WP:AGF. I do want to improve the article; but we clearly have different views of what's worth including based on the sources, and it's important to separate out structural improvements from disputes over what we include or exclude. These aren't accusations, as you described them; they're issues I have with some of your proposed changes and with the structure of the RFC you intend to resolve the dispute over them.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's 2:30am and I can't think anymore - shutting down computer - tomorrow is another day, but yes, I probably would consider but need to sleep on it. 🛌💤😴 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 07:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I apologize for being a bit WP:BOLD with my change before and a bit in-your-face with some of my objections above; I know how, on a heated topic like this, forceful disagreement can come across as more hostile than intended. And yes, sleep is important. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Aquillion. Your apology is very welcome and gladly accepted. Now that we've turned a new page, I look forward to productive collaboration. Regardless of whether my proposal passes or fails, the article needs structure and clarity. I had to conduct most of my research off-WP to learn about this network (it is not a "movement" which is a term that applies to their cause or campaign, not their structure). The lede is confusing, the History applies more to European history, not that of the US. There is a huge difference, and that needs to be noted. The sections need better structure as it relates to WP:MOS, organization and clarity which is important as it makes the article easier to read. There also appears to be a misunderstanding or perhaps a lack of knowledge about how the antifa network operates, its reach and how it is funded. There is also little mention, if any, about the repurcussions/criticisms/concerns regarding the violence, and that information belongs in the article with clarity in a well-structured presentation of facts cited to RS. My intention is not to be overly critical of our good editors who have worked hard to provide information to expand the article; rather, my intention is aligned with the various projects on which I serve, including copy editing, WP:LIT, as a reviewer of GA/FA/NPP/AfC and so on. My purpose here is to help make it a good article despite the controversies surrounding the network. It's still our job to not only make it encyclopedic, but one that will be stable and can more easily withstand the test of time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the position presented by Aquillion. There is already a Notable activism section. A new section indiscriminately listing antifa protests might be an exercise of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that is not due here. Also if we adopt criteria like Antifa supporters are recognizable by their black bloc attire, the targets they choose and/or their ideological behavior which does not rule out violence. This is very broad and might include protests generally not recognized as antifa. Further discussion about the article status seems out of scope for this RfC. --MarioGom (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion, a good source for determining what events to include would be Google Trends. Look at the date of the events and see how high they score on the graph and if it's similar to or higher than already included events, it would be worth including that event. Google Trends link. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist96: Google Trends just measures user search terms. Any speculation of an antifa connection by high audience TV show or website could produce a spike of the search term, regardless of the reliability of the source or credibility of the report. If we adopted Google Trends to assess notability of an event in connection to antifa, we would be at risk of acting as a speculation and hoax amplifier. --MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That being said, Google Trends might be a useful exploratory tool. It can help you find potentially important dates to later use on reliable sources search. But the notability and facts would need to come from reliable sources, not Google Trend itself. --MarioGom (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump suggests designating Antifa as terrorists.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-announces-that-he-is-considering-to-declare-antifa-a-major-organization-of-terror_3019485.html?ref=brief_News&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=cbc1062757-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_29_05_33&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-cbc1062757-239132593213.109.220.162 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, another one of his many tweets. As the HuffPost says, "President Donald Trump warned Saturday that “consideration is being given” to declaring antifacist protesters — Antifa — a “terror” organization. He issued the threat even though Antifa followers haven’t been linked to a single killing, while the death toll of far-right extremists is surging." "Just weeks ago, acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan branded white supremacist violence a “huge issue” and an “increasingly concerning threat” in a Capitol Hill hearing." [4] Doug Weller talk 11:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think Trump's tweets have inherent notability and they certainly aren't reliable sources. They're opinion only, and frankly, considering how random and absent consideration his twitter proclamations are, I'd suggest they're not WP:DUE any consideration at all. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure antifa would label Trump a terrorist, so let's just call it a wash. Carptrash (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel they should be taken into consideration only when the action is taken or even if a law or policy is passed regarding the issue. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 12:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM to discuss personal political views; keep it off here. If it's received substantial coverage in more reliable sources, it's likely something that should be included. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a common misconception but WP:EVENTCRIT list item 4 says that the bar is a little higher than just having substantial coverage in reliable sources. It also has to have some sort of lasting impact. Now if Trump tries to have antifascism actually outlawed, that'll be due mention. But if he's just rage tweeting Fox and Friends, Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't even give his noise the time of day. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Epoch Times is not a reliable source for political reportage. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You are applying the wrong standard. #4 is for routine coverage, with examples such as celebrity stories and (everyday) accidents and crimes. The appropriate one is WP:EVENTCRIT #2, which gives incidents or events that have received substantial national coverage the presumption of lasting significance: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). We are also not forced to rely exclusively on the Epoch Times, as this has received coverage in The Hill and Politico. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Journalists writing water-cooler articles about Trump rage tweets is the epitome of routine coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Number 2 would apply only if there were likely to be a presumption of lasting significance. There is no such presumption. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Your comments if he's just rage tweeting Fox and Friends and shouldn't even give his noise the time of day are the opposite of neutral analysis. What matters here is how it is characterized in reliable sources, not your "spin." And reliable sources have treated this like a U.S. administration previewing a potentially significant policy change. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not try to make this about me. Legislation is not done by edict over Twitter. When there is legislation it may be due. This is not. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire to make this about you. I am telling you, very clearly, that WP:FORUM-like commentary has no place on this talk page. Take my citing WP:FORUM as a friendly reminder.

You are also still misunderstanding WP:EVENTCRIT #2. It gives the presumption of lasting significance to events that have been the subject of substantial coverage and analysis. It is tautological to say that it gives the presumption of significance to significant events. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I am assessing whether these statements are WP:DUE that is not a WP:NOTFORUM digression no matter how much you may dislike to hear my assessment. Now delete your personal attacks. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I've hurt your feelings, but WP:FORUM reminders aren't personal attacks. And don't edit my comments. I don't see "rage tweets" and "noise" being used to describe the tweets in the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What Trump tweets is only as important as reliable sources find it. When that happens we normally see a debate about how informed and disingenuous they are. Then Trump finds something else stupid to tweet. But Trump's tweets are not a reliable source that there is any serious consideration to grouping antifa as a terrorist group. TFD (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nor are they WP:DUE any mention on the Antifa page until such time as he does something that doesn't involve being an idiot in front of the world on Twitter. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The tweets are a WP:PRIMARY source, and it is not the role of Wiki editors to evaluate primary sources. That's called original research. It us up to the WP:SECONDARY sources to evaluate the meaning of the tweets, and those are what we should defer to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:, It's clear that you haven't gone through the tweet thoroughly, he stated Consideration is being given to declaring ANTIFA, a major organization of terror not declaring antifascism a major organization of terror , he's referring to the group, not the political ideology. Furthermore, Antifa has fit into the FBI's domestic terrorism traits. Don't regard other people's speech as rage tweeting if it doesn't align with your personal political agendas, as a matter of fact, keep personal opinions off Wikipedia. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 18:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As we've been over repeatedly on this page previously, there is no organized "Antifa, the group". Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say that. Trump/Cruz calling it an organisation doesn't make it one. The German reaction is interesting.[5][6] Let's give this a couple of days and see how it develops, there's no rush. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Radical Islam isn't a single group or organization, but it's still labelled as terrorism. I fail to see your point, if you even had one to begin with.2601:49:1:5316:657E:F876:6A81:4EC6 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, radical Islam is not labeled a "terrorist group" either. And, please WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Objective3000:, Radical Islam isn't labeled as terrorism, I can't find anything substantial on that claim as well, there are different groups that are labeled as terrorism, not ideologies. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The NYT describes antifa in the U.S. as a loose affiliation of radical activists has surfaced in recent years at events around the country, including in opposition to the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. Source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

We should ignore these one-off IP editors, they will usually be someone editing logged out, ie socking. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to assume that an IP is a sock. WP:BITE? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

AGF isn't a suicide pact - and we have seen enough people doing just that in articles related to far-right political movements and resistance to far right political movements that when somebody shows up at a dynamic IP with only one edit, we can lend them very little credence. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

"movement is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7]" Changes are in regards to the sources used to verify this statement, as some seem irrelevant or arbitrary at best.

Remove Source [2] from source [7] as it talks about Neo Nazi rallies and talks more about violence towards antifa more than the other way around. Consider removing source [5] from source [7] as it speaks of a man in a nazi armband instigating fights and was picked up by an antifa twitter account that publicised the image rather than action that was taken by an antifa group member Consider removing source [6] from source [7] as the groups involved were communist groups carrying weapons in response to the white supremacist group where no violence occurred. Museraty (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If a reliable source has information about antifa, even if in passing or in an article largely about some other subject, I see no reason that can't be used. Moreover, the quote you use doesn't expressly mention violence, so I don't see why a source lacking it should be out of bounds. Reasonable minds may of course differ, but I think it might be more fruitful to bring new sources to the table. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

James Morrison death

Off-topic, devolving into WP:FORUM. No sources connect this to antifa.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Mbsyl: I apologize for offending your sense of fairness, but I would encourage you to have a look at WP:BRD. I would ask that you point me to where Antifa is specifically referenced in regards to the Morrison murder. While FSU and antifa are certainly related in some sense, none of your sources make the link between antifa and the murder -- the closest, for me, is Mother Jones, as it references antifa in a general way at the top, but not in particular with regard to this murder. Furthermore, the structure of "Rose City Antifa, which was formed in Portland, Oregon in 2007, the same year an antifa was 'arrested and charged with the murder of James Morrison, following a confrontation at a punk concert in New Jersey'" certainly seems to imply that Rose City Antifa had something to do with the murder. If consensus is against me, then more power to you. As it stands, I don't think this belongs in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC) I checked both the sources. The Rolling Stone source doesn't mention antifa (or anti-fascism at all) and seems utterly unusable on this article; it was the only source that mentioned Morrison by name, and it specifically attributes his death to FSU, not Antifa. The Mother Jones source only mentions antifa briefly much further down the timeline, not in relation to Morrison. This isn't even WP:SYNTH - at least based on the sources presented, it seems completely made up? A quick search online turns up a few people making the assertion on Twitter (which is probably where these edits came from), but no sources backing it up. --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Dumuzid No worries. It just seems that people on this page are very quick to remove edits that relate to antifa being violent. Mother Jones clearly says that their article is a history of antifa, and lists the FSU incident. Mother Jones has been talking about antifa for a very long time - about 20 years. They are also far left. If anything, they are biased For antifa, and they say that this was an antifa related incident. "Here’s a timeline of the American anti-fascist movement" - from the first paragraph. I don't think mentioning it after Rose City Antifa implies that they are connected by anything but the year. If you want to move it to somewhere else, that's fine with me, but I think that's a convenient place to put it. Aquillion Rolling Stone does not mention antifa, correct, but Mother Jones is much more of an expert on anti-fascism and they say it is an antifa related incident. I don't see how MJ not mentioning Morrison's name is relevant. I have no idea how you are getting the idea that this is made up.Mbsyl (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Are you against fascists; do you consider yourself an adherent to antifa ideology? Unless these two questions have the same answer, we can not, in Wikipedia's voice, describe any given antifascist as antifa. Now I am sure you may find that a distinction without a difference. But it's one that was wrought by editors hasty to sever the link between WWII era fascist resistance and antifa. And between 1930s American antifascism and antifa. If this article spent a bit more effort on understanding antifa ideology and a little less effort cataloging what newspapers scream out to move ad space maybe people in general would have a stronger understanding of what the modern antifa movement is, and how it relates to predecessor movements. But the closest we've come to that was a drive-by editor who wanted to make the whole article about communist plots, so... Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC) He was a member of Friends Stand United, but it's a leap from there to Antifa that we should not make. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Mother Jones, who an antifa supporter on here has even said is an RS in regards to antifa, says FSU is antifa. Definitions of antifa match descriptions of FSU. The FSU wiki page agrees that they are antifa. It is not a leap. It is a small step.Mbsyl (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Not seeing where Mother Jones says FSU is antifa; antifa is anti-fascism, but not all anti-fascism is antifa. But even if they did make that statement, combining that with an article that doesn't mention Antifa to describe it as an antifa-related incident would be WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Aquillon -- you don't see where MJ says FSU is antifa???? i quoted from where Mother Jones says the article is a "a timeline of the American anti-fascist movement" - which is exactly what antifa calls itself - an 'antifascist movement.' it seems like you are really grasping at straws. the rolling stone article not mentioning antifa is irrelevant. it is cited because it describes what happened in great detail. mother jones is cited because they are experts on antifa and an RS and they say that this is an antifa related incident. please give me a Clear explanation of how this is wrong.Mbsyl (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Mbsyl -- I absolutely understand the frustration associated with quick reverts, but it's sort of standard operating procedure, especially on articles that have proven contentious. So, again, apologies, but thank you for discussing here. I fear I still have the same reservations. I do think the Mother Jones source is close, and I certainly understand how you could use it, in an informal and colloquial sense, to show a linkage between FSU and antifa. But I don't see a formal basis for that conflation. Part of the issue, yet again, is the nebulous nature and definition of "antifa." I know it can be maddening, but I think we need better and more explicit sourcing, especially when we're associating a group (even a nebulous one) with a murder. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Dumuzid -- i don't understand this informal/formal distinction you are making. how many RS have a 20 year history of discussing antifa? Mother Jones does. and they are far left, so they have no reason to lie about this. if you want to put 'according to one source' somewhere in the mention of this incident, that is understandable, but deleting it is not understandable.Mbsyl (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC) MJ identifies the antifa movement with the anti-fascist movement: The rise of violent white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups in the 1980s sparked the American “antifa” (anti-fascist) movement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC) That doesn't mean that anyone who is antifascist is antifa. Are you antifascist? O3000 (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Just reporting what MJ says: they say that the antifascist movement is the same as the antifa movement. Not everyone who is antifascist (i.e., most people) is a part of the antifascist movement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC) None of that matters anyway, this is WP:UNDUE under WP:EVENTCRIT. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC) I disagree. FSU is part of antifa per MJ, and their notable actions are therefore notable actions of antifa and should be mentioned in the article if sourced in RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Shinealittlelight -- this is why I think MJ is "close." But if you take the line you quoted in context with the very next line from the piece, to wit: "Street squads like Anti-Racist Action and Fuck Shit Up took a nod from their European predecessors and responded with their own brand of extremism," it seems far less clear. For me, that "own brand" language means the proposed identification doesn't work. Your mileage may vary, as they say! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC) We have to read sources in context, and in context, MJ clearly says that FSU is part of the antifascist movement. And of course they are, as we all know. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC) For Wikipedia purposes, I know only what reliable sources tell me. And they haven't told me that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Yes they have. MJ says that FHS is part of the antifascist movement in the linked article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Which doesn't mean it's part of antifa. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC) As I stated, the source identifies antifa with the antifacist movement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Shinealittlelight, I would appreciate it if you would pay my the basic courtesy of not presuming to tell me what I know. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC) I said nothing about what you know. I'm talking about MJ and the content of that article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC) You said, and I quote, "And of course they are, as we all know." You don't seem to admit that people can have varying interpretations of evidence. Good luck achieving consensus. Dumuzid (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Please redact your personal attack. Of course I can admit that people can have varying interpretations of evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Had I made a personal attack, I certainly would do so. Have a good day! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that there are people and even groups in the anti-fascist movement that wouldn't identify with Antifa. But that doesn't matter, we can't interpret our sources. We need reliable sources directly linking the murder with Antifa by name. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC) you need and you Have an RS that has covered antifa for about 20 years that links the murder to antifa. i don't understand the hold up here. Mbsyl (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Doug Weller, I'm not interpreting. They say that FSU is antifascist, and that antifascist = antifa. That's what MJ actually says. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC) @Shinealittlelight: see WP:CRUFT and WP:ATTACK if this page is made into an indiscriminate list of fist fights with nazis it's not going to be a neutral article or anything resembling a good one. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC) As an aside, has anyone actually looked at the Rose City site? Eg [7] and [8]. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC) I mean, not this week... Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC) But yeah, if we could use sites like [9] or [10] as sources, this would be reflecting a very different antifascism as it would probably talk a heck of a lot more about doxing, no-platforming and education and a lot less about media-attractive fist fights. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Simonm223, I don't think you have looked at those sites much. Itsgoingdown is one of the biggest promoters of street fights. They routinely say that the Proud Boys are violently attacking Portland when PB come here to wave flags and pass a megaphone around. So then you have 20 Trump supporters vs 1000 antifa who are convinced that these people are trying to attack the city by a peaceful political assembly. It's pure madness. I would not look to these sites for putting a good face on antifa. maybe you can show me where either one has denounced their sides' issues, like the Paul Welch incident, which was more fascist than anything a Proud Boy has done. Mbsyl (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC) All of this is getting into WP:FORUM territory. The important thing is that we don't have a source specifically describing FSU as antifa; and, even if we did, we also don't have a source describing the Morrison attack as being committed by antifa. If it were noteworthy and true, it would be easy to find such a source, given the media attention the topic has gotten and the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of the claim; but this hand-wavy argument of "FSU is anti-fascist; antifa is anti-fascist; FSU is responsible for this attack; therefore antifa is responsible for the attack" is classic WP:SYNTH. (I mean, it's barely even valid WP:SYNTH - it's a straightforward affirming the consequent fallacy. Again: Antifa is anti-fascist, but not all anti-fascists are antifa.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC) The antifascist movement is the antifa movement (per MJ), and FSU is a part of that movement. FSU did something, so part of antifa did. That's not fallacious. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC) If MJ actually said that, they should be considered non-RS. Frankly, this kind of chain SYNTH is dangerous and has no place here. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC) You will have to produce a quote to indicate what you think says so, because I've read the entire article you're trying to cite for this and it is not there. It seems like you might be misinterpreting the words American “antifa” (anti-fascist) movement, which clarifies what antifa stands for but does not say "all anti-fascist movements are antifa." Note that the article specifically and unambiguously mentions antifa at the points on its timeline where antifa as a movement is involved; the FSU incident does not mention antifa (so it would be WP:SYNTH even if you had the part you're claiming is present.) But what you're claiming simply isn't there - you would need a line unambiguously stating "all anti-fascist movements, such as FSU, are part of antifa" or words to that effect for the logic you're trying to use to make sense even as WP:SYNTH. Right now, this is literally all it says about FSU: Fuck Shit Up (FSU), a.k.a. Friends Stand United, which the FBI later classifies as a street gang, expels neo-Nazis and racist skinheads from punk shows in Boston and, for the relevant incident, An alleged FSU member is arrested but not charged. Neither of those say that FSU is part of antifa. They don't even say (as you have claimed) that FSU is anti-fascist! Even if they did, it would still be synth, but even your attempt to WP:SYNTH a conclusion here isn't supported. --Aquillion (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC) If 'antifa' means 'antifascist', then the antifa movement is the antifascist movement. That's not a misinterpretation. FSU is mentioned as part of that movement, with their activities listed in a timeline of the movement. Sometimes that timeline calls activists antifa, and sometimes it notes the specific part of the movement--FSU for example--that the activists are members of. But the article presents a timeline of the antifascist (i.e. antifa) movement as including the activities of FSU. MJ is RS for this sort of thing. So the article establishes that FSU is part of the antifa movement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC) 1.) Antifa does not “mean” antifascist. It is a name based on a word. That does not make them equivalent. 2.) Even if antifa and antifascist were synonymous, synonyms often differ somewhat. 3.) Even if they were exactly the same, “antifascist” and “antifascist movement” have different meanings. By your logic, you are part of the antifascist movement and therefore part of antifa (assuming you are against fascism). This is full of logical fallacies. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC) When MJ says American "antifa" (anti-fascist) movement they thereby indicate that they use 'antifa movement' and 'antifascist movement' interchangeably. FSU is part of that movement according to their timeline of that movement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC) You cannot make assumptions like that. This is beyond synth -- more like synthehol. O3000 (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Wut. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Sources say what they say. You cannot make assumptions as to what they might have meant. O3000 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Agreed! MJ says that FSU is part of the antifascist (i.e. antifa) movement. This is not complex. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Objective3000, the MJ article is a catalog of antifa violence. Violence and intimidation are the hallmarks of the antifa movement. Clearly MJ aren't referring to a history of all anti-fascism, such as organizing against the drug war, but are focusing on the antifa that believes that uses violence, i.e. the antifa that this wiki article is about. andy ngo, paul welch, and james morrison. How many more victims of antifa violence will be hidden from the public? This is getting absolutely absurd, especially when you look at wiki pages like the Proud Boys and see every bad thing they've done clearly documented. There is clearly a huge pro-antifa bias that is ruling this wiki article and trying to hide their worst incidents of violence. Wiki is supposed to rely on RS. I provided an RS (with possibly more experience covering anti-fascism than any other RS) that clearly says this is an antifa related incident and I have yet to hear any compelling explanation as to how it is wrong. Mbsyl (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC) The article already talks about violence. But, where is the source that says antifa murdered James Morrison? O3000 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC) it doesn't say they murdered him. it says antifa was arrested for the murder, but not charged. once again, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/timeline-anti-fascists-nazi-punching/ "Street squads like Anti-Racist Action and Fuck Shit Up took a nod from their European predecessors and responded with their own brand of extremism. Here’s a timeline of the American anti-fascist movement" Mbsyl (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC) 13 years ago, The Asbury Park Press speculated that it was an FSU member. I can't find any followup about this 13 year old incident. And if he wasn't charged, why are we talking about this? O3000 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) i'm having trouble understanding why you seem to not trust Mother Jones or think that we can just ignore an RS. Mother Jones is far left, they've been covering anti-fascism for about 20 years, and an antifa supporter on here has said they are an RS. we are talking about it because a far left RS publication included it in their history of antifa violence. if he was charged, would you support mentioning this in the article? Mbsyl (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC) He wasn't charged. We don't know what happened. Are we to include every allegation against someone that was affiliated with some group that is against fascism? Even if charged, do we know this wasn't just a guy in a bar fight acting on his own instead of as a function of belonging to some group? This wasn't a demonstration. This is way too tenuous. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC) i guess since RS reporting apparently doesn't matter anymore, we don't know anything about anything. and apparently we can only attribute antifa violence to antifa if it happens at a demonstration and they are convicted. good to know. can you please write up an explanation on this new rule? also, you should petition to remove Mother Jones from the RS list. Mbsyl (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC) You snark is out of line. The first item in the list you want us to use is: “Members of the Ku Klux Klan open fire on a ‘Death to the Klan’ march in Greensboro, North Carolina, killing five people.” Clearly we cannot just take any item from this list and claim it is violence by antifa. This was a bar fight between patrons in a punk rock club (how unusual) and no one was charged. You made an addition using the word "murder". I can find no source stating that there was a murder. We don’t know what happened or how this could apply to this article. We must be more careful in an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Furthermore all this is WP:CRUFT; muckraking over a bar fight from decades previous. Really? This is relevant and encyclopedic how? To show that there are some overlaps between punk rockers who like to fight in bars and punk rockers who don't like racists? Big surprise to anyone who has ever even met SHARPS right there. What it comes down to is that the purpose of this article is to explain as completely as possible what antifa is, what people within the movement and who uphold the ideology want, what people of due significance think of them and how they've impacted the world. It's not to compile a list of sins gleaned from Fox News and Breitbart nor is it to try and present that "the real fascists are the people out there challenging fascists." Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Antifa a movement, an ideology, or a "organizing strategy"?

Cited sources characterize it in all three ways. It cannot be all of them. No movement is either an ideology or an "organizing strategy"; rather, a movement can utilize an organizing strategy and an ideology can unify a movement. But ideologies and strategies are abstract things, while movements are concrete things that are made up of people. RS conflict in this way. Our article is just confusing on this matter. Not sure how to handle the conflict. But the confusing assertion that all of the above are true seems, well, confusing. I want to propose that Antifa is a movement, and that sources which say something other than this should be discounted. My own sense is that sources which say it is an ideology or a strategy are basically trying to say that it is not a unified group with a hierarchical leadership structure. But saying "it's not a unified group with a hierarchical leadership structure" is a much clearer and better way to say this. Thoughts? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bray writes that: Depending on local contexts and politics, antifa can variously be described as a kind of ideology, an identity, a tendency or milieu, or an activity of self-defense. and Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed). Vexations (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Bray is probably the best expert available on US antifa. So we should lean on him unless a compelling academic source is found that contradicts him. Certainly he is due far more weight than the punditry of US corporate media enterprises. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How is he the best expert? Because he wrote a book on anti-fascism? Anyone can write a book. Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges wrote a book on American fascists and has been opposing fascism for a long time, and he thinks Mark Bray and his movement of violent extremist antifa is very misguided. As does Noam Chomsky, ex-SPLC head Richard Cohen, the ADL, and other experts on the issue of fascism. Chomsky is maybe the most important intellectual on the far left and he says antifa's violence is a 'gift to the far right.' Bray's expertise is highly questionable, especially given the fact that he condones violence, which nearly all other experts say is very, very wrong. Mbsyl (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It definitely isn't a "single issue" movement, that seems clear. But I think it is nevertheless a movement, and it's described that way in a lot of RS. Is Bray independent of antifa? I didn't think so, but I don't know for sure. In any case, Bray's remark here strikes me as pretty confusing. How can a single thing--antifa--be an ideology, an identity, a tendency or milieu, and an activity? It seems like a clearer way to say this is that 'antifa' is ambiguous, and can be used for any of these things. Let me put it like this: perhaps we all agree that there is a movement here, that it has a (multifaceted) ideology, that it involves engaging in certain activities, and that being a part of the movement is an important part of the identity of some people. But it seems to me that it serves clarity to make our article about the American antifa movement, and then talk about the other things--the ideology, the activities, the identity, and so on--in terms of the movement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be well-served to actually go away and read Bray, Reid-Ross and other academics who either study or have ties to antifascist movements. Because some of your lack of clarity seems to be reflective of a person whose primary exposure to antifascism is how it's reported in US corporate media. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making non-complimentary remarks about me, which (as I have been instructed by administrators) are always out of place on talk pages. I'd still appreciate engagement with the content-related points I just raised, though. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You know, I'm pretty hardline about personal attacks and even I don't generally treat "you appear to need to read more academic work on this subject" as an insult. But as this offended you, I've struck the more personal comment from my previous statement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but it did not offend me. It is Wikipedia policy, as explained to me by administrators on my talk page (feel free to see for yourself), that non-complimentary commentary about users on talk pages is prohibited. Please do not make such remarks about me in the future. Let's focus on content. Now back to the content-related points I made please. I proposed to follow the current lead in treating the article as being primarily about the movement, and reserving the use of 'antifa' for the movement itself. If we use 'antifa' to also refer to the ideology of the movement, the activities of the movement, etc., then this is going to be confusing to readers. Here is how this is relevant to a specific part of the article: we currently have stated Devega's view that antifa is a strategy rather than a movement. I'm proposing that this just be removed. It's totally confusing given that up to that point we always refer to it as a movement. If Devega is serious in holding that it is a strategy, then it seems that he's just using the term differently than we use it in our article. We could have an "other uses" section or something like that. But it makes more sense to me to just let the article be about the movement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

To do that would be WP:UNDUE, incomplete, and would present a flawed view of a multifaceted concept. So no. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

capitalization?

Should 'antifa' be capitalized? OED says capitalize. The article is currently inconsistent. I started to capitalize, and then I felt like it was a big enough change that I'd check here first. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past. See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 3#Capital letter. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No, antifa doesn't take a cap in this case as it's not a proper noun. However specific antifascist groups like Rose City Antifa do take a cap for the same reason. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess my take is that if it is the proper name of a movement--even a decentralized one without a hierarchical leadership structure--then it should be capitalized. On the other hand, if it is just shorthand for the word 'anti-fascist', then it should not be capitalized. But the topic of the article is, I think, the movement (per the current version of the lead). Most ordinary people are anti-fascist, but it is not true that most ordinary people are members of Antifa. It seems like you guys are saying that 'antifa' should be lowercase even when it is used as the name of the movement, is that right? If so, I guess I disagree, but my main point is to vote for consistency in our article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we ought to (1) prioritise consistency in the article; (2) try to reflect what the sources cited in the article use (while acknowledging that nobody's got time to actually check every single one of them); and (3) remember that it isn't a particularly big deal. This leaves us with no reason to change the lower-case status quo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think (1) and (2) are in direct tension--that's a big part of the problem. Also: what is the name of the antifa movement? Does it have a name? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

They're in tension insofar as there isn't going to be 100% agreement for one style or the other amongst the sources, but we can surely determine which is more frequently used, perhaps taking into account the sources' profiles (prioritising scholarly sources and dictionaries, perhaps). We deal with conflict between sources on much more complex and contentious issues all the time, working around those conflicts is part of writing an encyclopaedia. We should be able to do the same with something straightforward like whether a name should be capitalised. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Does the antifa movement have a name? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, The majority of our sources do not capitalize antifa. I downloaded all the online sources used in the article and ran a quick regex on them to see whether they capitalized [aA]ntifa or not. The ratio is something like 1:1.75 for capitalized vs. lower-cased, excluding capitalization at the beginning of a sentence. Vexations (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure this helps. I think the word is sometimes used as a name and sometimes as an adjective, and I think that the name should be capitalized and the adjective should not. If that's right, then we could explain your data by the occurrence of name vs adjective in the sources. And, in that case, we should follow suit and capitalize when it's a name. So I don't think the raw data you present here can tell us what to do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the word being used as an adjective? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The most widespread case (if it is a case) is when people use 'antifa' as short for 'antifascist'. 'Antifascist' is clearly an adjective, and so, if you're just abbreviating that adjective with 'antifa', then you're using 'antifa' as an adjective. And some people use it that way in RS. Here's a more subtle analysis. If the word is a name, then the convention in English is to capitalize it. So if it is not capitalized, there are two possibilities. One is that it is being used as an adjective that means 'antifascist'. The other is that it is still being used as a name, but the conventions of ordinary English are being flouted. This happens from time to time, as when a celebrity uses a dollar-sign to replace the letter 's' in a name, or the 'i' in 'iPhone', or something like that. Perhaps 'antifa' with lower-case 'a' is a stylized name? I don't see anything in MOS about how to treat stylized names. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have been clearer – I meant an example from one of the sources cited in the article, not a hypothetical example. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There probably isn't an uncontroversial example. But here's the sort of case I'm talking about. The ADL source says These violent counter-protesters are often members of the “antifa” (short for “antifascist”), a loose collection of groups, networks and individuals who believe in active, aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements. As I see it, there are two possibilities here: one is that this occurrence of 'antifa' is an adjective that abbreviates 'antifascist' (that seems to be what the "short for" remark indicates, but maybe not), or it is instead a stylized name. Not sure which. What do you think? Is there a third option? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a noun. It's a mildly unusual case in that the noun is identified as an abbreviation of an adjective, but it's a noun nonetheless. The absence of a capital letter is not because it's a stylised name but because common nouns are not capitalised in English. I think your argument that "the word is sometimes used as a name and sometimes as an adjective" and that as a result we should sometimes capitalise it, is baseless. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, "antifa activist" for example. Vexations (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a noun adjunct. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, thanks. You're correct (and I was wrong, obviously), but perhaps Shinealittlelight did mean a noun adjunct. I mean, we don't capitalize those, do we? We say "fascist politician" and "BUF leader". Vexations (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't capitalise common nouns, whether they're adjuncts or not. I don't think there's much more to say here – it's clear that this discussion isn't going to result in any further changes to the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, it doesn't tell us what to do. It just tells us what others do. I have no problem with mixed use in theory: when used as a proper noun, capitalize, otherwise don't. Hoewever, the problem with using Antifa as a proper noun is that it is not clear what the referent for that name is. If for, for example, we'd be referring to an organization with the name Antifa, then I can't tell which organization that would be, because there isn't one organization that calls itself Antifa. Enforcing the use of capitalization introduces a view that [aA]ntifa is something that our sources contradict, so we shouldn't do it. For comparison, note that alt-right, (a loosely connected ... movement ) is also not capitalized. Vexations (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a nice comparison, Vexations. Thanks. I'll think more about this. For now, at least we now appear to have consistency, so that's an improvement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

square brackets

@QuestFour: you undid my edit in which I replace square brackets in the quote from Scott Crow with parentheses. Parentheses are correct, as they appear in the direct quote from the source. Square brackets are used when we the editors are altering the words for grammar or clarity, but that's not what is going on in this case. Have a look at the CNN piece here: [11]. If you agree, would you mind self-reverting? Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the square brackets are appropriate. We use square brackets when we're altering the source's words, but also when the source is itself altering the words of someone else it's quoting. In this case it's fairly clear from the source that these are CNN's additions to Crow's words, which would ordinarily be rendered in square brackets. In the third paragraph he's similarly quoted to the effect that "They would never have looked at (those ideals) before, because they saw us as the enemy as much as the right-wingers", which would make very little sense if we interpret the parentheses any other way. Per MOS:BRACKET we use square brackets for this purpose, and per MOS:CONFORM it's permissible to change "Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text" to bring them into line with the MoS. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess you're right that CNN was probably using parentheses the way that literally every other source I've ever read uses square brackets. What the heck? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Spencer Punch

The article currently describes this incident as something that an apparent antifa supporter did. Are we including stuff by apparent Antifa supporters? I didn't think so, and so I propose removal of this incident, since it isn't established that anyone in Antifa punched Spencer. The sources themselves attribute the claim that it was Antifa to some white nationalist who was on the scene. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bray

I added an NBC report stating that Bray himself says that he is an ally of Antifa. This is obviously important, insofar as we cite him several times in the article, and he's arguably not an independent source. Simon223 removed this as NPOV. But surely Bray's characterization of himself is not NPOV, is it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:WEASEL - when combined with your constant efforts to include more detail about antifa brawls with extensive details of what antifascists did and nothing about suggests an attempt to shift the POV of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So you think that Mark Bray was using a weasel word about himself? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I think you were using Bray's words in a way that made them into weasel words. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm. Do you think we should note in the article that Bray regards himself as an ally of Antifa? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that whether Bray's personal relationship with antifascism is WP:DUE in this article is borderline enough that a great many more voices than yours and mine should participate in the conversation about if and how. Regardless, it certainly should not be used as an attempt to weaken his authority as a source since he's just about the best academic source we have on the movement. And I think it's clear by now that I have a low opinion of corporate media's ability to accurately address political movements in general. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'm happy to wait to see what consensus emerges. I would also like to point out that your accusation that I am engaged in "constant efforts to include more detail about anifa brawls..." is ironic given that I called directly above this section for the removal of such an incident due to insufficient sourcing. Let's AGF, and please refrain from non-complimentary commentary about me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, Bray is a philosopher and historian with a PhD from from Rutgers University. He is an expert in the history of anti-fascism. He has a POV just like pretty much everyone else. That does not disqualify him as a source. We do not require that our sources are neutral; it is up to us to represent what they say fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Vexations (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you think that his self-characterization as an ally of Antifa should not be in the article? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be what Simonm223 and Vexations are arguing, and I'd concur. The only argument you've presented for including this information (which I agree gives the impression that we're to be suspicious about the veracity of Bray's arguments, which is a matter that readers can decide for themselves) is that "he's arguably not an independent source", but this is (inarguably!) not true. See WP:IS, especially the third paragraph of WP:IIS and the Biased sources section, which make it abundantly clear that sources can be independent even while expressing strong opinions on a topic, provided there is no direct relationship (usually of a financial nature) between the source and the topic. You're using the phrase "independent source" in an unfeasibly broad sense that has no basis in any policy or guideline. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that it depends on what he means by 'ally' and what we mean (or should mean) when we talk in policy about having a vested interest. Maybe allies have vested interests. I'm not sure, and I think that activists or "allies" of given causes who have written about those causes are a genuinely hard case. But being an ally seems to me different from having a positive, or even strongly positive, view of the subject. Also, readers cannot decide whether his ally status is relevant if they aren't aware of it. And it certainly isn't NPOV to include it given that it's Bray's self-characterization. I don't see why we should hold that information back from readers of WP when Mark Bray himself doesn't hold it back from readers of NBC News. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me it's clear consensus doesn't favour your proposed edit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well you are probably going to be right about that, Simonm223, but I think the discussion is still developing. No need to rush, right? Maybe you could respond, if you like, to the points I just made. That would be really great.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I grow tired very quickly when confronted with situations that seem to be covered under WP:SEALION. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, please quit offering commentary on me. Focus on content or report me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, We do not need to add a description, even a self-description, of a source when we cite them. We cite "The New York Times", not "the liberal New York Times" or "the failing New York Times". Vexations (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't think that's an apt comparison since those aren't things the NYT says about itself, and they aren't directly relevant to the subjects of NYT coverage. Maybe a better example would be like this: suppose there were an academic writing a book on Scientology, and he disclosed that he was a Scientologist. Hard case, as I say, but I think it would be at least a question whether we should include that information, especially if we found it reported in a major news source like NBC news, and if we were relying a lot on his analysis and opinion of Scientology. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)