Talk:Rose City Antifa

General description of Antifa

They're described in sources as being active on Facebook and its members are amorphous and anonymous. This is relevant information, but User:Arms & Hearts removed all reference to it. I believe it merits inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what reason there'd be to remove it. But are "amorphous" and "organised" not contradictory? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Oh I just saw the justification in Arms & Hearts' edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_City_Antifa&diff=next&oldid=981342587 BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary (linked above), the sentence was both poorly written and too much of a close paraphrase of the source. If the sentence can be rewritten coherently and in our own words it might belong, but I don't think it adds much to the article. There are three basic claims being made: (1) that RCA is well-organised, (2) that RCA is active online, inluding on Facebook, and (3) that RCA members are anonymous. In my view (1) is so vague as to be useless, (2) is so obvious as to be useless, and (3) is so vague that trying to include it does more harm than good. If others think (2) and perhaps (1) are useful I won't object, but I do think we should avoid saying members are anonymous in the absence of a clearer source. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Some of the groups, such as the 13-year-old Rose City Antifa in Portland, Oregon,the oldest in the U.S., are particularly well-organized and active online and on Facebook, while its members are individually anonymous."

"Rose City Antifa, an amorphous and largely anonymous group of anti-fascists."

There are clearer sources. Top quality sources as these descriptions come from the authors, instead of the pesky "so and so said" attribution within the story. I'm beginning to think it's just that you don't like it, thus don't want it. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The first isn't a clearer source, it's the same source (confusingly cited twice separately in the article, now fixed). The second is, if anything, less clear. Do you really have a clear idea of what they're trying to say about anonymity, and by extension what we're saying when paraphrasing them? If so please enlighten me. Do members not use names at their meetings? Do they not use names at all, ever? Do they not use names when talking to the press? You're absolutely right I don't like it – I like precision, clarity and good writing, and dislike writing like this that's marked by the absence of those things. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

When RCA is deliberately being anonymous, it's no surprise there's not a whole lot of precise information. Just because you don't like it is not a justification to pluck out properly referenced information. If only vague information is avaiable, only vague information can be posted. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley:, what they're saying is INDIVIDUAL members and the who is who of the group are anonymous and amorphous, but what they do online and on Facebook as a group is highly organized. So, I don't think this is contradictory but if equally reliable sources provide contradicting account, we attribute in text and provide both sides, per WP:SOURCETYPES. "Rose City Antifa, which is based in Portland and is one of the oldest and most organized Antifa groups, encouraged its followers to attend the rally." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywalls (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @Arms & Hearts:, did that clear up any possible confusion? Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I still don't know the meaning of "anonymous" in an unqualified sense in this context, and oppose it being in the article in such a sense on that basis. I don't think I've expressed confusion about anything else. I don't know how the above is supposed to resolve that – you seem to be responding mostly to Bob's separate point about "amorphous" and "organized". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

NYT, USA Today and the Oregonian addresses this topic and it is due for inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

So, I would like to see something added that while individual members are anonymous, but as a group, the special interest group Rose City Antifa is extremely coordinated and organized through Facebook and other online platforms. While there's some work to be done for phrasing, is the inclusion on the general idea agreeable? @Bobfrombrockley and Arms & Hearts: Graywalls (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, for reasons including, but by no means limited to the following: (1) I don't know what "anonymous" means in this context, and neither do you, so I remain baffled as to why you want to add it to the article; (2) none of the sources say anything about "organiz[ing] through Facebook"; (3) "special interest group" has a specific meaning in U.S. politics that doesn't apply to the group that this article is about; and (4) there doesn't seem to be any "general idea" to discuss here, just a few tangentially-related points jumbled up together. I wouldn't object to something like "As of 2017 RCA was among the most organized antifa groups in the U.S.", and you can add "and was active on Facebook" if you really want, though I don't know why you would. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous means that each individual participants are not identified, but the group "Rose City Antifa" is organized, as in organizing events, political violence etc; as very much said clearly in the sources I have already provided. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So what's changed between October, when you thought "there's not a whole lot of precise information" on the issue, and now, when you think it's "very much said clearly"? If you're going to resurrect dead-end discussions from months ago at least take a moment to remind yourself what your argument is. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with A&H. The source suggests it is more organised than other antifa groups (probably a low bar, as they are not formal membership organisations), so I definitely wouldn't say anything like "extremely coordinated"; we can only make a statement about its organisation as comparative to the rest of antifa. It would be synthesis to associate that level of organisation with e.g. "organising political violence" as the sources don't make that leap. The exact meaning of anonymous and amorphous are a little murkey. I'm presuming anonymous means no names are associated with it in public and amorphous means it doesn't have a fixed membership or structure but is a loose affinity group. If this was the case, we could say something like "Although anonymous and amorphous in structure it is better organised than many other US antifa groups", but I'm not sure if that adds much. And the "As of 2017" is probably essential too, because US antifa grew dramatically after that so there might now be more organised groups (and it might have become less so, as small affinity groups do tend to shift rapidly). No objection to noting it was active on Facebook if you feel that adds something. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Eye gouging training

This could be considered for inclusion https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/4/eye-gouging-and-powerpoint-project-veritas-infiltr/ Graywalls (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, Per WP:RS/P There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. Vexations (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

And per common sense and a decade of experience, it's reasonable to assume that anything published by Project Veritas is a fabrication. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion is not compelling at this point. I will dig around in RS/N archives. In Patriot Prayer some guy "veteran Ben" is quoted, but somehow quoting him isn't ridiculed the same way. Even Fox News covers it. https://www.foxnews.com/media/antifa-eye-gouging-undercover-video While Fox News is in-between for politics, they're not like the dailymail. Are you arguing that the video is fabricated? Graywalls (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the Project Veritas article? The fact that you're taking what they say seriously is staggering. What next, Rose City Antifa is run by lizard people? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Are you arguing the video is fabricated? News channel will often use sources (such as Twitter, blogspot) we shouldn't directly use ourselves. That doesn't make the news story unusable. Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts does not need to argue anything like that. We should reject anything coming from Veritas, without having to look at details. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Project Veritas are not a reliable source for anything, and are notorious for misreporting. The video could well be fabricated (the "eye gouging" bit, the only vaguely newsworthy thing in the video, has audio and no video and would be easy to fake and impossible to verify). So the best you could hope for would be to cite Washington Examiner and Fox reporting that Veritas made this claim, which is pretty week and non-noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it convenient that any sources that dare to report negatively on progressive/left wing news are too unreliable for wikipedia? But I guess it's fine because antifa isn't an organization so it's impossible for institutional forces (and wikipedia) to effectively collude to suppress certain narratives.

References

There's not much point trying to add content with references such as this and this that don't even mention Rose City Antifa. FDW777 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

New Yorker content

@Graywalls: Could you explain in a bit more depth why you think including the content you've removed is a WP:NPOV issue? Including a brief description of the group by one of its members, published in an unimpeachably reliable source, seems like it should be uncontroversial. Are there perhaps parts of the Mogelson piece that you think should be mentioned but aren't? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Also slightly odd edit summary as text was there since November 1 so lack of removal constitutes a certain level of consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not necessarily so, which is evident from millions of highly promotional junk out there. The lapse of time doesn't simply set it in. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUE, contents based on primary source "In mid-September, I met with two current members of Rose City Antifa, Sophie and Morgan, in another Portland park. (Asking for anonymity, they used pseudonyms.) Sophie, who is transgender, explained that “some of the A.R.A. groups were pretty strongly in a world of toxic masculinity,” but Rose City Antifa has always had “a strong feminist and queer component.” A number of its founders were women. Morgan, who identifies as a butch lesbian, said that Rose City Antifa adopted a more nuanced approach: “A.R.A. was street-level confrontation with white-supremacist gangs. We wanted to broaden the scope to encompass more activities that we saw as fascist threats." . Quotation based off of some anonymous member is secondary simply because it's in New Yorker, thus it was editorial decision by someone. Some first hand comment given in direct quotation from this group's member isn't due as it's not a place to voice the group's point of view. Graywalls (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The article plainly can, does, and should describe the group's views. Is there any way of phrasing this that you'd be okay with? If the direct quotation is an issue it could probably be worded to avoid that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You also couldn't take some random, unidentified supposed members comments as authoritative information on the group. If this was an article on say... Amazon and it said something about an anonymous employee interviewed by the news channel said "so and so and so and so" about working conditions, I would say including that into Amazon page isn't warranted regardless of how it's phrased. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that we're talking about what RCA members say about their group, a closer parallel would be mentioning things Amazon says about itself in the article – which, by my count, we do at least a dozen times in Amazon (company) (based on a Ctrl+F for "Amazon announced", "Amazon said", "Bezos announced", etc.). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

But none of those are based on "some random anonymous employee.." or "some random anonymous shareholder said...". When we start to excessively stat parroting things said by them, it affects the neutrality. Generally, WP:ABOUTSELF should be only on non-controversial things, like when it was established. Things involving "point of view" are not "uncontroversial". The page shouldn't be a place to present what they group or their members say. Graywalls (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Graywalls and Bobfrombrockley: I was hoping others might weigh in here, but seeing as they haven't and a compromise doesn't seem likely I think an RfC would be useful, unless there are any objections or ideas for alternatives? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF would be Rose City Antifa's own website, not interviews with members in independent, reliable references. FDW777 (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree this is not example of ABOUTSELF. It is an example of a highly reliable independent source interviewing members. Why do you talk about "random" members, as if they have an absolutely enormous membership and the NYer just happened to alight on two? This is a journalist who obviously contacted the group, which being non-hierarchical wouldn't necessarily have a "leader" but nevertheless put forward two people they judged able to speak for the group. In other words, reliable and noteworthy. I absolutely don't see any problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. The interviewed subject was not clearly identified by name. So it's really no different than citing the words of a random Costco member, who happened to spoke to a journalist at the time that was doing a story, and putting what that unnamed person said in the article on Costco. The only thing reliable is that in fact that said conversation occurred and such and such were said. Noteworthiness of the contents of the person who spoke to the journalist is not established. Graywalls (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Not buying that analogy. First, Costco has many more members than RCA. Second, the journalist did not approach the interviewees in the aisle of the store but via the organisation itself. Third, Costco has plenty of coverage to choose from so one interview would be unlikely to be noteworthy whereas here we are looking for the best RS coverage from a pretty small sample so reporting in the New Yorker is a good enough indicator of due-ness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, how many members does it have, and where is the independent verification of RCA membership count and their identity? Graywalls (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Has never said anything about Rose City Antifa. FDW777 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, as covered on the main Antifa (United States) article, the source only says that he intended to do this. He ultimately did not, likely in part because there's no actual presidential authority to formally declare US-based groups terrorist organizations. But in any case it's definitely off-topic here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)