Talk:Antifa (United States)

Quick-drying cement

Apologies, I misclicked in the middle of my edit summary! While this might be notable, I don't think we can state as fact what boils down to "reports" and something that was "said" to have happened. We're going beyond the reliable sources when we do that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• We can definitely state "reportedly" or "allegedly" when it is accepted by the police, I don't understand why I keep getting reverted. No BLP concerns. wumbolo ^^^ 18:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

For me, it's a bit soon and a bit undue. That being said, reasonable minds can differ, and if the weight of consensus is against me, so be it. But for now I would oppose inclusion. Happy Sunday! Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I am finding things such as, "Police have received information that some of the milkshakes thrown today during the demonstration contained quick-drying cement," - which means (1) that it is not the police who are making the claim, and (2) there is no statement about who was doing the throwing." I mean, it could be the Chamber of Commerce trying to promote Portland cement for all we know. So yes, too soon. Carptrash (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

So are we going to have to wait until there's a finished court case for the person(s) suspected of throwing milkshake with quick-dry cement because Jason Wilson of The Guardian has stated in his piece that the police did not produce any evidence? I say just write that the police said there was quick-dry cement in the milkshake. We don't have offer WP:FALSEBALANCE for official police statements and fringe groups engaged in street violence. The Independent, USA Today and [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-clashes-between-r ight-wing-demonstrations-and-antifa-turn-into-civil-disturbance/ CBS News] all just write that this is what the police stated. --Pudeo (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Did the police say that, though? In the three sources you just cited, the police say they received reports of such a thing. That strikes me as a big difference. Therefore, this doesn't meet the test for me; maybe it does for you. If you can convince enough other people, then you win, and more power to you. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What source says the police definitively have determined (not "received reports" from unspecified anonymous unverified whatever) that such a thing happened, and what source definitively attributes these purported actions to antifa activists? Until those questions are answered, obviously we can't move forward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I further note that neither the Independent nor the Fox News source cited by Wumbolo makes the cement claim as fact (Fox uses the "said to be" construction) and neither one makes any claim as to who might have been responsible for the purported concrete-tainted shake. That's right, not even Fox News is directly blaming this on antifa. Claiming otherwise is a simple misrepresentation of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• The weakness of the sourcing at the moment means that we'll have to wait a bit, yes. If what you're claiming is true, better sources supporting your interpretation more unequivocally should appear later, but right now this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which the sources are treating with extreme skepticism - not something worth putting in the article yet. --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• From a chemical standpoint, sugars are generally used to prevent concrete from drying. A milkshake + concrete mixture is therefore impractical and hilarious. More importantly, the source for the police tweet is literally an anonymous hoax email from someone named "Antifa McCrimes" with the claimed milkshake content being soymilk and concrete, sent to the Portland PD. We've seen in the past years that police departments across the US has been treating hoax documents from 4chan or 8chan as genuine evidences and used them against regular citizens. Police department themselves aren't reliable sources and this looks like another 4chan false flag hoax to me. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 14:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  WP:NOR and a random Twitter Anime analyst extraordinaire is not a reliable source and not even a blue checkmark. These conspiracy theories add no value at all to this discussion. I could link to much more high-profile evidence by Twitter blue checkmarks that it was in fact cement in those milkshakes, but I'm not gonna do that and just point to your flimsy reference who is not even a blue checkmark. wumbolo ^^^ 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  And I can link to blue checkmarks saying that the white particles on poor Andy's face are nothing but coconut shaves. The general consensus holds that the content is both undue and too soon, with reliable sources suggest against its factual accuracy. And I've made my point that police departments aren't reliable sources by any measure. It is gravely inappropriate for you to 'reportedly' obfuscate them as if it was reported by our highest quality sources. It was not. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Police departments are the most reliable sources. That's an overwhelming consensus on all of Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 16:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: C'mon, dude, you're pointing to 'blue checkmarks' as signs of trustworthiness? Try a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I am literally not. I said I would not link to them. wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: "your flimsy reference who is not even a blue checkmark" - what is this supposed to mean then? PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Would you please answer this question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Since journalists almost always have the checkmark, not having it is an indicator of irrelevance. (But in contrast, having it does not imply relevance) From [1]: An account may be verified if it is determined to be an account of public interest. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: We do not use twitter checkmarks to indicate relevance or lack thereof. Don't try this in the future. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: nope, it is an indication of whether a self-published source may be an expert on the subject. A reference to a tweet constitutes a BLP violation especially often when it is not by a verified account. wumbolo ^^^ 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: "A reference to a tweet constitutes a BLP violation especially often when it is not by a verified account." Please stop making shit up. We have actual policies written down. Try WP:RS. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I'm not. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. wumbolo ^^^ 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I would add this to the general discussion: [2]. I think it's fair to say we should all be more skeptical, especially of allegations that align with our personal beliefs. Wikipedia's slow motion and resistance to sensational claims is a feature, not a bug. Dumuzid (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

a quote from Dumuzid's posting and another reason why we don't rush these things into the articles. "Yet, PPB’s tweet containing this rumor (my bold) has gained nearly 13 thousand re-tweets and has been regurgitated by national media outlets like NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, and, of course, FOX News. Conservative leaders—like US Senator Ted Cruz, Ann Coulter, FOX’s Laura Ingram, and former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch—also parroted the claim on their popular Twitter accounts. " Also why, although we don't always have the choice, folks such as NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, and, FOX News are not always (ever?) to be completely trusted. Carptrash (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I would never trust a local source over all of NBC News, CBS News, ABC News and FOX News. Completely opposite of WP:WEIGHT. wumbolo ^^^ 20:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is currently a huge amount of misinformation related to this spreading on the internet, especially on right-wing websites, so I would suggest holding off on adding anything related to it (including eg. opinion pieces that discuss it) until the dust has had a chance to settle. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ah the antifa-backed media denying police-backed claims. The "reporter" cited in your link has a history of doxing political opponents. wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If you would read the article, you would notice that the author is simply pointing to a lack of evidence. If he's wrong, a refutation should be a very simple matter. Again, I would highly encourage you to bring a skeptical eye even to the things you want to believe. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No, he is making a "Not True" assessment. You don't know which eye I am looking anything with, but I'd certainly believe police over terrorists. wumbolo ^^^ 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

But would you believe a single police tweet, based on hearsay, over a total lack of any other evidence? He is making a "not true" assessment because one would think that a claim like that could be based on some objective evidence. What we have instead is a rumor magnified by a social media echo chamber. This isn't police vs. terrorists. This is hearsay police claim vs. observed reality. Nice to know you have chosen your side. Dumuzid (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You all know that Ngo's claims are patently false based on things like basic chemistry. It's just nonsensical chatter from a blogger who got upset he got ID'd for his contributions to a racist blog. This is not notable, per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and frankly, considering how quick drying cement interacts with sugar, WP:PROFRINGE. Arguments to the contrary from the faction of Wikipedia who side with the far-right on fascism related talkpages boil down to WP:GREENCHEESE and should be disregarded per WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A discussion of the rumor's spread [3] Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And now the high quality sources expressly wrote that it was just another right-wing hoax all along, originating from an anonymous email: [4][5][6][7] Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 07:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times published what may be the most through investigation into the matter, casting serious doubt on the claim and calling it "questionable." [8] R2 (bleep) 17:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. At Ngo's article User:Wumbolo says it was confirmed by the police.[9] Doug Weller talk 17:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• My take: There is no question that Ngo was attacked by people dressed in Black at an Antifa rally, shortly after the crowd shouted "fuck you Andy Ngo" at him[10] [11], and coverage of that is significant, so we should cover it. The milkshakes bit is unclear, and at this point, we don't have enough to include that. As for the question of whether the attackers were Antifa "members", I'm not aware that the perpetrators have been identified, so we shouldn't say that. The phrasing in the NYT is "a black-clad activist striking the conservative journalist Andy Ngo" . . . perhaps we can say something similar.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd very much prefer not to get involved on the Ngo article, but it still says "Portland Police wrote on Twitter that some of the milkshakes thrown during the protest contained quick-drying cement." That of course is accurate and the police still defend it, admitting that there's no evidence. But it's pretty obviously only part of the truth. Snopes calls this false and has a quote from Portland officials. "Portland city officials admitted in a July 1, 2019, phone call with reporters that the evidence for the statement made in the tweet was based solely on an observation of a police lieutenant in the field that day who, according to the Portland Mercury, “‘saw a powdery substance that appeared to cause some irritation [when in contact with skin].’ The lieutenant also said the milkshake smelled similar to wet concrete, a smell they were familiar with from ‘having worked with concrete before.'” Also "Alex Zielinkski, news editor for the Portland Mercury, told us the claim that any of the milkshakes contained cement appeared to be nothing more than a likely hoax."[12] This is causing the milkshake distributors to receive death threats. See also[13] [14] and [15] Doug Weller talk 09:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't be neutral for Wikipedia to publish police claims absent any evidence as anything other than unsubstantiated claims; frankly, it's a pretty widely known fact that police are not always truthful in their PR activities. We have reliable sources such as Snopes and (as much as I dislike relying on newsmedia for much of anything) the New York Times (which is generally treated as reliable by Wikipedia) both saying, "this was a hoax." Andy Ngo got hit with a vanilla milkshake. Not a cement laced milkshake, not a cement laced soy milkshake. The evidence, outside of the fantasy land of Conservative blogging, is that he was hit with an ordinary old milkshake. All this nonsense is, as I said above WP:GREENCHEESE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, since this article has brought this piece of WP:RECENTISM WP:CRUFT to my attention I've started an AfD for Milkshaking that is likely of interest to editors who watch this page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I decided to remove the whole Portland section and move it here

"In Portland, Oregon, United States, on 30 June 2019, the practice of throwing milkshakes at right-wing individuals was used by members of Antifa against the Proud Boys. Andy Ngo, a journalist for Quillette who was beaten and sprayed with silly string by members of Antifa while covering the protests, also had a milkshake thrown at him. Ngo was subsequently hospitalized, suffering cuts and bruises to his face, a torn earlobe and a small brain hemorrhage, as a consequence of the attack.

What I found while reviewing the sources is things such as: " take a look at this picture of my friend and colleague Andy Ngo." Well that is hardly a neutral source. And really, we are using blogs as sources now? "Portland police claimed without offering evidence that some milkshake cups had been filled with quick-drying cement." I think "without offering evidence" is enough there, and then, "Actual milkshakes were used by leftwing protesters. A videographer and editor for the rightwing magazine Quillette, Andy Ngo, had one dumped on him early in the day." What he had dumped on him was a real milkshake, not a cement one that the quote seems to hint at and surely reporting folks getting shakes poured on them is not really what we are doing here. That Something ugly happened and that Andy Ngo was a recipient of some nasty work might be included, but lets let someone figure out what occurred before we rush to judgement. Carptrash (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Why hide that section here? The previous version ("20:15, 30 June 2019‎ Dumuzid") seemed like a fair description of what happened. The violent assault against Andy Ngo is available on video, has been reported by various reliable sources and the version you have edited had no reference to "quick-drying cement" whatsoever (so why bring it up?). Should additional information become available during the next days, the paragraph can be enhanced accordingly. As for what you call a "blog" ("The Spectator" article, if I understand correctly) is pretty much the equivalent of an "opinion" article in The Guardian and both sources have tons of citations on Wikipedia. Mcrt007 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have better sources, present them? These ones are terrible - one blog, completely unusable for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim like this, especially one you're trying to present as a fact rather than as an opinion. The one news source is carefully skeptical ("appeared to show", "Ngo said", the "Don't know how this started" quote, etc.) - all context that you removed in both your proposed addition and your comments here and which, collectively, reduce this below the level where the section would satisfy WP:DUE, let alone something that could justify the sweeping language you're proposing for it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The claim is not exceptional(fringe/extraordinary) as you're implying - and saying The Guardian is "carefully skeptical" is just throwing around weasel words to emphasize your personal interpretation. The video linked in The Guardian article actually shows (not simply "appeared to show") a violent attack against Ngo, no matter how much you'd like to obfuscate, with language tricks, what happened. As for the "sweeping language" - I haven't proposed any: I was simply proposing reverting to the previous version of the page.

In addition to The Guardian and Spectator, several other sources list the incident, e.g.: The Independent states: "Andy Ngo was surrounded and beaten by protesters wearing black with their faces concealed, while being covered in a milkshake, eggs and spray on Saturday. He was taken to hospital for treatment after posting a video showing bruises and cuts to his face and neck."

New York Times / Associated Press also mentions that 3 police officers were treated for injured, maybe the Wikipedia-article should include that information as well ? Mcrt007 (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem, again, just for me, is tying such to Antifa itself. Note, for instance, that the last article includes Antifa amongst other anti-fascist protesters. I am a bit on the fence about including this claim, but stronger assignment to Antifa itself (and not simply "protesters wearing black with their faces covered") would help. Cheers, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Agree with the removal. The Spectator quote is a blog post and completely unacceptable for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims like these. The Guardian source is extremely skeptical in tone (a skepticism that the version here notably omitted, presenting things that the Guardian described as dubious claims as if they were fact. As written it does not meet WP:DUE yet, but even if it did, it would have to be presented far more skeptically - when a source describes something as just a claim, we can't treat it as a fact. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• These protests are fairly routine at this point. Any specific incident listed in the article should be sourced as either an example, or as somehow informative or exceptional. Something happened in Portland, and sources mention that something happened, but they don't really explain why this is of lasting significance. Including it here without better context seems premature at best. This applies to several other incidents currently in the article, also. Grayfell (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If the protests and violence is routine, would a list article suffice? wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The line between antifa events and basic protests against Donald Trump would be too blurry. Every protest where some random local news source says "antifa" was present would be hundreds of events every year for the past three years. Most would be Run-of-the-mill. My point was that we need to be able to explain why these are encyclopedically significant. A list article would not help us do that. Any comparison between events/incidents/protests/riots would be misleading or confusing without context. We almost never have reliable numbers for how many attendees there were, or how many on any given side of the issue. We especially do not know how many protesters at any event are "antifa", or even what that would mean. With prose, we can more clearly indicate this, but list articles imply a level of confidence which we do not have. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Violence against journalists - new section?

Physical attacks against journalists at Antifa rallies don't seem to be new: in addition to Andy Ngo's case (discussed in the above thread) who has been attacked twice since May, multiple other cases of Antifa physical attacks against journalists or media personalities have been covered by the media. The current wiki-page only documents one such example (e.g.: the doxxing and harassment of Tucker Carlson). But info can be found detailing harassment and physical attacks against multiple other journalists, including Taylor Lorenz (The Atlantic), Dave Minsky (Reuters, Vice), Cal Perry(NBC), Tim Mak (NPR), Gary Cooper & DeJuan Hoggard (ABC), and others.

According to the Freedom of the Press Foundation "Since last year, we’ve also documented over a dozen different physical attacks on journalists or livestreamers covering antifa rallies. Most of them were local reporters assigned to cover a public protest, or freelance or independent journalists trying to document the protests with their own equipment. We’ve seen an independent photographer beaten and attacked with a pipe covering a protest in Berkeley, a local CBS journalist in North Carolina attacked with a stick and needed four staples in his head, a journalist for The Hill punched in the head, a Chicago Sun-Times journalist repeatedly punched in the chest, and several cases of cameras being taken or knocked out of reporters’ hands and then damaged or completely destroyed. Recently, we’ve had multiple journalists contact us unprompted to tell us they’ve felt threatened or menaced when covering such protests. These were reporters sympathetic to anti-fascist issues and did not reach out lightly."

Should we add a new section for such re-occurring, deliberate and violent incidents? There's plenty of them so far. Thanks! Mcrt007 (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to verge into original research, but I think that article is fairly compelling. I think the notable aspect here is the pattern, and we need more reliable sources to limn it. If it gets some pick up in more mainstream news (or the like), I would support such a section. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be skeptical given those sources. The Atlantic source is an opinion piece, and the other two are personal websites. Beyond that there's a risk of WP:OR in stitching things together into a section that would clearly be intended to push a particular conclusion; we'd want more (and better) sources discussing that topic directly first. --Aquillion (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• What would qualify as "better" sources here? The article on Taylor Lorenz, for example, is an editorial (signed by an editorial board) but other sources cover the event as well (so, I guess, we could select something else instead of it). The other two are from Freedom of the Press Foundation, so not exactly personal blogs. Some of the stories are backed up by Columbia Journalism Review as well, which, like Freedom of the Press Foundation, tracks assaults against journalists (e.g.: Dave Minsky assaulted by Antifa). By comparison, I see the Wiki-article quoting Mark Bray in 3 different sections (though he is a low-profile academic and his works only have 32 citations on Google Scholar, all in low-impact journals). And, out of the 3 sources, one is a Vox interview, and another also an interview on lareviewofbooks. How are we not verging into original research and undue-weight by repeatedly quoting his opinions? Mcrt007 (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Include for sure. We can discuss the sourcing, but it should clearly be in the article. The FoPF article is very good. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• The basic issue is that aside from the opinion piece, these are largely personal websites with no clearly-defined methodology. Beyond that, as I said, their claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would require more serious sourcing than they would otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2019 (UwTC)

• Which are the "personal" sites you're referring too? Freedom of the Press Foundation is an organization tracking assaults against journalists. The US Press Freedom Tracker I used to source information is a project of Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and others (e.g.: SPLC). Their methodologies are more consistent than Vox's and other media outlets (about whom is more fair to say they don't have "clearly-defined" methodologies, yet are quoted in this article in multiple places). Their reports have been featured in the mainstream press as well (e.g.: Associated Press, Huffington Post, Wired, The Hill, etc) Mcrt007 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant, since secondary sources are allowed to do primary research that we are not (obviously, since that's what we rely on.) If you think that the sources you linked are important because high-quality sources sometimes rely on them, obviously the answer is to wait and see if those higher-quality sources pick up this aspect. (I also think that, reviewing the Freedom of the Press foundation piece in detail, it doesn't really support what you want it to - after all, its header is You can support antifa without justifying repeated physical attacks on journalists and it contains numerous caveats to avoid placing general blame on antifa for these incidents, something that somewhat seems the reverse of the implication of the section you're proposing.) And, again, these are extremely WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims - if there were actually an unusual number of journalists getting attacked at antifa demonstrations relative to other comparable events (something the Freedom of the Press piece specifically does not say), you would expect there to be vastly more mainstream coverage than the tiny handful of clippings you've assembled here. If you want to claim something exceptional or remarkable in the article, you need a level of sourcing that reflects that, not (essentially) an opinion piece with that many caveats. --Aquillion (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Stop with the Weasel Words, please ("higher-quality sources", "unusual numbers of journalists getting attacked", etc) :) . If there are repeated cases of journalists being attacked, I'd actually expect for various organizations tracking violence against journalists to document those cases (and they do). The article you're quoting You can support antifa without justifying repeated physical attacks on journalists doesn't really absolve Antifa of responsibility for their actions as you imply, the without justifying repeated physical attacks on journalists part is very clear on that. As for the section part dedicated exclusively to the attacks: I'm not sure if that's the best alternative or not (some Wikipedia articles have similar sections, others have the "incidents" listed as part of more general sections. The solution proposed by Wumbolo seems reasonable as well).Mcrt007 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a huge need for a section, but I welcome a general rearranging of the article. I found this which should be in the article, and this interesting interview which provides a useful perspective. wumbolo ^^^ 12:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This reference is very important. wumbolo ^^^ 22:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I do advise against a separate section as high risk POV and insufficient sourcing, but the FPF and CJR are excellent sources that can be included, provided that we accurately summarize the sources, including FPF's stances on the issue and opinion division between supporters of the movement, as well as other experts cited in the article. The other opinion pieces linked above can be dismissed. Additionally, as for the "hate crimes where multiple black trans women were murdered are but liberal hoaxes" and "I can't be far right if I'm an Asian gay" Andy Ngo, his journalism are of the Project Veritas kind. Sources say that he is an editor of Quilette rather than a journalist. Similar reasons for conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson. It is inappropriate to count them as violence against journalists. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree for Tuck, perhaps "violence against media figures" is better? wumbolo ^^^ 16:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, this is entirely misguided. That would suggest a general targeted violence against any media figures. At least I haven't read that they want to tear Bill Nye apart. Tucker Carlson is a particularly controversial one. The accurate description would be something like "incidents of attacks on field reporters covering protests", but this doesn't merit any separate subsections. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 16:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. This isn't "targeting journalists" (especially since Ngo is hardly a journalist). More an issue of journalists getting caught up in violent protests. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

ABC News seems to disagree: they call him a "conservative journalist" here: [16].Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jake Tapper reports that "Antifa regularly attacks journalists" here: [17]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek reports that Ngo was a "journalist" here: [18]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Hill calls Ngo a "photojournalist" here: [19].Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• That would suggest [...] No it wouldn't. There are many articles with "attacks on civilians" sections yet they do not imply "a general targeted violence against any civilians". wumbolo ^^^ 21:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose this, absent substantially better sourcing. This proposal is driven by a Breitbart story that was published just a few hours ago, located at the URL below:

  https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/07/01/nolte-cnns-antifa-pals-have-assaulted-15-journalists/

  The Breitbart story lists 15 instances of violence against journalists at Antifa events, but their sourcing leaves much to be desired. R2 (bleep) 20:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I was wondering where this suddenly came from. That explains the odd WP:OR-ish nature of some of the above proposals as well, since I'd assume people are attempting to assemble the Breitbart piece's conclusions (knowing Breitbart itself isn't a WP:RS and can't be cited here) using higher-quality sources. But, unsurprisingly when it comes to Breitbart, the sourcing isn't there yet. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not completely certain of this, but it looks like Mcrt007 posted their proposal here before the Breitbart source was published. If correct, that might or might not be a coincidence; regardless, there is only one media outlet that's pushing this story, and that's Breitbart. I'd oppose the addition of a section about violence against journalists at Antifa events unless/until the subject as a whole is covered by reliable sources. R2 (bleep) 20:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Breitbart article was published 4 hours ago (16:20 UTC). I've added the post at 06:11am UTC but thanks to Aquillion for his insinuations in addition to the non-issues he keeps throwing around in the previous posts. Mcrt007 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, Jake Tapper doesn't count of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I've seen Jake Tapper's twitter posts and the various articles mentioning them 2 days ago (they were mentioning 3 crews and 4 journalists attacked). Freedom Press documents about 12 cases in the past year alone, Vox mentions 3-4 cases as well (in 2018) and so on. Some of these overlap (they're probably the same). Oh, and one more thing: all the sources I've listed above are reliable (some, like CJR among the most reliable) Mcrt007 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the sources. You haven't listed any CJR source. R2 (bleep) 20:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's a blatant lie. Here's again the article on Dave Minsky. Right at the beginning of the article, it says in bold Assaulted by Antifa and, next, it gives Minsky's story. Mcrt007 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a lie (please assume good faith), but an honest mistake as I had misread your previous comments. Stricken. R2 (bleep) 21:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the earlier accusation. Mcrt007 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So while that's a reliable source, it's not what I was looking for. I want to see a reliable source say something about Antifa attacks or violence against journalists (plural), not an isolated incident. R2 (bleep) 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the kind of proof you're asking for ("Antifa attacks or violence against journalism") is a reasonable one. What matters is that the incidents involving journalist are real and a growing number: at least 12 documented by US Press Freedom Tracker alone; there are other sources which I did not have time to check yet. Will probably list them all along with their references, in a post sometime this week.Mcrt007 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

What matters to you and what matters to me may be different. That's what consensus building is all about. R2 (bleep)

Here's a 2018 Washington Post article (posted above the Wumbolo) that documents "Antifa attacks or violence against journalists (plural)". Mcrt007 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Harassed, threatened and occasionally jostled" is not the same thing as violence. However, I'd support a sentence or two about this (not a new section). R2 (bleep) 21:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

+1. A whole section strikes me as undue, at least at this point. That being said, I definitely think the sources already adduced mean it bears a mention. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Tapper's tweets aren't reliable sources, and since when did you get snarky, Shinealittlelight? R2 (bleep) 20:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right, R2. I apologize. I'm a little keyed up for no reason related to you. I agree that his tweets aren't RS of course. But you yourself might allow them to affect your beliefs about the situation. They really have attacked a number of journalists. It should be in the article if we can support it with RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not about my beliefs. I support content about violence against journalists, if it's reliably sourced. I oppose content suggesting there's a general problem if it's not reliably sourced. R2 (bleep) 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As listed at WP:RSP, Breitbart is a deprecated source and should not be used. It is amusing though, that a website, that supports Trump who calls the "fake news media" the "enemy of the people", is the only one in media opposing violence against journalists. wumbolo ^^^ 21:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019

File:Antifa @ Trump in Phoenix 8-22-17.jpg has wrong date on the main page.

Description under the photo states: "Trump's visit to Phoenix July 22, 1917" while the photo name suggests it was 22. august (2017 of course, not 1917). Crabzmatic (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Orville^talk 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Carptrash (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa = Terrorists?

"US security officials have classified the left-wing group Antifa as "domestic terrorists", confidential documents have revealed."[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tym Whittier (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is covered in much greater depth in the "Ideology and activities" section. Broadly, a response in 2018 stated that Federal Law does not have a "mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations"; some people have used comparable terms informally in internal discussions, and there has been some controversy when they leaked, but it's not an official classification in the sense you're taking it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Added to the lede. Galestar (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's not in the article body it shouldn't be in the lede, and there's been no consensus for inclusion in the past. I've removed it. Please read the archives. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

K, I read the archives. They don't seem to deal with this source, which unambiguously says "US security officials have classified the left-wing group Antifa as "domestic terrorists"". You're right though - first step is to include that in the article itself before considering it for the lede. Galestar (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've attempted to add this source to the article but Grayfell insists on reverting. There are several past discussions in the archive where some (but not all - no clear consensus) editors essentially performed their own WP:OR about how U.S. security agencies don't do these classifications but that's really all they are: Original Research. If the reliable source says that the U.S classifies them as such, we should say that. Galestar (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Independent source is mostly derived from a Politco source which is already cited. The article already explains this pretty well as By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism. This is a summary of the substance of the source, not merely the choicest soundbites. This is also helpful as this gives a specific time-frame, which establishes context and weight. Reusing a different source, which is documenting the exact same information, to present it as though it were a new point in more inflammatory, open-ended language, is inappropriate for multiple reasons.

It's also not clear why this would belong in a "criticism" section (which is another issue) instead of where it is currently discussed. There are other issues, also, which have already been discussed, so for multiple reasons I do not think this proposed change is appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Its a lie by omission to fail to mention that they are classified as domestic terrorists. Include the time frame if that helps but the most pertinent part of the source is to directly label them as domestic terrorists. This article as written is very carefully trying to avoid calling them that even though the RS does so directly. Galestar (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Which "security officials" classified them as domestic terrorists? By what authority did they classify them as such? Did they classify all antifa as domestic terrorists, or just some of them? This was a confidential report, so was this "classification" an official declaration somehow made in secret? Was this one part of a larger document taken out of context? What does it mean to classify this nebulous movement as domestic terrorism, and what would that entail? Would anything change? Would there be heightened scrutiny? Would there be any legal difference?

A lie of omission could also bee seen presenting a factoid by removing all the surrounding context. Saying that they were "classified as domestic terrorists" does not provide enough context to be helpful. The current wording is not misleading and is supported by sources. Since this has already been discussed, if you have something new to add, cut to the chase, please. Unless you have consensus, do not restore this content again. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, Politico is the only source for this, the Indepedent is simply reporting what they said (and getting confused about what Antifa is, first calling it a group and then a lose coalition. The Politico article did not call them "domestic terrorists", it claimed on the basis of undisclosed documents that their activities had been classified as “domestic terrorist violence,” a description that I doubt you can find in any official documents. Yes, the headline says it, but headlines are never reliable sources. They are written by editors (not the authors of the articles) to draw attention to the article - we've discussed this at WP:RSN before. We also have an official statement that the government has no mechanism with which they can classify an organisation (which Antifa is not) as a domestic terrorist organisation. And finally the Politico story was largely ignored by the media and so far as I know there have been no reliable sources since repeating any forms of the claims. Finally, we already have a paragraph on this in the article, although I doubt that it deserves even that given what I've said above. To repeat, it was an unsubstantiated claim that called no one terrorists and was only briefly and minimally covered in the media, later followed by a denial that the government ever classified groups as domestic terrorists. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Knowing little about Antifa, I am confused here. Politico reported in September 217: the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO. Yet the AP and others reported in February 2018: The White House said Trump opposes violence and that federal law provides no “mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations.” I'm not suggesting that we give this subject the treatment that Tym Whittier wants, but how can we exclude reliable reporting based on something the Trump White House (the Trump White House!) said? It seems to me, per WP:NPV, we have to cover the Politico source. Unless it's been debunked or otherwise shown to be unreliable? R2 (bleep) 16:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is because the meaning of "classified" is vague; many readers are mistakenly taking it to mean "officially classified in some public way", which is not a thing. What it means is that some people have used the term in internal discussions that ended up being leaked - the Politico source is clear about this elsewhere. That's why we ended up covering it the way we do, which makes the full context clear, and it's why this proposed change (which has been suggested before, using this less-detailed source) has been repeatedly rejected. It gives the impression that there's some official list of terrorist groups somewhere that has Antifa on it, which is not the case. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What source are you basing your analysis on? Politico explicitly says DHS "formally classified" antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." If this is incorrect or impossible, then point me to a source that says so. Also, please point me to where we cover this material "the way we do"--I don't see it in the article at all, but maybe I'm missing something. R2 (bleep) 18:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What does "formal" mean? What does it mean in this context, or in any other relevant context? Where did they formally classify this movement as such? I have no doubt that some government agency or other could formally classify yadda yadda, but I don't understand what information that provides. The only other use of the phrase "domestic terrorist violence" in the source refers to right-wing groups. The document cited by Politico is "Baseline Comparison of US and Foreign Anarchist Extremist Movements". If the PDFs available online are to be believed, the document was released in April 2016, which matches the document Politico describes. The document (again, take with a grain of salt) doesn't use the phrase "domestic terrorist violence", and barely discusses anti-fascism at all. It does, however, include Politico's quote of the phrase "the capitalist system". I am not attempting to second-guess the source, but I really don't understand what this is actually saying, or what it would be explaining to readers. So again, what does "formal" mean here? Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'd have to guess the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis maintained a list. See this. R2 (bleep) 23:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't put "I guess" in the article. Anonymous sources within the DHS saying that some formal internal classification existed (which the DHS refuses to comment on and says was never intended for public release) doesn't seem like enough to include. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Politico article doesn't mention anything about a list. The document was jointly issued by that office, but unless I've missed it, it doesn't treat antifa as a unified group, and therefor doesn't place it on any list, either. As far as I am aware, no reliable source mentions a specific list. A precedent-setting formal designation of a domestic terrorist group should be supported by something better than this one ambiguous comment attributed to an anonymous source. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Politico explicitly says that anonymous sources within the DHS say that antifa was formally classified as such internally (though the nature of the classification is not elaborated on), but 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. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've started an RfC to address this issue. See below. R2 (bleep) 17:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Chris Hedges

I'm uncomfortable with including an extended quotation by Chris Hedges that's sourced to a Youtube video published by RT America, a propaganda arm of the Russian government. Does anyone else share this concern? At a minimum I think the quote should be trimmed considerably. Why does Hedges get twice as much real estate as any of the other views? R2 (bleep) 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It could be because he gives the most comprehensive explanation of why the Left rejects antifa. It might be better however if you could find an academic textbook that summarizes the various arguments for and against antifa, and add it. TFD (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's so significant then are there independent reliable sources that describe his view? I don't know much about Antifa and don't want to get too involved, but it concerns me that we're giving weight to a propaganda machine that we know has taken an interest in stirring up a debate over Antifa ([21], [22]). No matter how reasoned or comprehensive Hedge's criticisms might be. R2 (bleep) 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Not his view necessarily, but the view he expresses which appears to be similar to Chomsky's. I don't think though that you can state an opinion is given too much prominence if you are unfamiliar with the literature. TFD (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ha well I can and did. And my concern isn't related to the view itself. R2 (bleep) 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course anyone can state an opinion based on no information at all. I meant that it is not helpful to the discussion. TFD (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have reverted the section to its previous state before all the POV edits attracted by the recent protest. "Criticized by all sides of the political spectrum, including the far left" is absurd. Chomsky alone doesn't represent the "far left" and his political stance has significantly moderated in recent years. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 07:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It isn't just Chomsky. Its Chomsky, ex-head of SPLC Richard Cohen, Chris Hedges, and I can probably find more if that isn't enough. Why not just change it to 'including several prominent figures on the far left' instead of deleting it?Mbsyl (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Politico article absolutely needs attribution

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I disagree that it is unnecessary. The Politica article is the only source for these unsubstantiated claims and it's common to attribute sources, especially for something as uncertain as this. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's bad practice to provide in-text attribution when a reliable source provides uncontradicted factual information. It's somewhat inconsistent with our verifiability policy (if a reliable source says something, we can say it) and our neutrality policy (don't present facts as opinions), and it's unnecessarily wordy and distracting. It makes the article about media coverage of Antifa, rather than about Antifa itself. In-text attribution should generally be reserved for opinions, disputes among sources, and quotations. There is definitely no requirement that we use in-text attribution in this circumstance. If a reader wants to know where the information comes from, they can simply click on the footnote. R2 (bleep) 16:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, we should avoid calling reliably sourced content "unsubstantiated" as it undermines our verifiability policy. R2 (bleep) 16:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, I am not suggesting we say that in the article. But it's an obvious fact that undisclosed interviews or discussions are not substantiated by another source. We are just asked to believe the source. What is verifiable is that Politico reported unconfirmed (maybe that's a better word) material. I agree this is a tricky one, something that we don't often run into. I'm not convinced that we have to treat the article as entirely factual, there are too many ifs and buts - things we just don't know. It's puzzling that this was so secretive - why wasn't any of this made public? Or why was it leaked in this way? Doug Weller talk 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is actually pretty straightforward. You're objecting to this diff, right? Politico reported that it had obtained confidential documents. What's wrong with simply saying that Politico obtained confidential documents, rather than saying that Politico reported it had obtained confidential documents? Are you suggesting that they might not have obtained confidential documents? Or are you saying that Politico's description of the documents was somehow inaccurate? R2 (bleep) 17:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But then, I think it's no surprise that I think WP:NOTNEWS is way too lax. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Politico is quite reputable. What's the basis for your belief that the source isn't reliable? R2 (bleep) 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a US opinion journal and thus is not reliable for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

See Perennial Sources[23], current consensus is that it is reliable. Galestar (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Current consensus was largely shaped by Americans and is in violation of WP:NOTNEWS but then I long since stopped expecting Wikipedia to truly adhere to WP:NPOV - I think what I'm saying is I would support placing a RfC on this issue and will vehemently oppose its inclusion under WP:DUE when it happens. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As this is a U.S.-centric movement, it seems odd to take issue with the fact that the sources are also U.S.-centric. Galestar (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If you think me challenging the reliability of American journalism is odd in any context then clearly we haven't crossed paths much. I'll admit I'm in the minority on this one at this time. But I hope to eventually change that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

ETA: My main complaint over the use of sources like Politico though is more that it's journalism than that it's American. Please see WP:NOTNEWS point 2 - the single least observed policy in Wikipedia political articles. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We would need to show broad coverage in mainstream media or academic papers on antifa in order for this to have weight. A delegate to the Republican National Convention murdered doaens of women yet it is not mentioned in the Republican Party article. TFD (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I think Politico is generally reliable. That article though bothers me. We've no way of knowing if they were being played by factions in the government, for instance. Although I often don't trust the government when it says things publicly, I trust if even less when it uses the media this way. And as I said, why didn't the article get broader coverage? Did other players in the mainstream media stay away from it for some reason, eg being unsure of their sources? However, I feel like an idiot as so far as I'm concerned it's still attributed as a Politico article. However, looking at the diff again I'm not sure we should state as fact that "One internal assessment acknowledged" - I prefer the earlier version "Politico stated that one internal assessment acknowledged". Doug Weller talk 19:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

For me, Politico is certainly reliable (in the Wikipedia sense, at least!). That being said, I would favor attribution here as we have one reliable source that seems to be way out in front of all of the others. Without pretending to know anything about the truth of the claim, it certainly seems to be an outlier. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug, the "One internal assessment acknowledged" language is Politico's own analysis, right? Are you saying the analysis was incorrect? It seems to me if there's a problem there, it's with the word "acknowledged," which expresses some tacit endorsement. Why don't we say, "One internal assessment said"? Dumuzid, it's already made clear from the text that this reporting comes from Politico. R2 (bleep) 20:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think rs is a problem, since it is covered in the local paper and Newsweek. But it lacks weight. TFD (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that DHS was classifying antifa as engaging in terrorist activities lacks weight? Are you serious? I'm proposing putting something in the body, not the lead. R2 (bleep) 23:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

But the DHS never publicly said that. What we have is Politico saying "the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO." In other words, someone or someones talk to Politico anonymously and showed them alleged documents. Am I the only one who sees something fishy in the DHS deciding to let the public know through leaking this to one news channel? I trust Politico generally, but I don't trust anonymous DHS officials. As for weight, a DHS announcement would have had weight. This? I don't think so. And Newsweek no longer impresses me and just IIRC reported what Politico said. Major media outlets ignored it. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• This in-text attribution discussion is apparently intertwined with the RfC below. I suggest we see how the RfC plays out and then revisit this. R2 (bleep) 17:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"autonomous"

This is incorrect, Antifa have a variety of well-documented funding sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.165.112 (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What are they? TFD (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa is not and have never been a single group, organisation or movement, it is a term that describes pretty much anyone who is strongly against fascism. As such, there are no "members" of Antifa and being antifa is like being part of Anonymous where the only requirement you need to fulfill in order to consider yourself part of Anonymous is being supportive of "hacktivism", similarly, being Antifa simply requires you to be strongly anti-fascist! As such, how can anyone "fund Antifa" when there is no financial structure or any kind of leadership? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Using an archived copy of a New Jersey Homeland page that no longer matches the current page mentioning antifa

I had to search for what NJ says now, as the 2nd link was only to a main page so useless. It's here and says "A majority of New Jersey-based anarchist extremists are affiliated with Antifa and focus on issues of racism, immigration, and other perceived social injustices. There are three loosely organized chapters in New Jersey, known as North Jersey Antifa, South Jersey Antifa, and HubCity Antifa based in New Brunswick (Middlesex County)....Anarchist extremists will mobilize in response to issues they believe are unjust, carry out criminal and violent acts during otherwise First Amendment-protected events and protests, and target perceived enemies." It then adds some details about various actions.

Then "Antifa, or anti-fascists, is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas." This is followed by a section on symbols. " I don't think we should use a page no longer maintained by the state. They decided to withdraw it and replace it with a new one. I don't know why, but we should not use a page they removed but should use the current page, focussing not just on the link but that statement "Antifa, or anti-fascists, is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas." That's lacking in the archived page and might be the reason it was replaced. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused... can you please provide links to both the old and the new versions? R2 (bleep) 17:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: the new one is the link I gave in my 2nd sentence.[24] The archived one is the one in the article.[25] Doug Weller talk 20:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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". 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)

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)

• 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)

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 a racist blogger, 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: [26]. 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)

Paul Welch

I'm curious how this wiki could have no mention of an incident that is arguably more violent than anything Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer have done, namely the Paul Welch incident, in which a Bernie Sanders supporter was hit over the head with a bat and robbed of his US flag in broad daylight in front of a large crowd. This incident is on film and has been cited in several mainstream publications, including Oregon's monopoly daily newspaper, Newsweek, and The Hill

Can someone explain to me how this isn't significant? I searched the talk page and found a justification for this based on User:Simonm223 (who recently removed my mention of the incident saying "This is not a reliable source nor is it a notable incident") thinking it doesn't represent the entire movement. What does represent antifa if you take the view that they are 'decentralized' and therefore not a group? Can we not criticize or discuss antifa as a group at all because they say the are merely a collection of freely acting individuals?? And many are wearing masks, so should we assume that all of the ones committing violence could be Agent Provacateurs?

Also, how can I argue the validity of sources with Simonm223 when they say "I don't trust any American newsmedia."

Does this not stand in great contrast to the Proud Boys wiki, where one member saying a bigoted word is included in their thorough catalog of 'events' and is backed by citations from non-RS sites Gothamist, Village Voice, and The Daily Beast.

How can wiki readers believe there is a NPOV when someone saying a hateful word is cited by non-RS sources and included in the Proud Boys article, but an aggravated robbery of a US flag is considered "not a notable incident" and 2 publications that cite it and that are much more RS than Gothamist, etc. are said to be non-RS? Mbsyl (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you make a fair case, but why not simply add it to the article yourself? That's sort of the whole idea behind this encyclopedia. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I did, but it was deleted. I'm fairly new to editing, so I thought I would consult the pros on here to get a better understanding.Mbsyl (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The sentence you added previously is not acceptable, because it makes claims that go beyond what the source you cited says: the Oregon Live article doesn't say anything about anything being stolen from Welch or anything about any sort of bat. I wouldn't be opposed to the article featuring a sentence which cites the additional sources linked above and more accurately summarises what the sources say, however. You may also wish to bear in mind Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: the fact that something is discussed in the Proud Boys article has no bearing on what should be mentioned in this article. If you think there's a problem with that article you should amend it, either directly or by raising the issue at Talk:Proud Boys. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The policy WP:Other stuff exists does not say that other articles have "no bearing" on what should be mentioned. Rather, the article says that sometimes such arguments are valid, and sometimes not. Mbsyl has proceeded according to policy. Arms & Hearts objects to the use of 'bat' and 'stolen'. So how about this as a revised version of what Mbsyl originally wrote:

At a August 2018 Portland, Oregon counter-rally, several Antifa protestors attempted to forcibly take a US flag from Bernie Sanders supporter Paul Welch after striking Welch on the head with a club.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Support including the information, in some form or another. Benjamin (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

My only issue would be chronology; according to the Oregon Live source, the attempt to take the flag was before the strike to the head. Other than that, I think it bears mentioning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this and would add that "Bernie Sanders supporter" is too vague: did he support Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign? His 2020 campaign? Any or all of his campaigns in Vermont between 1972 and 2018? It also requires too much prior knowledge on the reader's part – if one doesn't know who Sanders is then the significance of who Welch voted for is not going to be apparent. I'd prefer something like "Paul Welch, a self-identified progressive". "Several" is also redundant verbosity, because "Antifa protestors" in the plural already carries the same implication. But these are relatively minor quibbles that needn't be threshed out in advance on the talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

i think its common sense to assume that he was at least a bernie sanders supporter during the attack. seems like a pretty nitpicky point. bernie polled as the most popular politician in america in a fox news poll...people know who he is. more people know bernie sanders than know what 'progressive' means i would guess. Mbsyl (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Around 1.132 billion people speak the English language, of whom a majority will know the meaning of a common word like "progressive". Only around 327 million people live in the United States; people outside the U.S. are not usually familiar with also-ran U.S. presidential candidates. This is the English Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia, so we should aim to write in ways that are comprehensible to English speakers regardless of nationality. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I thought we had consensus here, so I put in some language similar to what is above, and O3K, who hasn't contributed to the talk page discussion, reverted it on the grounds that we need "better RS" for "such an accusation". I'm going to reinstate with Newsweek and The Hill sources as well. If O3K has a problem with that, he can revert again and explain himself here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is completely undue as an isolated incident absent further updates and sourcing. We're WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT apply. And the "more violent than anything Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer have done" is patently absurd. The former regularly instigate street fights and intimidate peaceful leftist organizations and the latter has beat up unarmed women on multiple occasions. Things like this don't warrant a mention on those articles. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 03:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This user is a self-proclaimed Antifa supporter (see userpage). Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Lmao, if I had joined any organizations, including antifa, that constitutes a COI, I'll let people know. Other than mere personal opinions, I don't know how to console your paranoia. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 04:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

yeah i noticed the 'bash the fash' on their talk or user page. they certainly seem to be editing with a very pro-antifa bias. re: proud boys instigating street fights - antifa said that this 'battle of portland 2' was proud boys "planning to invade downtown Portland, looking for targets for violent attacks" on itsgoingdown.org, but anyone can look at footage and see it was just 20 or so trump supporters waving 2 us flags in the city square until antifa showed up. this whole thing in portland started because conservatives were coming here to have a little public prayer and antifa made a huge deal about it and followed them on their march routes harassing them until they had a clash. i don't know how many RS support this, but as someone at the rallies, i 100% know this to be true and i know that at the very least, videos will support what i am saying. the right only started it if you consider having a little rally that no one would have known about an attack, rather than considering following conservatives while wearing all black with masks on, holding weapons, and screaming harassing things at them, to be the start of the attack.Mbsyl (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool story, bud. Because our reliable sources specifically say that it was the neo-fascist Proud Boys who organized the entire event. If you're personally or financially related to the Proud Boys, you must refrain from editing this article and its talk pages, as well as Proud Boys and far-right politics in the US in general. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

believe it or not, i'm not a proud boy or conservative. i am just very skeptical about antifa's branding, tactics, and goals. mother jones (who i have donated to) also says antifa killed someone in 2007. want to add that to the article? https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/timeline-anti-fascists-nazi-punching/ And I cringe at them citing Portland Mercury as an RS in your link. this is the same publication that supported Micah Rhodes for years and had nothing to say when he was arrested twice for having sex with minors. and they ran a story accusing someone of being racist because they had a black girlfriend and possibly had some beer poured on them after stealing someone's seat at a movie theater showing a far left movie with a nearly all black cast.Mbsyl (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That punk fraternity infighting had nothing to do with antifa, so as the rest of your rant. Good luck and nice try. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

from mother jones, who you just cited as an rs, : "Here’s a timeline of the American anti-fascist movement...

A 25-year-old man is beaten to death outside a punk show in Asbury Park, New Jersey, after reportedly refusing to take off a Confederate flag T-shirt. An alleged FSU member is arrested but not charged." Good luck explaining your way out of including this in the wiki article. The only thing you can say is Mother Jones got it wrong, because it was actually his friend who was wearing a shirt with a rebel flag, according to Rolling Stone.Mbsyl (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That, at best, belong to the FSU article, not here. A single incident, no further reports, facual accuracy disputed between sources, Rolling Stone didn't say antifa at all which means this is just another WP:OR, nothing of value to include. That was cherrypicking at its finest. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

are you saying Mother Jones doesn't understand what antifa is after you just cited them as an RS about the recent antifa/proud boy rally here in portland? why is Rolling Stone seemingly more credible than Mother Jones, who you just cited as an RS in relation to their knowledge of antifa? the alleged murderer in the Mother Jones/Rolling Stone articles was in a group that opposes far right ideology and was allegedly attacking someone who they perceived as far right, no? first google result for antifa defintion: a political protest movement comprising autonomous groups affiliated by their militant opposition to fascism and other forms of extreme right-wing ideology. from ADL: "Their presence at a protest is intended to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame. This is why most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive." so, according to experts, including the website that you cited as an RS (in regards to a story pertaining to antifa) - antifa are groups that oppose racism, fascism and/or far right ideology.Mbsyl (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Arguments that concern contributors rather than content are unlikely to be taken seriously. If you're not discussing the issue at hand, and talking about editors rather than responding to their arguments, it looks very much as though you have no substantive argument of your own and may not be here to build an encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Being publicly supportive of Antifa means that the user may have a COI on this article. It also means that the user believes that achieving political goals by any means necessary is permissible in the present situation, and is thus in effect a statement that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. If you don't think it's relevant, then you can feel free to ignore it. I think it's relevant. In any case, are you changing your view on what should be included about Welch? Because it still looks like we have a decent consensus here, and this user is reverting against consensus as far as I can tell. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Being publicly supportive of Antifa means that the user may have a COI. Does that mean if I support democracy I can’t edit articles on democracy? It also means that the user believes that achieving political goals by any means necessary is permissible…. I suggest you remove this WP:PA. And no, the user is not reverting against consensus. I still don’t see how this is WP:DUE. O3000 (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not what a conflict of interest is. As that guideline makes clear, "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." It refers to a very specific set of areas and practices. There is no conflict of interest when an editor contributes to articles about topics they have opinions about (whether positive or negative). To interpret the guideline in that way would be absurdly restrictive: we would be unable to edit articles about musicians or authors we like, or politicians we dislike, and so on and so forth. Editors have opinions, because we're people who live in the world; we nonetheless manage to adopt a neutral point of view when writing encyclopaedia articles. If you believe there is a COI issue, rather than raising it at this talk page (which is for discussing the article, not editors' conduct), you might want to raise it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (though what you'll be told there will not differ substantially from what I've just told you here). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankly the people who are showing failures of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT in this talk page aren't the people who have the conviction to say that fascism is a bad thing that should be confronted. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a COI. I said it may be. Similarly, if someone stated on their user page that they were a big fan of the RNC, I'd have some concern about them showing up and aggressively making reverts at the RNC page. I'm obviously not saying it shouldn't be allowed; I'm saying that there's some reason for concern. You have to read what people write to reply effectively to them. What I said was also not a personal attack. People who support Antifa think that we've come to a point where following the normal rules is no longer reasonable, and any means necessary should be employed. If you support that approach to political matters in the present context, I don't see how you can claim to be here to follow the rules and build an encyclopedia. That's the point I'm making; it isn't a personal attack. I myself--and I'm sure many of you--would not participate in writing a NPOV wikipedia article on the Nazi party during WW2. That's the sort of situation Antifa thinks they're in, by their own admission. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight Please immediately redact all statements in which you propose those editors who are against fascism have potential WP:COI and are incapable of adhering to Wikipedia policy - it's a blatant personal attack and must be stricken through. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You said: It also means that the user believes that achieving political goals by any means necessary is permissible …. Any means would include planting bombs, flying planes into buildings, etc. I again suggest you strike this personal attack on another editor, allong with your PA claiming the editor is NOTHERE with no evidence. O3000 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I will not. Stop mischaracterizing what I said. I'm against fascism too. That's not the issue. And I never said 'incapable'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Support: It is a notable incident and merits inclusion. Galestar (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources so far appear to be a blog, a local paper, and Newsweek, which does not have the best reputation for factual accuracy. I'd like to see better sources before inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek is listed as having consensus for reliability under WP:RSP. Galestar (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but we don't treat sources as binary - reliable or not reliable. It's a spectrum, and we should be careful with Newsweek, and I don't think if it is the only source we can use we should tread very carefully (and look to supporting sources.) We also do tend to determine consensus for these things on a case by case, which is important when discussing alleged violent action. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Newsweek you should try WP:RSN and attempt to remove them from WP:RSP. While you're doing that, The Hill [27] is also generally considered reliable. That's two reliable sources reporting on it. Galestar (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's the blog part of the site, buddy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

if you just look at the video, the most charitable way you can describe it is as people dressed in black attacking a man and trying to steal his flag and then one clubs him on the head and walks off (while a large crowd does nothing to help identify or capture the assaulter or to help the victim, which i would say is due to the Terror invoked by large groups of people with weapons, dressed in black/masks, who take over the city with violence and intimidation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point; we decide WP:DUE based on coverage, not based on how it makes people feel. A WP:NEWSBLOG isn't really strong support for inclusion, and the other two, while they connect it to antifa in the headlines, only mention that connection briefly rather than going into any depth. Given the brief and relatively slight coverage, it doesn't make sense to describe this as "notable activism" by antifa; it doesn't pass WP:DUE or tell the reader much about the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Point still stands about Newsweek, and then there's these: Fox News, Washington Times, National Review, Chicago Tribune, and Toronto Sun. There really is no question: story is notable, DUE and several sources all saying pretty much the same thing, plus there's also a video of the incident. Galestar (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar: The perennial sources list you yourself point to calls Fox News, National Review, and the Washington Times 'partisan sources'. Would you please stop throwing links around and get an independent reliable source that supports what you say? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Also the Toronto Sun is a tabloid and is not a reliable source for anything beyond sports scores. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't ever "just look at the video". The video is a primary source and is of no interest when there are reliable (written) secondary sources we can use. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I share WP:DUE concerns. The coverage is slight and doesn't really go into more detail on how this connects to the subject; I definitely don't think it meets the standard of the rest of the "notable activism" section. It seems to have been one incident that received a tiny smattering of coverage at the time and nothing since, so I'm unclear as to why people are suddenly pushing to add it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support Notable and has RS coverage. Really helps explain the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't an RFC (at least not yet.) Why are you bolding your support? --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• • • I'll bold my support all I want, thank you very much. It just makes it more convenient to quickly visualize consensus, that's all. No biggie. Anyway, sources are reliable enough, and this event is obviously more significant than a celebrity eating lunch or whatever. By the way, let's try to stay on topic and not argue or revert each other too much. Also, I notice the article got a spike in views. Why's that? Benjamin (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You can keep saying 'support' in as big a font as you want, it won't give your arguments any credence. Consensus isn't a vote, and your repeated comments won't fool anybody. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Geez man, I'm not trying to fool anyone; lighten up. Address my arguments, will you? Benjamin (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: What arguments? All you have are assertions and your repeated use of a bolded 'support'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Were this a !vote, you having bolded your support twice would be very dirty pool and you'd be getting a lot more than people asking you to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hell no And nice try with the old one person agreed with me after five minutes so that's consensus maneuver. It's an isolated incident. It is not reflective on the overall antifascist movement or on even a local branch of antifascist activity. Simply put, it's undue WP:CRUFT trotted out by conservatives in an attempt to WP:COATRACK the idea of antifascists as indiscriminately violent cartoon anarchists. Absolutely not. No. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As that essay says, it's just shorthand, so you're going to have to be more specific about the real underlying policy reasons. I agree that the content shouldn't be unduly emphasised, but I do think it has enough coverage at least a brief mention. If you think that other aspects of coverage are comparatively lacking, then you are welcome to improve those. Benjamin (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's another essay for you to read: WP:GREENCHEESE. A single incident involving a single individual who may or may not have had ties to a single organization within the loose agglomeration of organizations that believe fascists should be directly confronted is not WP:DUE any relevance in the article about the phenomenon of the loose agglomeration. Rather it is WP:CRUFT - something only of relevance to a subset of fans of the Proud Boys and not something that contributes to any real understanding of the antifascist movement. Furthermore, the fans for whom this is WP:CRUFT are openly antagonistic to antifascists, as antifascists are openly antagonistic to white-supremacist western-chauvinist gangs, which they rightly consider neo-fascist organizations. As such, inclusion of this WP:CRUFT is being used by said fans as a WP:COATRACK to mis-characterize the antifascist movement by asserting an isolated and unfortunate confrontation between two individuals has some relevance to the topic when, it, as WP:CRUFT does not.

IS this specific enough for you? Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek

There is at the moment no consensus that the current Newsweek, independent since it was sold last year, is a reliable source. User:Galestar, I know what RSP says, but it also points to this recent discussion, the only one that I can find since it was sold.[28]. I see no consensus there that it is. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)