Talk:Antifa (United States)

RfC: antifa and terrorism

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: [1]. There are, of course, many other examples of this sort of behavior. It's very surprising that people are acting like we've never seen this sort of thing from Antifa. Obviously both 'antifa' and 'terror' are going to be disputed words. But we have RS reporting something about this dispute, and with attribution it seems clearly to be due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's about international terrorism. Domestic terrorism is defined as: to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."[2] Attempts to intimidate a minority population are not considered terrorism, but hate crimes. Attempts to intimidate a political group, such as neo-nazis, do not come under either category. PackMecEng, no, why do you ask? TFD (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Poorly Structured "Ideology and Activities" section

The section "Ideology and Activities" is very long and could be better formed. Most saliently, the sentence "By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism" is embedded in a very long and circuitous set of paragraphs about very different subjects. I suggest each of these (the terrorism accusations, the mutual aid, &c.) be migrated to their own subsections. It would be much easier to navigate at a glance as a result. What do you all think? SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

agreed. it definitely needs better structure. maybe something like the Proud Boys page, where each notable incident has its own subsection. Mbsyl (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

IPA Transcription

Antifa can be pronounced with either prepenultimate or penultimate stress, all four possible variants should be expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SapientiaBrittaniae (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@SapientiaBrittaniae: I don't really understand what you're proposing (probably largely because I don't really understand IPA). What are the four possible variants? Don't the two pronunciations currently given in the article indicate that the word "can be pronounced with either prepenultimate or penultimate stress"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: In General American English, the four possible variants should be as follows: /'æntifə/ /æn'tifə/ /'æntifɑ/ /æn'tifɑ/. Further, in RP English they can be mutated into /'antifə/ or /an'tifə/ SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Willem Van Spronsen

I imagine editors other than ValentinesDay88 have opinions on whether information about Willem Van Spronsen's attack on a detention centre in Tacoma, Washington belongs in this article. While the article cited in their addition doesn't draw any connection between Van Spronsen and antifa, other reliable sources do, including Tom Cleary in Heavy, who describes him as "affiliated with the Puget Sound Anarchists and local antifa groups" and quotes him as saying, in his "manifesto," "I am antifa". I think a sentence in the article cited to this source would probably be appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's been pointed out in a few (non-RS) places I follow that while Van Spronsen was not the first person to die in one of these concentration camps, he is the first person to die trying to liberate one. I'd say his connection to antifa activism is notable and I'm certain a RS can be found. Furthermore, while I am generally very opposed to WP:NOT WP:CRUFT lists, I'd suggest his activities are significant enough in this instance to warrant mention. That said, I think it's critical that Wikipedia express this action in a neutral way. While some editors may be inclined to vilify him and while others (including myself) may hold his actions as meritorious, Wikipedia should do neither. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

::I tried to add a partition to this webpage to discuss this, but something wasn't working and it wouldn't publish. In his manifesto he says that he is a member of Antifa so I thought that it applied. I am sorry if I was not good in my edit and this happened near my town so I wanted to add it. I will try to be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValentinesDay88 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: When I talked about the need for neutrality it was precisely the sort of inclusion you just made that I was referring to. Please avoid loaded language such as "attacked" and, prior to any public investigation, avoid making unambiguous statements of fact in Wikipedia voice. All Wikipedia knows for certain is that Van Spronsen is dead in an ICE facility. He was reported to have damaged structures within it. Whether property damage constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and thus subject to WP:NPOV at this time there's no evidence suggesting he intended harm to any of the human beings in the facility. Finally, I deleted the Epoch Times because they're a garbage source. You have already provided better. Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ETA: please see basically any discussion on this page for why Wikipedia does not call anyone, living or dead, a "member of Antifa." Furthermore, if I recall correctly, BLP protection applies to the recently deceased, especially in cases where WP:BLP1E applies. As such, we have to be particularly sensitive in our handling of this incident. I do think it's notable and warrants inclusion, but there are structural limits to how Wikipedia should include it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

IE: We should be particularly cautious in how we describe the deceased, such as calling them a member of this or that group. As it is the event, not the individual, which is notable and the event only is notable in that it draws a parallel between antifascist action and the public perception that the ICE concentration camps are part of a shift in US border policy toward fascist ones. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I only restored the text by VD88 and added sources to it. By all means, feel free to rephrase it. Additionally, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Epoch Times; see WP:RSP. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, you didn't need to include a source from a publication with a long history of fabrication, propaganda and shoddy reporting. You had better sources. So I removed it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I am a little unsure of this just because the major tie I see to Antifa is a Facebook post from a Seattle group, but it is entirely possible I am missing something. I see him frequently described as "antifascist," but that, to me, is not the same as being associated with Antifa, unless we are ready to call General Patton and his Seventh Army "Antifa." So, I guess I'll leave my qualms at that, and let consensus fall where it may. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

From the Heavy link: Van Spronsen wrote, "I am antifa,..."Terrorist96 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The man who committed the attack said that he was in Antifa, that is why I originally put it but I am not doing edits on this article anymore that's just what I read. ValentinesDay88 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw the "I am Antifa" quote, but is that a 'tie' to Antifa? I would say that is 'self-proclaimed' or the like. When I write my manifesto (before making the criminally moronic Wikipedia posts that get me thrown off the internet), I may say "I am a member of the Lancashire County Cricket Club...." It would be a mistake to say I had "ties" to the club. Obviously the nebulous nature of Antifa makes this tricky, but I still think this is one we need to somehow indicate was basically this guy's say-so. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa isn't a club one can be a member of; it's largely an ideological position (that fascists should be confronted directly, that for a variety of reasons, law enforcement is poorly equipped to handle fascists) and as such, it's reasonable to state somebody adheres to antifa principles based on self-identification. My understanding via my non-RS sources is that many antifascist groups are saying, "he was one of ours," IE: that his actions were an act of antifascism to be praised. Remember as an ideology rather than a group there is no member list. Nobody is a member of antifa. So claims of camraderie aren't claims that he was working with this or that group but rather that he was a comrade. However, what I've heard from contacts in antifascist groups through the grapevine is not what Wikipedia should publish. I'd be very open to an edit clarifying that his antifascist connection was self-identified if no specific groups have come forward and said, "he was working with us." Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but I think the phrasing "ties to" belies your point; it certainly implies to me something concrete beyond an ideological affiliation. I'm not saying we should pretend he had nothing to do with Antifa, rather, I think we should just be a bit more careful in how we paraphrase the sources. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• None of this matters. What we need are better sources; not all antifascist groups are antifa, and since he's recently dead this guy still falls under WP:BLP - even with the more cautious wording in the latest version (which avoids using the word 'antifa' in that paragraph), including him here still contains an obvious implication. To include him we need a WP:BLP-quality source specifically stating in as many words that he was associated with antifa; antifa is anti-fascist, but not all anti-fascist groups are antifa. Two of the three sources previously in the article don't mention antifa at all and therefore aren't usable. The Heavy source does include one quote, Van Spronsen wrote, “I am antifa, I stand with comrades around the world who act from the love of life in every permutation. Comrades who understand that freedom means real freedom for all”, but I do not feel that's sufficient on its own until / unless we have at least one source discussing the connection in the article voice. (I'm not saying we keep it off the page forever - given that quote, it should be easy to find a source actually connecting him to Antifa if it checks out and is relevant - but I feel we have to wait until / unless such a clear source appears. Filing this under antifa activism based on a single quote feels too much like trying to connect the dots ourselves right now, which is WP:SYNTH.) Or, in other words, if this is notable antifa activism, there will be a source saying so in its article voice soon enough. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about much of this, but I think the final sentence gets at an important point, which is that if information about this event does belong in the article it surely doesn't belong in a section called "activism": even if we have good enough sources connecting Van Spronsen to antifa (which we may or may not), we certainly don't have sources describing what he did as "antifa activism". This probably connects to the issue raised above about the article's structure. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Count me in the "two minds" crowd as well, but I'm glad Aquillion was bolder than I am. I believe "when in doubt, leave it out." I also believe all Wikipedia maxims should rhyme. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the first lethal victim and martyr of this movement is pretty notable to at least be included in a sentence, he self-describes as Antifa in his manifesto, a manifesto linked to and mentioned in several WP:RS, the problem of No true Scotsman is hard to circumvent here, but he has been referred as Antifa in a few sources, see [3] [4] [5] [6]

I suggest something to the effects of "On July 13, 2019, a 69-years old man identified as Willem Van Spronsen was shot and killed by police after opening fire and throwing incendiary devices on a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. In his manifesto, he self-described as antifa." feel free to suggest changes Loganmac (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe. "On July, 13 2019, a member of Antifa, Willem Van Spronse..." should not be accepted, ValentinesDay88. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with the proposed wording. At this point I'd lean towards not including it at all, just because I'd like to see the connection drawn a little more explicitly in the reliable sources (though it's awfully close). That being said, it's only a lean and I won't be turning over any furniture if it's included in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This article also uses the words "attacked" and "Antifa" so shouldn't we include this? I'm not understanding why we are avoiding this. -Valentine — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValentinesDay88 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like they're waiting for sources like Washington Post, New York Times, etc. to explicitly mention it, in which case, I wouldn't hold your breath.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

::I don't understand. Are those the only webpages that are allowed to be used? -Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I found this webpage on the Washington Post (it's for Washington DC not Washington State) and this on the New York Times they says the same things about the attack. Is that what they want? -Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, because neither of those mentions "antifa", which is predictable as per my last link.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia isn't the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; even if you think the mainstream media is covering something up, we still have to go with what they say. WP:FRINGE, I think it is, even specifically says that arguments that something doesn't appear in the sources because it's being covered up is a sign that it shouldn't be included. --Aquillion (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

We need an article about antifa that mentions it. In comparison, a book about the serial killer Ted Bundy mentions that he was a delegate to the Republican National Convention. But mainstream sources about the Republican Party rarely mention this. That's because while it is important to his story, it's not important to the Republican Party. I notice this article does not even mention the Puget Sound Anarchists, with which Van Spronsen was apparently "affiliated." TFD (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The difference between Ted Bundy being a serial killer not being mentioned on the Republican page vs Spronsen being antifa not being mentioned here is that Bundy didn't commit his acts as a result of his Republican affiliation; Spronsen did, as per his manifesto. And we have enough sources to add it. Here's a new one. In sum, we have buzzfeednews.com, heavy.com, independent.co.uk, theepochtimes.com, foxnews.com, and several other right-wing sources all explicitly saying "antifa" and other sources such as seattletimes.com mentioning "anti-fascist". Still not enough?Terrorist96 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's something for reliable sources to determine. TFD (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces has it right. How is this important to Antifa? This has yet to be demonstrated, and frankly I don't think it can be unless there's some sort of successful attempt to show him as a martyr for the movement. Where I disagree with TFD is that I don't think one article would be enough. Of course, maybe if he gets his own article it could mention what he said. Anyone can say that they support a movement without anyone else in the movement even knowing them. Terrorist96, Newsbuster is of no interest here and commments such as yours are neither helpful nor collegial. If you have problems with the sources they don't like, take them to WP:RSN, not here. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know what I think about inclusion here, as there are convincing arguments on both sides. Clearly his behaviour is exceptional within the wider movement, which practices a diversity of tactics with this at a very far end of the spectrum, so we need to avoid suggesting his actions were exemplary of antifa. But at the same time, it may still be noteworthy. We should feel OK to take it slow not rush, as we not a newspaper, and wait to see what sources say. And whatever the consensus, we need to avoid the formulation proposed that describe him as “in” or “a member of” antifa or which capitalise antifa as “Antifa”, as (as established numerous times on this talk page but perhaps new to people coming here because of this incident) antifa is not a homogenous organisation and does not have members. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source on leftist political movements. Full bloody stop. I generally support inclusion of Van Spronsen for reasons noted above but, if the consensus is that it's WP:TOOSOON to identify his activity as antifa activity within the bounds of Wikipedia, I'm not going to edit-war it back in. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors white washing left-wing terrorism are a disgrace to this website. Shame on you. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::It's now in 2019 Spokane attack, was in List of terrorist incidents in July 2019 but I removed it, again, and Terrorism in the United States - the mainstream sources, WAPO and Seattle Times, mention neither Antifa or terrorism, the two right-wing sources do. He did say "I am Aantifa" but that doesn't mean, as I've said, a lot. No question though that he was a left wing anti-fascist. Editors here to push rightwing sources only are a disgrace to this website. Good editors follow policy. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, did you hear? Buzzfeed is now right wing. Someone tell Buzzfeed!Terrorist96 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that everybody needs to cool off, watch the WP:NPA violations and remember to WP:AGF - the purpose of this page is to convey relevant information about the US antifa ideological movement, NOT to catalog alleged crimes of anarchists. Although I don't personally object to including a carefully worded, reliably sourced and neutral statement about this incident respecting the restrictions of WP:BLP there has been a strong case made for WP:TOOSOON. None of this is "white washing left-wing terrorism" and comments to this effect, along with sarcasm about the political slant of sources is actively harmful to Wikipedia. Stop it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

:::I have to assume that if a terrorist attacked a government facility and wrote in his manifesto, "I am a Nazi", that editors would include that in Wikipedia. Why doesn't the same standard apply here?-Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed article doesn't mention terrorism or Antifa with a capital A, it says " self-identified as an anti-fascist, or "antifa," Not all anti-fascists are part of the Antifa movement, and his manifesto uses a lower case "a" - ie antifa, and says "I am not affiliated with any organization, I have disaffiliated from any organizations who disagree with my choice of tactics." Doug Weller talk 18:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a right-wing source Big League Politics [7] with it clearly in lower case, as it is in the left wing sources I saw. Of course BLP calls him an Antifa member, but you'd expect that take despite him not saying anything of the kind. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::::If a terrorist attacked a government facility and wrote in his manifesto, "I am a nazi" instead of "I am a Nazi" we would not be able to include it on Wikipedia? -Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be included in that individual's article. It probably would not be included in the article about Nazism unless it was relevant to that topic. TFD (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, any connection is too tenuous. And even if we knew for certain that he was a member of the Republican or Democratic Party, we wouldn’t add it to one of those articles. O3000 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

More specifically, it would depend on coverage among secondary sources. If the sources commonly described him as a Nazi and treated that aspect as significant, we probably would, too. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I've struck through the edits of the sockpuppet ValentinesDay88 (also editing as HappyValentinesDay1988) who was a confirmed sockpuppet of CordialGreenery who in turn was a proven sock of OnceASpy. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

List of sources

Buzzfeed

The Independent

Fox News

Heavy

New York Post

New York Post 2

Washington Examiner

Washington Times

National Review

Townhall

News Busters

The Epoch Times

NTD

The New American

USA Today

Seattle Times

My Northwest (Local Seattle newspaper)

KIRO7 (Another local Seattle news station)

KIRO7 again

Tacoma News Tribune (second largest newspaper in the state of Washington per their About Us link

news.com.au

Big League Politics

PJ Media

According to WP:RSP, all the above sources (in order) either have consensus of being reliable, or there is no consensus on their reliability, or are not listed. None are deemed "unreliable". But I guess it's still #TooSoon... At what point are you guys going to admit you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Terrorist96 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Conglomeration

There has been some back and forth in the edits in the first sentence of the lede recently between “is a conglomeration of” and “comprises”.[8] I really don’t like and don’t see any advantage in “conglomeration” which is (a) an inelegant, unnecessary word, (b) rather vague in meaning, and (c) ascribes more cohesion to the amorphous, leaderless movement than is accurate. Can we go with the simpler, clearer, more accurate “comprises”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean, anytime somebody uses comprises correctly they're already half-way to support from me. So while I've previously supported the conglomeration wording against other suggestions, I'd definitely support the new "comprises" wording, which is more elegant and accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Comprises" sounds good to me; it's vague enough to avoid going beyond what the sources say, and doesn't seem to have any baggage. "Conglomeration" makes it sound like a company, almost, like there's some formal Antifa Conglomerate. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa is neither organized per se nor are they entirely disunified (they at least share a common ideology and common talking spaces, that's more than obvious). I'd suggest the term "unified by" with the addition of a sentence pronouncing their apparent organizational unity within regional circles (one could find social media pages, public discussions &c. for regional sects of Antifa such as in Portland or Chicago) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SapientiaBrittaniae (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comprises, definitely. We shouldn't suggest that the movement doesn't have supporters who aren't in groups, which we seem to be doing now - the wording has to make that clear. Again I see this analogous to the Civil Rights movement - a lot of groups but also a lot of unaffiliated supporters. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggested wording to bring the lead into line with the article

Right now it is simply inaccurate. I suggest "Antifa is comprised of autonomous militant anti-fascist groups and individuals who subscribe to a range of left-leaning ideologiesideologies, typically on the left. They include anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrat. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sadly this often happens, people treating the lead as though it's disconnected to the article or should determine what the body of the article contains, when as WP:LEAD makes clear, it's the other way around. The body of the article says "Antifa is not an interconnected or unified organization, but rather a movement without a leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals.[13][21][33] Since it is composed of autonomous groups, and thus has no formal organization or membership". That's more or less what the lead needs to say to comply with guidelines. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just found the current New Jersey Homeland threat assessment, which says "Antifa 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." I've added that to the article but need help with the url for the actual text, as the main page for the threat assessment doesn't have the full text but a link, which is [9] I don't want to use that alone as it could look unofficial. I also think that we need to rethink the lead in the light of this. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of mention of violence

The core theme of Antifa is their use of violence against whoever they claim to be fascist, yet this article barely mentions it and doesn’t mention it at all in the first paragraph. Can we change that to bring attention to their use of violence? Victor Salvini (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph is part of the WP:LEAD which should summarise the article and would need to change if major parts of the article change. The key bit of the article is Antifa (United States)#Ideology and activities. That doesn't convince me that the core them is the use of violence, although no one would deny that it's used at times and of course is much more headline worthy than anything else they do. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Victor Salvini: see also the New Jersey Homeland Security quote above. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Other wiki pages on violent activist groups (such as the proud boys) mention that they may use violence, so I don’t see why it can’t be said here.

What quote above? I don’t see any? Victor Salvini (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I second that this be added to the lede and a separate subsection be formed under "Ideology and activities" to talk about their violence in public. This is characteristic of their movement and thus should be significantly reflected in the Wikipedia article. Mention of Antifa in conjunct with their conduct of violence is very commonplace, especially in the news. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could point to specific reliable sources to back up your proposed changes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As of 20190718 on an incognito Google search for "antifa," the first three news results (1, 2, and 3) make numerous claims to Antifa's violence, predominantly in their headlines. The recent Andy Ngo attacks and the firebombing of an ICE detainment centre further this consideration. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So if we can find three sources that refer to members of the republican party committing violent acts with political motivation, should we say that a core tactic of the republican party is political violence? Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a silly observation. Your test doesn't work the way I ran mine; none of the top seven Google results for "republican *party*" include mention of their violence. Please stop with the WP:CRUSH. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I would request you immediately strike through your statement about me per WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And I would deny that, as I spoke only of your content, and not of your character. See, "silly and childish *observation*." Even so, I've complied partially. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So, sticking to the lead for a moment, the third sentence currently reads: "They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right." How would you want this adjusted or what would you like to see added? I understand the general nature of your suggestion, but I am not quite sure of the specifics. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/350524-antifa-activists-say-violence-is-necessary https://www.wsj.com/articles/portland-considers-antimask-law-aimed-at-antifa-violence-11563442203 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/three-arrested-during-antifa-counterprotests-in-portland https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/30/us/portland-protest-arrests/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-07-01T03%3A23%3A33 https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-24/violent-mob-beats-alleged-proud-boy-oakland-protest-chasing-group-down-street https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/a-chilling-threat-of-political-violence-in-portland/524334/

Here’s multiple links regarding Antifa violence, and I can get a lot more Victor Salvini (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, I get the general gist, but what is the specific proposal? We already mention their use of physical violence in the lead; I am not opposed necessarily to making it more prominent or adjusting the article, but I am not sure what's actually being suggested. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And what I myself would like to see changed is to add violence to their list of “principle features” in the 1st paragraph Victor Salvini (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is in the following sentence, which to me reads as a list of examples of "direct action." But how would you rewrite the lead? Or at least those couple of sentences? Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• You would need a source describing it as such specifically. The sources above don't seem to support that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

To me it reads as saying that violence is a practice within Antifa, but it isn’t a principle feature as direct action is (with direct action being a vague term). There are two ways I would propose editing the lead. The first being to simply add “and violence” after “direct action”. The second being to move the third sentence to start after “direct action” and to then continue down to “with conflicts occurring both online and in real life” which would now be at the bottom of the paragraph (in other words, merge the third sentence with the second). Victor Salvini (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would oppose that edit as being WP:UNDUE. Again just because an ideology believes violence is an option doesn't make it a principal feature. And finding journalists referring to isolated events does not constitute evidence it is a principal feature. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not part of their core ideology, but Antifa is very often referred to (and reported on, notably) in terms of their violence. It has become characteristic of their movement to the public, if not to themselves. It's characteristic of them, but not necessarily a universal doctrine as such. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And violence is mentioned in the lede. The question here is whether to refer to it as a principal feature by restructuring the lede. You're trying to use an argument for the current state to support a proposed different future state. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point, but most saliently I see a discrepancy in the difference between the way the Proud Boy article and the Antifa article are portrayed. It seems unfitting to not make abundantly clear what is the relevant communis opinio (that Antifa often acts violently). SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You do, however, make clear the main problem with our proposal: That no matter how many individual instances we find of reference to Antifa as a violent organization, we will be fundamentally incapable of finding an *unbiased* source confirm them to be characteristically violent, only a statistical source could do that. The ADL refers to them in a way that is close to our characterization, but I'm not sure that should be used. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As I’ve stated earlier, the wiki pages of other groups such as the proud boys make very clear the tendency for there to be violence at the events, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t do the same with Antifa. And as I’ve also stated earlier, I can find many more links and instances of Antifa violence, so these are not isolated instances. Victor Salvini (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Second. @Dumuzid should compare our Antifa article to our Proud Boys article to see our proposed reformation (in order to mention their violence more prominently, that is). SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't find "Article X should be equivalent to Article Y" arguments particularly persuasive. There is certainly mention of violence with regard to Antifa, I agree with that. The question is how to impart that information in a way that comports with coverage. I'm mulling over Victor Salvini's suggestion above, though it would be helpful if he would simply draft it out as a proposal. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As you and @Objective3000 say, articles should not necessarily correlate on the basis of similar context. The reasoning proposed at WP:OTHERCONTENT, however, is that since anybody can change most any Wikipedia article, it is all too possible that a minor page be changed offhandedly and a major page therefore be made to match it and thusly inherit bad structuring or information. Both the Antifa and Proud Boys articles, however, are of about equal importance and are subject to almost equal debate. Saliently, the Proud Boys article has had this structure in long standing and is under extended protection, invalidating the rule in WP:OTHERCONTENT that equality testing is not sufficient for Wikipedia articles (this is why WP:OTHERCONTENT further mentions that quality-reviewed articles are not subject to its ruling). Best, SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Proud Boys is a different article about a different entity. You will get nowhere here telling editors to look at another article. If you think that article should be changed, go to that TP. If you think this article should be changed, that article is not relevant. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a non-argument. It's reasonable to bring up an unmotivated discrepancy between two articles; of course, it is not the sole basis for my positioning, but it's worth considering, and further disproving it wouldn't reduce from our position altogether anyhow. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Then why don’t we compare it to the Boy Scouts article? You are suggesting that these two articles are about the same type of organizations. That is original research and will be ignored here. O3000 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe the boy scouts have much notoriety when it comes to acting violently. My argument isn't predicate on the Proud Boys and Antifa being similar organizations; rather, the treatment of reliable sources' claims of violence on either side is resounded differently in their respective articles. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't even make this type of argument between articles on Fox and CNN, or the Rep and Dem Parties, or different presidents. Seriously, this is not a valid argument at WP. O3000 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you can adequately compare news sources and Wikipedia in this way. You seem to be avoiding my point, which is that there would seem to be no viable reason for the PB article and Antifa to differ in this way (it's structure, not content). WP:OTHERCONTENT is salient, but since the Proud Boys article is protected and well-debated, not to mention fundamentally similar to the Antifa article in content and argument, I believe it does not altogether invalidate my point. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "avoiding" anything. I'm specifically stating that what happens in that article is completely irrelevant to this article. I've never seen such an argument sway consensus. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

[to Dumuzid] I’m not sure what you mean by “draft it out”. In my previous message I suggested two ways the article could be edited to satisfy my proposal. Can you please explain what you meant? Thanks Victor Salvini (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

He is asking you to write down exactly what you think the lede should say and post it here, in article talk, for review and discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Here’s two examples of how I think the first paragraph could be changed!

The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] The principal features of antifa groups are their use of direct action and violence ,[12] with conflicts occurring both online and in real life.[13] They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18]

The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action, with their using of tactics such as digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18][12] with conflicts occurring both online and in real life Victor Salvini (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• So let me reiterate then that I Oppose both but especially find the first one to be WP:UNDUE and inaccurate. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The way we describe groups is not based on our interpretation of them based on what we have read but expert interpretation in reliable sources. You need to provide these in order to make changes. And some event that is trending is not necessarily definitive. The Republican Party, which you mentioned, has been in the news lately because of racist comments made by their leader followed by racist chants at his rally. TFD (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Victor Salvini, for making the suggestion, and thank you Simonnm223, for translating for me. As for suggestion one, while I see lots of reporting connecting Antifa and violence, I am not aware of any that call it a "principal feature" or anything of the kind. I fear that's edging towards WP:SYNTH, but it's entirely possible I am missing or forgetting something. If there are any particular sources you think support that claim--not just violence in general but "principal feature"--I'd appreciate it if you could point them out. As for the second suggestion, I actually like that, more directly linking the examples to the phrase "direct action." I would take out "their" as unnecessary and I personally think we can do away with the 'both online and in real life' language as I think (again, maybe incorrectly) that it is covered by "digital activism." My slight edit of Victor Salvini's second suggestion would thus be:

The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] The principal feature of antifa groups is use of direct action, including tactics such as digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18][12]

For my money, that's both more informative and more parsimonious. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead already says that They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. The main impact of this change would be to upgrade those to their "principal feature", which I'm not sure is supported by the sources, and to remove the with conflicts occurring both online and in real life bit. Basically, the lead already mentions violence, and I think it does so to an extent (and with a focus appropriate to) the sources people are talking about above. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I like this resolution. If everyone else here is willing I say we edit the paragraph. Cheers Victor Salvini (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused by the basic premise of this talk section, since it seems incorrect; "doesn’t mention it at all in the first paragraph" is flatly wrong. The lead already mentions physical violence in the first paragraph: They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. How is that insufficient? It seems to basically match the sources provided. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So, for me, I grant that "violence" is already in there, however, I still think this an improvement. The reasons why are stylistic (something akin to Strunk and White's old tautological advice to "omit needless words") and because I think it does the casual reader a service in explicitly linking "direct action" to the list of examples, something I think is slightly muddled as it stands. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If the goal is to define Direct Action and its relation to antifa, maybe we should take a step back and look at sources for that specifically? The current source for The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action doesn't use the term at all, and the other sources for things Antifa does don't seem to relate it to direct action, either. In the article itself, our definition just uses a quote, which says "The idea in Antifa is that we go where they [right-wingers] go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don't believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece." which doesn't cover everything we'd be implying Direct Action encompasses in the lead with this proposed edit. And our only source for the centrality of Direct Action right now is But Crow said the philosophy of Antifa is based on the idea of direct action, which isn't nearly as strong as what we're saying (and is attributed.) Somewhere along the way Crow's opinion about Antifa's philosophy became a stated fact about its defining feature, which then had everything anyone ever said Antifa did combined under it. The current lead is basically a mess created by a bunch of compromises and edits - we need to slow down, actually consider what the sources say, and find proper sources for the stuff we "know" but which isn't currently well-sourced (eg. what direct action means in this context.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The point of the edit is to make the paragraph clearer. I may just go ahead and edit it as Dumizid and I have agreed on since this is a pretty erroneous amount of debate over an edit that doesn’t really add on to or take from the paragraph. Victor Salvini (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean if you don't think it changes much, then there's no need to rush forward with it; I'm not seeing a consensus for that change just yet. But either way, as I said above, I see it as a pretty major change (it directly implies violence is a "primary feature" of Antifa, which isn't backed by the sources you cited.) I think part of the reason discussions got so confused is because they got started with a request for a mention of violence in the lead when it was already there, which led to things going in circles. Given that it's been pointed out that there is a mention (and that's most of what you were focused on), I'd suggest just closing with no action. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Victor Salvini, Dumuzid, Aquillion, The Four Deuces, Simonm223, SapientiaBrittaniae, and Objective3000: I thought I'd posted this last night but didn't notice and edit conflict. Articles stand by themselves. More relevant is the fact that Antifa is not a group, it's a movement, so it can't be compared to a more unified group. The New Jersey Department of HomelandS Security's 2019 threat assessment, which is quoted in the section above - {{re|Victor Salvini]] - says "Antifa 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." And as I keep saying, the lead reflects the body of the text. Doug Weller talk 01:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of my concerns with the proposed changes. The current version says that Antifa uses a variety of tactics; the proposed rewrite implies that all these tactics are the primary characteristics of all of Antifa, which isn't really reflected by the sources cited. The body says that 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, and the lead needs to reflect that (even the current lead doesn't do a great job of that.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So, I obviously seem to be in the minority here, which is fine. But my reasoning was simply that I believe the sources support that violence is encompassed in 'direct action,' and that we could make this a bit more explicit. As it stands, it reads to me as though 'direct action' is divorced from the list that follows. If I am the only one who reads it that way, so be it! Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

My problem with that is that if we're going to say that that's what direct action encompasses, we'll need a source specifically saying "direct action is [these things]" - we can't WP:SYNTH it up out of "Antifa engages in direct action, and also Antifa does these things, therefore these things are direct action." Also, we don't really have a good source for the statement that The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action, really (the cite in the lead doesn't mention direct action at all, and the one mention in the article just cites a quote to a random Antifa member, who says something much weaker.) I don't doubt that sources for the latter exist (I think we somehow just ended up with the wrong cite on that statement), but I'm dubious we can find a source that would fully justify turning the entire list of "digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right" into the definition of direct action. In fact, it contradicts our definition on the Direct Action page itself, which is much more detailed, much better-cited, and encompasses far more. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. I thought we had a source drawing an explicit connection between 'direct action' and violence, but upon review, the closest I can find is in this CNN piece where (in a quote), direct action is equated with "caus[ing] conflict." I'll keep looking and thinking. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As Aquillion stated, the lead already mentions "physical violence". And it should stay there. CNN: "What they're trying to do now is not only become prominent through violence at these high-profile rallies. BBC Radio 4: Their willingness to use violence marks out Antifa from many other left-wing activists. NBC News: Trump called out the antifa movement by name at an Arizona rally last week, but they’ve attracted criticism from conservative and liberal commentators alike for its use of violent protest to shut down public events featuring far-right speakers. LA Times: “antifa” — movement to put “themselves on the map of protest” by using violence to “intimidate” both political opponents and those on the left who promote non-violence. BBC Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence. ADL: These violent counter-protesters are often members of the “antifa”. NPR Fact Check: But she says the Antifa shouldn't get a pass on their violence just because they oppose white supremacists. AOL: But the use of violence isn't new for the group known as Antifa, or anti-fascists. Seems like a defining feature.--Pudeo (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not willing to use those sources as evidence for anything but what happened two years ago (and more, eg the AOL source is May 2017) when they were written (even the first one, that CNN article is about the 2017 Charlottesville rally although updated in May for some reason. Your "isn't new for the group known as Antifa" is a specific reference to "The far-left organization made headlines back in January during President Trump's inauguration when an alleged Antifa devotée punched white nationalist Richard Spencer while he was being interviewed on camera." How does this single incident from an alleged "devotee" show that violence is anything like a defining feature? None of them seem more recent than August 2 years ago. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, there's quite a lot of WP:IDHT in referring to antifa as a group. There's no antifa party, no antifa club. Do you think it's good to confront and challenge fascists in some way? Congratulations you are antifa. Some people who adopt that ideological position think it's good to confront and challenge fascists by beating them up. Others try to embarrass them. Others try to make it impossible for them to speak publicly. Others make life difficult for fascists online. None of these are more central or primary to the antifa ideology than any of the the others. (And this is a conception that becomes evident if you actually read the academic literature on the history of antifascism.) This meme on the US right that there's this group called Antifa which is an armed gang that beats up bigots is a fantasy. And Wikipedia doesn't deal in fantasy. tl;dr any attempt to make this article suggest that there's an organized group called antifa will be opposed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I am an anti fascist. I am also an anti communist and anti socialist. I however have no intent to infringe in any of these people’s rights, that doesn’t make me much better than them. The Antifa groups think that what they call fascism is a legitimate threat that they to combat utilizing any possible means including violence (we’ve already sent tons of sources on this and are willing to send even more). So no, we are not Antifa. That being said how much more do we need to say just to make the first paragraph clearer? That “digital actvism, property damage, physical violence and harassment” all fall under “direct action” so there’s no reason the two should not come one after the other. Victor Salvini (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less how you define your political ideology. There's no antifa club. It's an ideology, or at best a movement. It's not a group. It doesn't take a capital. It doesn't have members. And it's not principally defined by violence. Please cease with WP:IDHT and try to understand what people are telling you - that you fundamentally misunderstand the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Blatant Wikicensorship

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The removal of any information on the well-documented Antifa assault on Andy Ngo is yet another example of why Wikipedia is wholly unreliable on any controversial issue. No wonder Wikipedia is banned as a source at educational institutions worldwide. 2001:5B0:50C0:D148:5022:FB84:E8:272C (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC) The non-use of Wikipedia in education is not (generally) based on any perceived political bias, and is, indeed, a very good idea. I think you will find that any teacher or professor worth their salt will tell students that Wikipedia is a great place to start research, but should ultimately lead to other sources. Wikipedia's ephemeral nature is both a great strength and a weakness when it comes to actual scholarship. All that being said, if you would like to propose an edit supported by reliable sources, I for one would be happy to hear it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC) I do not recall the assault ever being on this page. I just looked through the edit history and couldn’t find anything relating to it ( I could have just missed it, though). If you would like to add the event to the page feel free to do it! Victor Salvini (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Just a slight word of warning--in the days following the assault, there was a lot of discussion of including it here, but as I recall, some combination of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE won the day and it was not ultimately included. Now that there's a little bit of time between us and the event, it may be easier to make the case, but maybe not. I would encourage anyone and everyone to suggest edits here or follow WP:BRD if they prefer. I would just say be prepared for push back. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Haven't seen any news about actual antifa actions in reliable sources for some time, except for an anti-mask ordinance in one city. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC) My feeling as far as the Ngo thing goes is that the sources are mostly partisan media, which are really bad for illustrating WP:DUE or for factual reporting. If it is noteworthy and verifiable, we should be able to find coverage of it in more neutral sources (especially since the claims involved are fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL); those sources would be necessary to provide any sort of analysis in any case. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Antifa, by this page's admission, uses "physical violence" against perceived political enemies, and yet this page is filled with naked praise for them. Unbelievable. Can someone tell me - does Wikipedia WANT to be known as biased politically? To pretend the Ngo and ICE center controversies don't exist is ludicrous. If anyone here is being genuinely "careful" then you're being played by the other paid activists who are simply protecting the narrative. - sakmode WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Where do I sign up for this paid activism? I have been active for all these years and never once received a paycheck. What a sucker I am. Dumuzid (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC) There was a software problem. Call Shirley in payroll and she’ll get you your check. O3000 (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC) It's worse than the Phoenix pay system I swear. I think I'm owed back pay on at least two decades of communisting. Simonm223 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Like I said, just find a better source. Reason magazine mostly carries opinion, unambiguously exists to push a particular perspective and doesn't have a particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy - we can use them for opinions, but they're not a great source to argue that a particular news event is WP:DUE, or to use to try and cover it. (Especially since the one you tried to add treated it as a breaking event with no followup, which implies it didn't actually go anywhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC) I am being constantly amused that these discussions always seem to be started by editors who have made a total of one edit on wikipedia. This one. And yet they know all about what happens behind the scenes here. By the way, I got my check yesterday, dropped off by a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask, this time. You might be on the annual payroll plan rather than the preferred bi-monthly one. Yes, call Shirl. Carptrash (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

I added the following to the article: "In June 2019, antifa protestors attacked journalist Andy Ngo, leaving him hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage."

It was reverted by Dumuzid with the edit summary "please discuss on talk first."

I'm not sure what the basis of the reversion is because this has received significant coverage in reliable sources:

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/portland-protests-mayor-cruz.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/portland-protests-mayor-cruz.html New York Post: https://nypost.com/2019/07/06/biden-condemns-violent-antifa-assault-on-conservative-journalist-andy-ngo/ Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-trends-twitter-after-video-shows-protest-group-throwing-milkshakes-journalist-1446698

I could go on and on. Cosmic Sans (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmic Sans: Please go on and on. We should establish that this material is WP:DUE before inclusion. The more sources the better - preferably higher quality than eg the NYP. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in those sources to support the claim about the extent of his injuries or that Ngo was hospitalized. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a Vox article that references the brain hemorrhage. How many sources you want? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-anday-ngo-proud-boys Cosmic Sans (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Sent him to the hospital with injuries" is not the same as "hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage." So yes, I want sources that support your assertion. See up the page or more on the Ngo incident and on the rumors about the content of the milkshakes. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The Vox article does mention the brain hemorrhage. But in any event, would a compromise be to say that the attack sent Ngo to the hospital? Cosmic Sans (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that now - I had to scroll past the ads. I note that the article is not exactly kind to Ngo, that it's heavily editorialized, and that it quotes Ngo's organization on the hospitalization and diagnosis rather than making a flat assertion. Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps because the author had worked for the paper for less than a month; which doesn’t mean it’s not RS. What bothers me is that it’s one incident, the attacker is unknown, and the injuries unknown. We clearly should have the word violence in the lead. But, we don’t have much info on this one incident. Obviously, it can be included in Ngo’s article. O3000 (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

None of that disqualifies reliability on its own, though I'd say that material in Vox is almost always at least partially opinion publication because that's the Vox remit, which makes Vox kind of a bottom-tier RS. In this case, an opinion columnist reporting that Ngo's organization claimed he had to be hospitalized (but he got better fast enough to be on Fox the next day) is insufficiently WP:DUE in an article on the antifa movement. Suggest taking it to the Ngo article per Objective3000. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So, I will put my cards on the table here: I think this probably belongs in the article one way or another. That being said, in the welter of confusion which followed the events (and to some degree persists), it was very difficult to bring things in to focus--and while I think this has improved, it is only a bit. Note for instance, that neither the New York Times piece nor the Vox piece explicitly assign blame to Antifa; rather, this comes from third parties (Mr. Ngo's lawyer in the former, Republican lawmakers in the latter). But I still think this is a notable act of violence at an Antifa-related protest (or counterprotest, what have you). Therefore, I would favor something like "At a protest in Portland which was partially put together by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." So there you have my not-so-authoritative take. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

How about "At a Portland protest, partially organized by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." It's basically the same as what you've said but I tightened the language a bit. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the editing. I'm certainly fine with that--anyone else have thoughts? Dumuzid (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

We probably want to use different language than 'as a result' given that the hospital visit may or may not have been necessary. Still unsure if this material is due. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Still don't think it's WP:DUE but if it must be included we need to make it clear that Ngo claimed to have been hospitalized. I could walk into a hospital over a hang nail right now - but it doesn't mean I was "hospitalized" in the informal sense of the word. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we also don't know that it was antifa. O3000 (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

AfDs of interest to the editors of this page

The editors on this page would probably be interested in these two AfDs: Willem van Spronsen 2019 Tacoma attack Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)