Wikipedia

Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10

< Talk:Antifa (United States)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by HAL333 in topic Lack of mention of violence
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS

Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

Below is a list of RS that support inclusion of both the Portland riot and Tacoma incident. I did not verify the media's reference to (a) conservative groups as alt-right and/or white supremacists but such contentious labels must be verifiable and presented in this article per WP:LABEL, and (b) the fact that Antifa is sometimes referred to as left-wing rather than radical or extreme left. I'm not sure if we are now associating left wing as violent which, again, is a contentious label that requires in-text attribution per LABEL. I wanted to get local input regarding the following sources and incidents which, for some reason, have been omitted from this article.

  • NYTimes (08-17-17), headline: ‘Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right" - literally? The article refers to Antifa as a "controversial force on the left", "radical activists" who have "openly scuffled with white supremacists, right-wing extremists and, ordinary supporters of President Trump. 🚩 Quote Antifa member: “You need violence in order to protect nonviolence,” Ms. Nauert added. “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically.” Antifa demonstrators, admittedly and through their actions, are confronting more than just white supremacists/racists, they confront supporters of whatever political ideology they oppose. This is RS info that belongs in the article.
  • NBC (06-29-19) - antifa responsible for 8 people injured - 2 officers who were pepper sprayed, 1 punched in an arm, and 1 hit with a "projectile"; 3 civilians "assaulted with weapons," and 1 unaccounted for 8th injury. I have no objection to leaving out the debate about cement in the shakes.
  • Oregon Live (06-30-19) A Patriot Prayer group that was legally organized to march were confronted by antifa with violence. A counter-demonstration by masked local anti-fascist groups gathered nearby among a heavy police presence. Officers seized weapons such as utility knives, clubs and chemical sprays, detaining several protesters early on. When Patriot Prayer protesters began their permitted march, antifa "immediately began lobbing eggs, half-empty water bottles and firecrackers at the conservative marchers, prompting federal police to fire paintballs filled with pepper spray into the crowd."
  • NYTimes (07-01-19) - ...with a black-clad activist striking the conservative journalist Andy Ngo in the face while others slimed him with what protesters said were vegan coconut milkshakes. Also, a professor with Portland State University called for "impeaching the city’s Democratic mayor, Ted Wheeler."
  • Oregon Live (07-02-19) - Andy Ngo suffered a brain hemorrhage and a ripped earlobe. He is a gay journalist of color.
  • NYTimes (07-02-19) - clash between conservative marchers and black-clad antifa protesters in Portland, Ore. Refers to Ngo as a conservative journalist who was roughed up and bloodied. One sentence in the article begins with "conservative marchers" juxtaposed with "confronting white supremacists and right-wing extremists", sometimes with violence. What factual info verifies right-wing extremism? Without verifiability, it appears the NYTimes thinks conservative marchers are fascist, white supremacists and right-wing extremists. However, they describe antifa as follows: Its followers acknowledge that the movement is secretive, without official leaders and organized into autonomous local cells. It is also only one in a constellation of activist movements that have come together in the past few years to oppose the far right.
  • BuzzFeed (07-16-19) headline:The Man Killed In An Attack On An ICE Jail Said He Was Fighting "Against The Forces Of Evil" - according to Tacoma police, Willem Van Spronsen was "armed with a rifle", threw "incendiary devices" at vehicles, lit a car on fire, attempted to burn buildings and a propane tank. The 18 yo leader with the organized antifa group Seattle Antifascist Action told BuzzFeed that Van Spronsen was active in a number of far-left communities in Seattle, but "no one saw this coming from him" because he was "soft powered." He sent a letter to friends saying he was not affiliated with any organization, which tells us that he acted as a lone wolf, not unlike other lone wolf terrorist attacks where people commit suicide for a cause. In this case, the common denominator is antifa.
  • BBC Seven things you need to know about Antifa - they use more traditional forms of community organising like rallies and protest marches. The most extreme factions will carry weapons like pepper spray, knives, bricks and chains – and they don’t rule out violence.
  • BuzzFeed News (07-18-19) the article's summary paragraph reveals the author's left leaning position but at least he tried to present the article from a NPOV: When Andy Ngo was attacked, I sprinted toward him, unsure what I was going to do when I arrived. If I’m being honest, I wasn’t only thinking about his safety. I was afraid of being the reporter who did not prevent Andy Ngo from being beaten. I was also, if I’m being really honest, afraid of being the reporter who prevented Andy Ngo from being beaten. I realized very clearly that anyone documenting the scene at that moment had the power to put me in any public context they wished to, had the power to change my life. I was aware how that would be good content, and how that might feel like violence.

The lede and body of the WP article is disproportionate and biased in that it presents a more favorable, cherrypicked image of Antifa despite the violence associated with it; the latter of which they admit to without hesitation, and have proven true on multiple occasions. Atsme Talk 📧 22:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to be more specific about your concerns. As mentioned above (we just had a big discussion about this!), the lead does mention violence, and the sources you're presenting here (which, obviously, you did cherrypick yourself, so they're not a representitive sample themselves) still doesn't present violence as a core attribute. The only one that provides a broad overview (rather than one incident) says "The most extreme factions..." support violence, which if anything is more cautious than our article. Likewise, a lot of your interpretations (eg. especially your interpretation of the first quote you provided) are WP:SYNTHy; in context, that obviously falls under the article's current description of acting against against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. (You left out the part after the bit you quoted, which says Energized in part by Mr. Trump’s election, they have sparred with their conservative opponents at political rallies and college campus speaking engagements, arguing that one crucial way to combat the far right.) Your larger efforts to tied together a bunch of relatively brief mentions into a larger narrative also smacks of WP:SYNTH - again, we mention violence (as these sources do, with almost the exact same weight and tone they do), but what you're doing here is dumping them all in one place, clipped out of context, and asking that our coverage of it be dramatized and emphasized in a way that the individual sources you're presenting don't support. Regarding the Ngo thing, you're not presenting anything new, but I'll point out that virtually all your coverage is from immediately after the event - I'm not seeing anything WP:SUSTAINED - and much of it is just in passing or is worded in a way that clearly casts his description of events in doubt. Basically, I think we made the right call at the time - it was an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim on his part that, based on the tepid coverage and the way it rapidly died out, didn't pan out. Also, we already have another section open for him (and for pretty much all of this) so I'm not sure what your purpose is in opening another; all these sources have been discussed in the past or are being discussed now, your interpretation of them has repeatedly failed to gain consensus, and you know all this. Beyond a certain point it is necessary to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Your argument is unconvincing. Give others a chance to weigh-in. Atsme Talk 📧 03:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, I find the argument fairly convincing. Though if I were exalted ruler of Wikipedia, I would probably include the Andy Ngo sentence mentioned above. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Others will of course have a chance to weigh in, as they have the past... by my count, roughly ~14 times comparable requests have been posted here over the last few months? Including three still-open discussions directly above this one? Nothing you're presenting here or arguing is particularly new, you're still not making any specific suggestions beyond "we need to describe Antifa as more violent" and "we need to include absolutely everything that has failed to reach a consensus to conclude in the past", and the sources you're providing still don't support your (vaguely-defined) complaints that the current article is insufficient in that regard - it looks like you just strung together a bunch of random pull-quotes, none of which individually support the position you're arguing. If you can find a specific, workable suggestion that might reach a consensus (I would suggest going over the months worth of discussion on this topic we already have, much of which is still on this page, and seeing which proposals people liked), go ahead and open an WP:RFC for it. Otherwise, we're long past WP:DROPTHESTICK territory; opening a second near-identical section to the three (!) already above it, using most of the same sources and arguments, is not going to produce any sort of constructive consensus that the discussion above here didn't. You're the one, basically, who has to be doing the convincing here, since you're advancing an argument that has failed repeatedly in the past; refusing to engage my points by dismissing them as "unconvincing" and saying you'd rather talk to someone else isn't going to help with that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: Your attempt to point the painfully WP:TOOSOON article on the Tacoma police shooting of an elderly man to Antifa immediately followed by this is making it increasingly difficult to [WP:AGF]] here. Could you please consider taking Aquillion's advice and WP:DROPTHESTICK? Because frankly these repeated vague talk page requests are beginning to look like an attempt to push a POV that the people who believe in directly confronting fascists are a scary armed gang, and are reaching the WP:TEND point. Simonm223 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, I'm sure it's a nice essay but I'm well aware of our PAGs, and don't need essays for further elaboration. The material some editors have attempted to include in this article is important information for our readers, such as the incidents in Tacoma and Portland (Ngo). As for gaslighting me with DROPTHESTICK, I'm saying for the record that I've made a total of, maybe, 11 edits here since July 6th, the most recent being the above list of RS that supports the inclusion of material that keeps getting reverted by Dumuzid, who states in his edit summaries to discuss on the TP (see diffs below). Ironically my attempt to discuss on the TP was met with resistance from you & Aquillion telling me to DROPTHESTICK. What message does that send to other editors? I must say, it is pretty impressive team work, inadvertent or otherwise, but I've chosen to AGF; therefore, I believe it was coincidence and not deliberate.

  1. July 19, 2019 - (Undid revision 906938346 by Cosmic Sans (talk) please discuss on talk first)
  2. July 19, 2019 (Undid revision 906959248 by Wags bf21 (talk) let's talk these out first; there has been a lively discussion)
  3. July 20, 2019 - (Undid revision 907103660 by Qwirkle (talk) currently being discussed on talk; please get consensus there)

So, here we are discussing the following proposal which involves 3 new sections as follows:

  1. a new section titled something along the line of Antifa activism or Antifa incidents using a timeline of events that are verifiable and can be corroborated by multiple RS. The source I cited in my example - TDW - is arguably a RS, but a good one for this purpose despite it being a partisan one, because their timeline is cited to other RS such as CNN and WaPo which provides corroboration and balance in compliance with WP:PAGs.
  2. a new section titled Antifa funding (or the like) - follow the money to find evidence of the existing Antifa network - see Antifa International Defence Fund; Current fundrazr; it looks very much like centralized organization to me, or at the least, an organized defence.
  3. a new section titled Antifa's social media network - see Antifa International; Tumblr site; Twitter; - Torch (US) (endorses Antifa's Defence Fund); About Torch; UK;

Bottomline - there's quite a bit of information that needs to be added to this article, such as the article published in The Atlantic titled The Rise of the Violent Left. It appears their anonymity is waning because of the violence. Atsme Talk 📧 19:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope you’re not serious about using that DailyWire “timeline”. It includes a bunch of incidents with cited articles that don’t even mention Antifa. The article is clearly unacceptable. You also listed a bunch of primary sources suggesting they will lead us somewhere. We don’t do research. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The dates in TDW's timeline is all you need - there are plenty of other RS that will come up in a Google search. Atsme Talk 📧 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Well then, I suppose we need only take your word for this and a very poor source and spend our time trying to prove your point that Antifa is behind all these events. O3000 (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Saying that the most extreme members use violence is different from saying the movement is inherently violent. It is the fallacy of composition: "one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole." Extreme adherents of movements as diverse as Trumpism, pro-life, environmentalism, Islam and the American Revolution have attracted people who committed acts of violence. Of course some partisan sources, such as the The Daily Wire, use this logical fallacy for whatever reason. But Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent mainstream perspectives and certainly not use faulty logic to make claims, which violates synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
But Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent mainstream perspectives and certainly not use faulty logic to make claims, which violates synthesis. TDF, there's no SYNTH involved. This is going nowhere fast, so I'm calling an RfC. Atsme Talk 📧 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You are the one asking that we apply SYNTH instead of using RS, as you have done in the past. You provide cites that don't say what you want added and primary sources from which you want us to create original research. O3000 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC).
Move along, O3000 and stop the aspersions and gaslighting. You know better. Atsme Talk 📧 04:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Describing your position as advocating original research is a neutral commentary on your proposed additions and not an aspersion on you personally. As many people have told you, the sources simply do not support the tone or additions that you're trying to add to the article; combining a bunch of separate quotes to try and make your argument, when none of them individually say what you want, is WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

@Atsme: it looks very much like centralized organization to me, or at the least, an organized defence. I'd suggest that you avoid original research and present content to be added supported by independent reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, MarioGom, we are allowed to use self-published sources for information about themselves, and that is not OR. One such source is "The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund" which recently published their 2018-2019 Annual Report" wherein it states We donated over $22,000USD to 61 anti-fascists. For the fourth year in a row, the amount of monetary support we provided anti-fascists globally has increased. There are RS reporting on the various factions as evidenced in The Nation and several others. CNN published quite a bit in their article "Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement" and it supports what I've said about their use of social media: With no central leader, Antifa adherents have found each other in local communities. They communicate and recruit largely through social media. Their protests are organized via Facebook. They are clearly a network comprising chapters nationwide, all of which utilize a centralize funding source. CNN's reported that the "Portland sect gets the most attention when violence explodes at its rallies." The following statement supports that position: "You have to put your body in the way," the group's leader said, "and you have to make it speak in the language that they understand. And sometimes that is violence." Atsme Talk 📧 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Of course they network and of course there are international coordination initiatives. This is no news to antifa, whether in the US or not. Now, that does not imply a centralized organization, so that would be your own interpretation or synthesis. The existence of international initiatives for fundraising does not imply that funding is centralized either, that would be your own interpretation too. Unless there are reliable sources that sustain it, of course. The self-published source you are citing does not say that the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund centralizes antifa funding internationally, it says it donated $22,000USD to 61 anti-fascists. That does not imply funding centralization, as different groups may use other sources of funding. --MarioGom (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No problem, MG, I understand. The RS are out there (most of which have not been written yet  ), but for now the following issues are what I believe to be important for inclusion without creating a false equivalency. The article has good content but it needs better flow, clarity, and balance. The ADL article "Who are the Antifa" brings to light some rather troubling aspects of antifa as follows:
  1. "Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump."
  2. "...misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries."
  3. "...antifa, who have many anti-police anarchists in their ranks, can also target law enforcement with both verbal and physical assaults because they believe the police are providing cover for white supremacists. They will sometimes chant against fascism and against law enforcement in the same breath."
Another important fact about antifa was stated in an interview with Mark Bray: They [sic] other key point, which probably isn’t made enough, is that these are revolutionary leftists. They’re not concerned about the fact that fascism targets liberalism. These are self-described revolutionaries. They have no allegiance to liberal democracy, which they believe has failed the marginalized communities they’re defending. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding regarding the Constitutional Republic that governs the US, the preservation of individualism vs the collective, the Bill of Rights, and the electoral college rather than the "popular vote" we see in European democracies. Facism itself - American right-wing vs European right-wing - is different in the US than in Europe. Compare the definition of fascism in the Oxford Dictionary vs Merriam-Webster's. The NYTimes quoted Katherine Martin, head of US dictionaries at Oxford University Press: “What we found especially interesting is that it encapsulated a trans-Atlantic phenomenon,” she said. “Often, when looking at words, you’ll find one that’s a really big deal in the U.K. but not in the U.S.” She is referring to “post-truth” vs politically charged words like “alt-right”, “Brexiteer” and “woke”. Hmmm. It all boils down to semantics based on one's perception. Atsme Talk 📧 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, I think you missed an important point from the ADL article you cited: it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose Vexations (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I'm well aware of all the important points ADL made, and equally aware of WP:FALSEBALANCE. In fact, the latter has been used in discussions to censor material, and we don't want that, either. I deal only in the facts, not viewpoints or extraordinary claims. The world is round. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 23:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

Latest comment: 5 years ago34 comments12 people in discussion

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)
I'll do the "go(ing) on and on" in their stead. Hopefully this will put to rest any question of WP:DUE and we can endlessly argue about a different reason not to include it in the article, or endlessly argue about the exact wording and which alleged wording to use instead :)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
I could actually maybe still go on and on...
Please note that this comment isn't trying to argue for a specific version of the text to be included, just that it is WP:DUE to be included based on the extremely wide coverage of the incident) Galestar (talk) 02:18, 25 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)
And that's the whole problem with this. Really, all we have is what Ngo has claimed to various media as the "source" for all this. There's no outside fact-checking on his claims that it was Antifa members who attacked him, or that he was hospitalized because of the attack. It all boils down to "Ngo said so." Which is where WP:DUE comes in: the facts around this assault are so ambiguous, I don't think it should be included here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
None of this establishes weight. In the U.S., there are tens of millions of Republicans and Democrats - as much as half the voting population - and we don't add to those articles every time one of them commits an assault. In order to establish weight, we need to show that reliable sources have established its significance to antifa in the U.S. TFD (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

These problems of taking Andy Ngo as a reliable source also occur at the article for Ngo. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So it appears I am (yet again) in the minority--this is why I caution that I am often wrong! But I'll try to briefly explain my position, which is, essentially, that for me, this story has reached a critical mass in the reliable sources. And in those sources, it is always linked to antifa, albeit usually in a murky, attenuated way. But many reliable sources see something here worth covering, even with serious caveats. But I also think we're doing readers of the encyclopedia a disservice. It is entirely plausible that people come here looking for info about this very story. I'm definitely not trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but if we say nothing, we're losing an opportunity to tell readers what the RSes actually contain (something like, "a guy got beat up, beyond that, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"). Because it was widely covered, because it will obviously be something people look for, and because so much fringe media is going well beyond the established facts, I think a sentence like the one above would be a meet addition to the article. That being said, I am often wrong, and too old to really care. Cheers all, and thanks for the thoughtful input on this article. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I've heard the, "being mute is a lost opportunity to shape the narrative" statement before, and while I'm somewhat sympathetic, the one weakness with it that I've always found is that it is kind of inherently at odds wit WP:NPOV. Wikipedia should be reporting things that are relevant to a topic, not inserting a particular POV. As we only have Ngo's (not particularly trustworthy) word that the people who beat him up were antifascists, it's hardly relevant to this article. We should instead allow the maw of history to swallow his claims. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the discussion here. We don't just have Andy Ngo's word. We have video. And we have independent coverage of the attack and the video in reliable sources:

I see people questioning the reliability of Ngo as a source. But he's not the one doing the reporting. The viewpoint of WP is that if a source is reliable, they can be trusted to do the vetting on stories for us. There are many more RSes reporting this incident as fact. I think there's enough to justify inclusion per WP:WEIGHT. —Tourchiest talkedits 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

We have video that an attack occurred. We have no corroboration that the attackers were affiliated with antifa groups, or that Ngo required hospitalization after the attack. For those, we only have Ngo's statements. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I've literally quoted articles saying that is exactly what happened. —Torchiest talkedits 20:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no deadline. Should evidence that antifa was behind the attack, and that it required hospitalization, we can add it here. Obviously the claims belong in the article on Ngo. O3000 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources on the topic. I understand that some editors may doubt Ngo's story on a personal level, but we have to go by what the reliable sources say. And there are a litany of sources that support inclusion. I can really see no reason why this shouldn't be included. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have only seen reliable sources stating that Ngo claimed this happened, not that it happened. O3000 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Really? The Buzzfeed News article I've linked to doesn't couch it in those terms, and I'm sure I can find more if you would like - although there are links already cited in this discussion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
A suggestion: If you refer to a huge number of cites, many of which don’t pass muster and many don’t actually support your exact wording, other editors will pick some, realize they don’t work, and won’t read the others. You cannot expect us all to investigate a very large number of cites after realizing many are not on point. If you have some cites that actually claim what you want added, post those and how they do such. We aren’t going to do your work for you. O3000 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
You consider four or five citations to be a "huge number of cites?" Oh, well. The point remains that I've directed you to a citation from a reliable source that claims it happened without couching in terms of "Ngo said it happened." If you feel the need to opine on this discussion without reading the citations, then there isn't much I can do about that. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Arrgh. I just looked at two cites you gave and they don't state what you want added. I say again, we won't do your work for you. If you have cites that are RS and claim what you want added, you must state them and exactly how they support your text. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If I have to make it explicit, then sure. I'll quote what I said earlier in the discussion and tack the URL onto the end of it if that satisfies you. "At a Portland protest, partially organized by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." The article goes into extreme detail about the events of the attack, as the author was there when it happened and watched the entire thing unfold. Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
What url? O3000 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a WaPo piece that says Ngo was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of mention of violence

Latest comment: 5 years ago66 comments11 people in discussion

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)

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)

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)

TFD - this may come as a shock to some, but a racist is someone who is prejudiced against people of another race, not someone who disagrees with Democrats. 😉 Atsme Talk 📧 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NPA apply even when the text is little. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 19 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 - @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)
Two year old sources are not obsolete in any way. CNN's article is also from this year. How has Antifa changed since 2017 in a way that would render these sources too old, and what are the sources for these changes? --Pudeo (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The CNN article is about events in 2017, even if there was an unexplained update in May. It starts with "After protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent on Saturday," and the quotations used are from then. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 20 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)

The Antifa Movement is like the yellow vest movement. It isn’t unified and has no central leadership. However, there are organized branches of it usually at the local level. These organized branches are our best way of telling how the majority of the movement thinks and behaves, and right now that is leftist thought and direct action which includes digital activism, property damage, physical violence and harassment. Victor Salvini (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, I couldn't care less about your opinions. Please provide reliable sources that support your assertions. Because so far you've got nothing but random news reports. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Victor Salvini, Pudeo, Doug Weller, and SapientiaBrittaniae: I've started an RfC below. You're invited. The regulars are already watching - some already participated - so no need to ping them. If you see anybody I've missed, go ahead and ping them. Atsme Talk 📧 07:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree with adding such a section. You can't talk about Antifa without mentioning violence, they're inseparable. Nearly every Main Stream News Service describes them as violent and using violence as a tool.HAL333 18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_10&oldid=908967885"