Wikipedia

Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 13

< Talk:Antifa (United States)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Objective3000 in topic Southern Poverty Law Center Does Not List "Antifa" As a Hate Group
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

RfC to add a new section

Latest comment: 5 years ago39 comments19 people in discussion

The consensus is against adding a new section titled "Antifa activism".

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anarchism#RfC, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Socialism#RfC - Atsme Talk 📧 04:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Antifa activism
  • Jan 20, 2017 - DC - Trump inauguration
  • Feb 01, 2017 - UC Berkeley - Milo Yiannopoulos
  • Jun 29, 2019 - Portland, WA Ngo
  • Jul 19, 2019 - Tacoma, WA - Willem Van Spronsen


Support adding new section

Oppose adding new section

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

Section already exists / Invalid RFC

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

Discussion

  • The section suggested already exists, which makes the format of this RFC ("add new section" vs. "oppose adding new section") invalid. Additionally, two of the events it suggests "adding" are already covered, which makes its wording misleading; any casual visitor who skimmed this RFC would think that they were weighing in on a dispute of whether to include / exclude the Trump protests or the UC Berkeley incident, which is plainly absurd. No useful consensus can come out of an RFC whose initial wording is so severely flawed; I suggest deleting this and starting over, ideally with separate RFCs for each of the two things you're actually proposing adding. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
What did you do? You changed the format of this RfC. You need to fix what you screwed up. Move your iVote into the Oppose section, the way I had this thing set up. Atsme Talk 📧 05:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: I restored the original sections as you had it, but I don't feel comfortable moving Aquillion's comment at this time. Sorry. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MJL - I have asked Awilley to take a look at what Aquillion did because it was disruptive. You just don't change an RfC from the way another editor had it formatted. Atsme Talk 📧 05:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
First, I disagree; it is WP:BOLD, but refactoring RFCs that were malformed or misleading immediately after they're posted isn't unusual (in part because such fixes have to be made quickly to keep the RFC's outcome usable); your RFC is clearly malformed or misleading, and reacting like that rather than accepting a more agreeable format as a compromise obviously makes it even harder to accept any useful outcome from it as structured (since you now know one of the people you're in a dispute with has expressed serious issues with the structure of the RFC and have chosen to push forwards with it in a contested structure regardless.) To reiterate - since the section on notable Antifa activity you're requesting and the bulk of the material you're proposing be present in it is already plainly in the article, this RFC's structure, at a glance, requires that anyone who !votes oppose express disagreement with having the currently-existing, entirely-uncontroversial section on "notable Antifa activity" covering the Trump inauguration and UC Berkeley incidents - and anyone who wasn't heavily familiar with the article's existing content is obviously going to find having nothing about antifa activity or excluding the Trump and UC Berkeley incidents absurd (as they should.) This makes any outcome from this RFC unworkable because you've constructed it in a non-neutral manner that inaccurately represents the dispute at hand; based on discussion above, you would, I presume, want to use the outcome of the RFC, if it goes for support, as justification to include Ngo and Tacoma, but you've structured the RFC in a way that makes it unclear that they're what's really being discussed or that those are actually the locus of dispute. Again, if you want to resolve that dispute, you need to close it and open a more narrowly-formulated RFC specifying the things you actually want to change about the article, rather than suggesting that we "add" a section that is already there, with material that is largely already there, with your changes tacked onto the end with no comment regarding their focus as the center of the dispute. If you don't emphasize the actual dispute and what you actually want to change, the RFC cannot produce a useful outcome either way. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion, quite frankly, I couldn't care less about your opinions or fallacious accusations. You just don't reformat another editor's RfC based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. There was a reason I formatted it the way I did, starting with (a) it keeps the discussion separate from the iVotes, (b) makes things easier to manage for the admins who are watching over this hodge-podge TP, and (c) makes reviewing the RfC a lot easier for the closer. We'd all be a lot happier if you'd stop the WP:OWN behavior and WP:POVPUSHING. Atsme Talk 📧 06:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You haven't answered the key point of my objection, which is why you requested a section that is already in the article, and coverage for two things we already cover. I'm aware you disagree with me, but if you want to resolve the dispute, you'll at least need an RFC that actually focuses on it in a clear and neutral manner. This one does not - do you deny that there's already a section on antifa activities in the article, which already covers the Trump and UC Berkeley events? Do you feel that there is an actual dispute over whether to include those things? If so, why is the bulk of your RFC requesting uncontroversial things as though they're in dispute? Per WP:RFC, resolving disputes like this requires finding a reasonable, neutral description of the disagreement, which you've failed to do here. If you want to (as I assume) add the Ngo and Tacoma material to the article, you will need another RFC focusing on them specifically. Finally, remember to assume good faith; obviously part of this dispute is that everyone involved thinks it's extremely obvious that certain things should / shouldn't be in the article, to the point where the other side looks like WP:POVPUSHING to them. But it's possible to reach that point simply by having different views of the sources, the exceptionality of the claims involved, and the extent to which relying on the collective things they say is WP:SYNTH or not. The way to resolve that dispute is to lay it out plainly (include / exclude disputed material), not this sort of confusing RFC that asks us to add an already-existing section with your preferred changes tacked on at the end. I don't doubt that you feel that this RFC expresses the dispute from your perspective, but you should listen to what the people you're in dispute with say at least a little bit in order to get an RFC that accurately offers a choice between the two options we're in disagreement over, and should consider an RFC about the inclusion / exclusion of the disputed material in particular (certainly, if I feel this RFC's outcomes are at all unclear on that point, I'll open such a specific RFC myself, though I'll wait for this one to end to avoid having two at once on similar subjects.) Either way, accusing me of WP:POVPUSHING just because I don't see things your way and don't even agree with your description of the dispute isn't a useful way to move forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The article is a mess. My proposal is for a clean cut, orderly timeline. I've grown weary of your BATTLEGROUND and will not take your bait. You've been non-stop with the gaslighting and I do not appreciate it. It's late, and I need to get some sleep. Atsme Talk 📧 07:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If all you want is an orderly timeline, would you agree to spin off the question of whether to include Ngo and Tacoma into a separate RFC? Combining every aspect of disagreement into one big "fix the entire article" RFC isn't helpful and makes disputes intractable. I wouldn't necessarily oppose some restructuring, but that's unrelated to the dispute over what incidents to include in that timeline (by default, I would assume that, as a restructuring, it would include what's already in the "notable activities" section - mixing several unrelated changes together obviously makes it harder to resolve anything or to reach a consensus. (And, obviously, accusing people of gaslighting and WP:BATTLEGROUND is also against WP:AGF. I do want to improve the article; but we clearly have different views of what's worth including based on the sources, and it's important to separate out structural improvements from disputes over what we include or exclude. These aren't accusations, as you described them; they're issues I have with some of your proposed changes and with the structure of the RFC you intend to resolve the dispute over them.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It's 2:30am and I can't think anymore - shutting down computer - tomorrow is another day, but yes, I probably would consider but need to sleep on it. 🛌💤😴 Atsme Talk 📧 07:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I apologize for being a bit WP:BOLD with my change before and a bit in-your-face with some of my objections above; I know how, on a heated topic like this, forceful disagreement can come across as more hostile than intended. And yes, sleep is important. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Aquillion. Your apology is very welcome and gladly accepted. Now that we've turned a new page, I look forward to productive collaboration. Regardless of whether my proposal passes or fails, the article needs structure and clarity. I had to conduct most of my research off-WP to learn about this network (it is not a "movement" which is a term that applies to their cause or campaign, not their structure). The lede is confusing, the History applies more to European history, not that of the US. There is a huge difference, and that needs to be noted. The sections need better structure as it relates to WP:MOS, organization and clarity which is important as it makes the article easier to read. There also appears to be a misunderstanding or perhaps a lack of knowledge about how the antifa network operates, its reach and how it is funded. There is also little mention, if any, about the repurcussions/criticisms/concerns regarding the violence, and that information belongs in the article with clarity in a well-structured presentation of facts cited to RS. My intention is not to be overly critical of our good editors who have worked hard to provide information to expand the article; rather, my intention is aligned with the various projects on which I serve, including copy editing, WP:LIT, as a reviewer of GA/FA/NPP/AfC and so on. My purpose here is to help make it a good article despite the controversies surrounding the network. It's still our job to not only make it encyclopedic, but one that will be stable and can more easily withstand the test of time. Atsme Talk 📧 16:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

  • Comment: In my opinion, a good source for determining what events to include would be Google Trends. Look at the date of the events and see how high they score on the graph and if it's similar to or higher than already included events, it would be worth including that event. Google Trends link. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Terrorist96: Google Trends just measures user search terms. Any speculation of an antifa connection by high audience TV show or website could produce a spike of the search term, regardless of the reliability of the source or credibility of the report. If we adopted Google Trends to assess notability of an event in connection to antifa, we would be at risk of acting as a speculation and hoax amplifier. --MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That being said, Google Trends might be a useful exploratory tool. It can help you find potentially important dates to later use on reliable sources search. But the notability and facts would need to come from reliable sources, not Google Trend itself. --MarioGom (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems it's time to close this discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mark Bray

Latest comment: 5 years ago37 comments7 people in discussion

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

Please review WP:WEASEL - when combined with your constant efforts to include more detail about antifa brawls with extensive details of what antifascists did and nothing about suggests an attempt to shift the POV of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
So you think that Mark Bray was using a weasel word about himself? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I think you were using Bray's words in a way that made them into weasel words. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Do you think we should note in the article that Bray regards himself as an ally of Antifa? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that whether Bray's personal relationship with antifascism is WP:DUE in this article is borderline enough that a great many more voices than yours and mine should participate in the conversation about if and how. Regardless, it certainly should not be used as an attempt to weaken his authority as a source since he's just about the best academic source we have on the movement. And I think it's clear by now that I have a low opinion of corporate media's ability to accurately address political movements in general. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. I'm happy to wait to see what consensus emerges. I would also like to point out that your accusation that I am engaged in "constant efforts to include more detail about anifa brawls..." is ironic given that I called directly above this section for the removal of such an incident due to insufficient sourcing. Let's AGF, and please refrain from non-complimentary commentary about me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, Bray is a philosopher and historian with a PhD from from Rutgers University. He is an expert in the history of anti-fascism. He has a POV just like pretty much everyone else. That does not disqualify him as a source. We do not require that our sources are neutral; it is up to us to represent what they say fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Vexations (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, you think that his self-characterization as an ally of Antifa should not be in the article? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That certainly seems to be what Simonm223 and Vexations are arguing, and I'd concur. The only argument you've presented for including this information (which I agree gives the impression that we're to be suspicious about the veracity of Bray's arguments, which is a matter that readers can decide for themselves) is that "he's arguably not an independent source", but this is (inarguably!) not true. See WP:IS, especially the third paragraph of WP:IIS and the Biased sources section, which make it abundantly clear that sources can be independent even while expressing strong opinions on a topic, provided there is no direct relationship (usually of a financial nature) between the source and the topic. You're using the phrase "independent source" in an unfeasibly broad sense that has no basis in any policy or guideline. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me that it depends on what he means by 'ally' and what we mean (or should mean) when we talk in policy about having a vested interest. Maybe allies have vested interests. I'm not sure, and I think that activists or "allies" of given causes who have written about those causes are a genuinely hard case. But being an ally seems to me different from having a positive, or even strongly positive, view of the subject. Also, readers cannot decide whether his ally status is relevant if they aren't aware of it. And it certainly isn't NPOV to include it given that it's Bray's self-characterization. I don't see why we should hold that information back from readers of WP when Mark Bray himself doesn't hold it back from readers of NBC News. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me it's clear consensus doesn't favour your proposed edit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Well you are probably going to be right about that, Simonm223, but I think the discussion is still developing. No need to rush, right? Maybe you could respond, if you like, to the points I just made. That would be really great.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I grow tired very quickly when confronted with situations that seem to be covered under WP:SEALION. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, please quit offering commentary on me. Focus on content or report me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, We do not need to add a description, even a self-description, of a source when we cite them. We cite "The New York Times", not "the liberal New York Times" or "the failing New York Times". Vexations (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I don't think that's an apt comparison since those aren't things the NYT says about itself, and they aren't directly relevant to the subjects of NYT coverage. Maybe a better example would be like this: suppose there were an academic writing a book on Scientology, and he disclosed that he was a Scientologist. Hard case, as I say, but I think it would be at least a question whether we should include that information, especially if we found it reported in a major news source like NBC news, and if we were relying a lot on his analysis and opinion of Scientology. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your analogy. The New York Times proclaims to be objective: that's why they don't have an adjective in front of their name when cited. In fact, if a writer for the NYT is writing a piece that feigns no notion of objectively, that goes into the 'opinion' section; i.e., there is an acknowledgement of its bias. This academic has a stated bias that, self admittedly, affects how they 'research' the antifascist movement. It's disingenuous and irresponsible to not acknowledge this pov. NousEssayons (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems appropriate and it is well sourced. Him being a supporter does not disqualify him as a source but we need to make to mention that to comply with NPOV and WP:BIASED. I am unsure how weasel applies in this situation and I think the NPOV concerns have it backwards. PackMecEng (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
People who think that no researcher in social science can objectively use embedded research techniques will probably have their minds blown by Participant Observation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Does being a self-described 'ally' that adheres to the ideology of the movement they're studying fall into the case where the "Researcher is completely integrated in population of study beforehand (i.e. he or she is already a member of particular population studied)?" How are we to define 'membership' in the case of Antifa if not by an adherence, support, and promulgation of its core beliefs? If a libertarian sociologist with a stated sympathy for the Tea Party was our sole source of info pertaining to the movement (its core beliefs, methodologies, genesis, and history), would we avoid mention of this academic's POV? Of course not. NousEssayons (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The text says Bray "credits ARA as the precursor of the modern US antifa groups in the United States and Canada." Unless Bray's statement was controversial, there is no need to mention his position, in fact no name to mention his name at all. We don't say for example that "according to Einstein, who was a socialist, e=mc2." "According to so-and-so, who is a conservative, Washington is capital of the U.S." TFD (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed in that one case, but we also have Bray quoted as saying that Antifa "reject turning to the police or the state to halt the advance of white supremacy. Instead they advocate popular opposition to fascism as we witnessed in Charlottesville" and also: "Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions." These are much more promotional in tone and content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The statement about "reject turning to the police or the state" appears to be uncontroversial too. The last statement is a defense of antifa, but it's not obvious it requires a comment that the speaker is sympathetic to them. We don't mention that Pelosi, Chomsky Laura Ingraham etc. are opponents of antifa. It's clear from their comments. And of course all hold controversial positions too. TFD (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, Sean Illing, for Vox writes "Adherents are mostly socialists, anarchists, and communists who, according to Mark Bray, a historian at Dartmouth College and author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, “reject turning to the police or the state to halt the advance of white supremacy. Instead they advocate popular opposition to fascism as we witnessed in Charlottesville.”" That's simply a statement of fact.
Regarding the second example you give; "historian and political organizer Mark Bray has said "Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions." what would you want to change that to? "historian and antifa supporter Mark Bray"?. That would be redundant, because he is quoted as saying that he considers antifa's strategies are legitimate and necessary. Vexations (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree that the "reject turning" quote is uncontroversial. It implies that they are primarily concerned with white supremacists, whereas their opponents see them as violent against a much wider group than that. I also agree with both of you that, if the quote shows that the speaker is pro-Antifa, you don't need to note this. But of course my original edit added the note that he was pro-Antifa to the first quote--the one where he's being appealed to as an expert, and where his relationship to Antifa is not clear from the content of what he says. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, they are primarily concerned with white supremacists, whereas their opponents see them as violent against a much wider group is a rather uncharitable reading of It’s an umbrella group that shares a variety of causes, an important of which is resisting white nationalist actions. Adherents are principally socialists, anarchists, and communists who, ... reject turning to the police or the state to halt the advance of white supremacy It makes clear that Antifa does not just oppose white nationalism. That anarchists don't turn to the police or the state is hardly controversial; they're anarchists, they reject the state.
I'm still not quite sure what you're actually proposing. Do you think that pointing out that Bray supports Antifa is necessary to help our readers better understand that Antifa is not just about confronting nazi's? Vexations (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's the diff for my edit that was reverted: [1]. I'm suggesting that it be noted in this place, where he is first mentioned, that he self-characterizes as an antifa ally so that the reader is aware that the claim that is subsequently made about the history of antifa is the perspective of a pro-antifa scholar. I would also note that, in reviewing the quote again, I realized that the current text here is sort of inaccurate. Bray says that ARA was antifa under a different name, but we characterize him as saying that ARA was a "precursor". Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Also: I was reacting to the quote in the actual text of our article. If you think the full quote is less controversial, then maybe you should include the extra words. I do not think the full quote is much less controversial, though maybe a little. It still characterizes antifa as primarily anti-white-supremacist, and that strikes me as what people involved in antifa would say about themselves, not what an independent, objective source would say about them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, It would make sense to provide enough of the quote to represent Bray's view fairly. The quote as I included it above does that, I think.
To your point that people involved in antifa would say they're primarily anti-white-supremacist while objectively, they oppose a far broader set of political beliefs: I don't think they would say that. If you think of antifa as strategy, there's no contradiction. Anarchists, socialists and communists oppose all kinds of political ideologies. Because Nazism is an ideology that rejects the terms of rational debate, they confront Nazis with (counter) violence. As Bray observed: "ideological differences are usually subsumed in a more general strategic agreement on how to combat the common enemy". Vexations (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, I think Bray's characterization is something an Antifa supporter would say. More independent RS would say something more like what the ADL source says, namely "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. In Berkeley, for example, some antifa were captured on video harassing Trump supporters with no known extremist connections. Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as “Nazi” events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature." Whether or not you and I agree about this is really beside the point. The fact that ADL says something so different in this respect from Bray tends to suggest that the reader of Wikipedia would get a fuller and more accurate picture from understanding that Bray is an ally. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The ADL is hardly objective, so I wouldn't think that's a very good alternative. Bray presents what antifa say they believe. His book is based (in part) on conversations with them. They told him what they believe and he wrote a summary of their disparate views, often citing them verbatim. I don't know what reliable source you could possibly introduce as a credible alternative that presents antifa's "real" views more objectively. As far as I know no other scholar has spoken to more antifa or analyzed their original statements in more depth than Bray. If such a source exists, please provide it. Vexations (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Some people think Trump and the radical right are fascist. It's a matter of opinion not fact. We don't fact check opinions. Also, since they are a coalition of anarchists, communists, socialists and liberals, they do not have any core set of beliefs other than opposing fascism as they see it. TFD (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vexations: I provided ADL not because I think they are "objective," but because they are RS, they are more independent of Antifa than Bray, and what they say contrasts with Bray's description. Making statements that contrast with what some RS say about a topic is a pretty good working definition of 'controversial'. In any case, I still don't see why it's a bad idea to include the context and information that we have, and that will be of interest to readers, about Bray's self-characterization of his relationship to Antifa. After all, readers might in some cases wrongly think that Bray is himself with Antifa. I might have thought that, for example, when I first read the article. So there are lots of reasons not to withhold this information. @The Four Deuces: Of course those are their opinions, and I'm not fact checking them. I don't follow your point. I'm arguing that we should report Bray's statement that he's an ally of antifa, because all of quotes from him in the article are noticeably from the perspective of an ally of Antifa. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I should add that Bray calls his own book an "unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent Far Right." And he is called an apologist and a spokesman by WaPo in their review of the book here: [2]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Please just WP:DROPTHESTICK there's pretty clear consensus here that Bray is WP:DUE - sources need not be neutral; just reliable. And for what the antifa movement thinks and believes, Bray is preeminently reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Glad to drop that stick, I wasn't arguing that he is undue. Rather, I was arguing for inclusion of his self-characterization as an ally of Antifa. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Weather Underground co-founder says he sees his old self in antifa

Latest comment: 5 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion

“It’s word for word the same thing,” Rudd said of antifa and the black bloc when we spoke for several hours recently in Albuquerque. “You look on a YouTube channel like Acting Out. It’s identical. How can we as white people stand by while the nonwhite people of the world are suffering under imperialism? I think the shame of being white in this society is so great [that] people want to show that they’re aware of how terrible the disparities are, and how privilege and oppression distort everything. The urge to talk about violence and commit violence in response is a way of cleansing yourself of that privilege, of the guilt of privilege. It taps into this strain that I’ve identified as self-expression rather than strategy. That, to me, is the biggest problem.” This quote was taken from an article written by a Pultizer winner, seen here: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-cult-of-violence-always-kills-the-left/ In my view, the quote is very important because it is from the most well known US far left terror group's co-founder, who has a lot of credibility in discussing antifa, and the claim he makes is very important. The article is not published in an RS I think, but the author Chris Hedges is certainly RS. Can anyone explain why this should not be included in the article, preferably one of the people who deleted the quote without really explaining, or the admin who banned me for undoing the deletion?Mbsyl (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It's deeply WP:UNDUE opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
And I think everybody here has been extremely clear with you that Chris Hedges' opinion isn't due any significant coverage here. And yet WP:IDHT seems to apply here. Do you have any undeclared WP:COI with Chris Hedges? Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK, no one here has been clear with me that Chris Hedges opinion isn't significant. Can you explain that to me? Also, it is extremely clear that this isn't Chris Hedges' opinion. Did you read what I posted? Also, please AGF. Mbsyl (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Well I mean you pulled a 24 hour block for revert warring the opinion back in over the objection of multiple editors. That seems pretty clear to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
So, we can't trust a Pulitzer Prize winning author to not make up a quote from another prominent figure because said quote is published in a non-RS? This seems extraordinary to me.Mbsyl (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
No. We can't trust Truthdig in general. But also, there is still the issue of WP:DUE; frankly, nobody except for Chris Hedges (for some reason) cares what a former radical who regrets his failed revolution and is really sassy about kids today with their bandanas thinks about antifascism. (Oh, I suppose the people who think milkshakes are more clear weapons of terror than guns might care. But WP:NPOV exists to disregard WP:FRINGE beliefs.) Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Trust is part of it. But also, reliable sources provide context and interpretation for their quotes. We trust that, for example, the Los Angeles Times wouldn't publish a quote that contained a blatant falsehood without fact-checking it. Truthdig doesn't have that level of trust. Additionally, for quotes, the reputation of the source is what gives them weight and significance - when you put a quote in the article, you are implicitly saying "this quote matters; this quote is reflective of some significant point of view." A high-quality reliable source publishing an opinion grants it that weight. Truthdig doesn't. --Aquillion (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Why would this be relevant in this article? It might be placed in Mark Rudd, but what we have now is someone's opinion, and opinions should only be included (if ever) if they are highly reliably sourced--if only to show they are relevant to the subject. I don't see why this would be relevant. Antifa and WU have completely different goals. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Drmies how many american far left groups involved in systematic political violence have there been in lets say the past 50 years? I can't think of many besides WU and antifa. the quote is relevant because it is from a co-founder of a well known far left terror group talking about similarities between his group and antifa. it is in an article written by someone who has won the highest prize in journalism and worked for the most prestigious newspaper in america. i would love to hear a good thorough explanation of how this is Not relevant, because i'm not seeing anything substantial being put forth against my argument. the one thing you said is they have different goals, which you didn't explain (neither in terms of relevance to the issue at hand or how they have different goals.) Mbsyl (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Mbsyl, please don't change indentation formatting within a thread. I am not aware that Antifa engages in "systematic political violence" (perhaps you have things a bit confused), but even if it were, putting them together in this way is synthesis. And I am not going to explain "different goals"--the one is an anti-fascist club, the other wanted to overthrow the system of government. If you think those are the same, you must be thinking that the present system of government is fascist? Either way, if that is what you think Antifa is, maybe you shouldn't be editing this--but even before you stated this I had my doubts about your neutrality in this matter. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Opinions do not have inherent weight in Wikipedia because of who expressed them, but because of their coverage in reliable soures. Opinion pieces (Hedge's article is clearly described as "opinion") are rarely reliable sources, per News organizations.
I imagine the fringe sources that have discussed this article conclude that Rudd, who should know, is saying antifa and the black bloc are terrorists. But what he is actually saying is that confrontational and violent tactics alienate the population, divide the Left and invite police suppression of non-violent dissent. That is certainly a valid criticism and is already in the article, sourced to actual experts.
TFD (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I am always a bit concerned when someone writes, "what he is actually saying is..." it reminds me of the preachers who'll tell you, "what the Bible means is . ." Someone either says something or does not. Carptrash (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
No, in this case, TFD is actually quoting Rudd. The far right sites that have quote-mined it are the ones who are inferring. I don't think Rudd's opinion of antifascists is particularly notable. And, also per TFD, we have actual experts who are already discussing the issues with masking up. (I mean it's a bit of a false analogy when you consider how many activists had to wear masks to avoid the tear gas at the FTAA protests, which were successful, but anyway...) No, it's not WP:DUE to use the article. No, the article is not saying that antifa activists have the same goals as the Weather Underground. No, Rudd has no special expertise on antifascism or on anarchism beyond what any leftist might know (I mean good namedrop on the Propaganda of the deed but even so...) No, the opinion of Chris Hedges is not particularly notable with regard to antifascists either, though at least he's a current activist, unlike Rudd. And finally, the way in which the WP:UNDUE opinion was inserted was WP:WEASEL and in direct contravention of MOS:TERRORIST which means that even if a compelling argument for WP:RS to apply to Truthdig could be made, and even if a compelling argument that Rudd's opinion was WP:DUE could be made, we still couldn't use the specific edit we're debating here becaue it's not WP:NPOV compliant. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
It is implicit in Mbsyl's heading (Weather Underground co-founder says he sees his old self in antifa) that he believes that the text says that Rudd thinks antifa and the Black Bloc are terrorists a la the Weather Underground. I am merely pointing out that that is an incorrect reading. But you are right that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what someone meant, but we use reliable sources that interpret them. No such sources have been presented. :::Regarding your Bible example, passages in the Bible are not meaningful unless context is understood. There is considerable disagreement over what individual passages mean and armies of priests and religious scholars who have devoted their lives to interpreting them. For example, when Jesus passed wine to his disciples, he said, "this is my blood of the covenant." It's not clear without context whether he was saying he was offering his actual blood for his disciples to drink. If he was, why does the text call it wine?
TFD (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to take this to RSN, Mbsyl. Truthdig has been looked at a few times there, and, from what I can tell, usually has been viewed with a skeptical eye. But of course RS is a case-by-case thing, and you're right that this piece was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. Also, on the question of notability, Rudd has been quoted in connection with the topic of left-wing violence in an opinion piece at the Washington Post here: [3]. All in all, this is not an obvious case to me, and it seems worthy of getting the perspective of a wider group of editors at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no RS issue, since no one doubts that Rudd actually said what he is quoted as saying. Also, could Mbsyl please propose an edit summarizing what Rudd said. TFD (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I concur with this--I don't see this as an RS issue, I see it as a WP:DUE issue. If it's notable, it will receive more coverage. As for the moment, it doesn't get there for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree. RSN would be a waste of editor time. This isn't yet DUE. O3000 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Good to know that you guys think that this TruthDig article is a reliable source for the quote. I also don't have doubts about the veracity of the quote, but I assumed that this would not be the consensus, especially given that Aquillon was questioning whether it was RS. If there is a consensus that the TruthDig article is RS for this quote, then I agree that RSN would not be relevant, and the only question would be whether his views are due. On the topic of whether it is due, I will note that Weather Underground is mentioned in Bray's discussion of the history of Antifa, and WaPo (linked in my last comment) quoted Rudd on left-wing violence, so they regard his views on that general topic as due. His book on this topic has also been reviewed in lots of RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You will need to provide sources for this. O3000 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I linked the WaPo piece above, you will have to have a look at Bray's book yourself (see p. 68), and you can google reviews of Rudd's book yourself. LAT and NYT both reviewed it. I'm not meaning to imply that this is a clear case, but this is what I have found that seems relevant. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:DUE doesn't mean that everything ever said about a topic in any reliable source should be added to this article. TFD (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:DUE is based on coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Something (like the quote alleged here) that has no coverage in such sources is obviously irrelevant to the topic, regardless of your personal opinions or feelings; arguing "well, this and this and this make it look really important to me" is irrelevant to the point of approaching WP:FORUM - the only thing that matters (and the only valid argument you can make to try and get this included) is to produce coverage in mainstream, non-WP:FRINGE reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Disagree that Truthdig can be used for this, fullstop. WP:RSOPINION does allow some sources to be used, but it's not a universal blank check to make all opinion statements acceptable regardless of their source; we still can't generally cite opinions to blogs, personal websites, or other sources that completely fail WP:RS. If the source for an opinion didn't matter at all, editors could add their own opinions to articles (when WP:DUE) and cite them to four tildes, or could cite absolutely anything provided they included an in-line citation, which is plainly absurd. Even for opinions, we rely on the reputation of the publication to supply interpretation, fact-checking, and analysis, including corrections if the author said something blatantly false. Truthdig fails that bar - it cannot be used in any context outside of articles where it is directly the topic of discussion, and even then it should always be accompanied by a secondary source to establish relevance. --Aquillion (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Concur with Aquillion. (And honestly? In my personal life, I read Truthdig sometimes. I even read the article that is central to this discussion prior to it coming up here. But it's not reliable for Wikipedia. Just like Grayzone isn't. Hell even the Intercept is seen as iffy by Wikipedia standards.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Great, so I stand by my remark before to Mbsyl: this seems like a reasonable RSN case, and you'll also have to make the case that the quote is due for inclusion. I don't have a strong feeling about it either way. The fact that RS such as WaPo quote him on this topic and review his book is something. But it's not a clear case in my opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The man was musing about himself. It belongs in his article -- not this article. O3000 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop deleting reliably sourced information on far-right hoaxes

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

@Mbsyl: The GQ referenced header was definitely supported by a reliable source. Please self-revert this disruptive edit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 from RSN page: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." Can you please explain why you removed my attribution?Can you explain to me how GQ is RS? Its not on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Thanks for your patience in helping me understand these seeming contradictions in enforcement of standards. Mbsyl (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mbsyl: as I stated in my revert the attribution was unnecessary because no non-fringe sources dispute that the hoax was, in fact, a hoax. As for GQ, on what basis do you deny they were not reliably reporting that these hoaxes occur? The onus is on you as the person who made the edit to defend it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
no non-fringe sources say that the hoax was a hoax either, apparently, or they would be used instead of this non-RS. correct? as for GQ, i removed the GQ part because its not RS. if it really happened and is important, you can find it in an RS, no??Mbsyl (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
And now, again, your edit was disruptive and I will ask you to self-revert it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The list of perennial sources merely lists things that have frequently been brought to WP:RSN (meaning, it tends to contain controversial or questionable sources.) It's not a list of every single reliable (or unreliable) source, so not being listed there doesn't mean something fails WP:RS. And, generally, GQ is a relatively well-known mainstream publication with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thanks for the explanation Aquillion. could you tell me where i go to find out if sources are RS besides the WP:RSN list? i didn't know GQ had that reputation and would be curious to see how it is determined. Mbsyl (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There's no universal way to do it (because there's too many sources out there to enumerate.) The basic steps are to first, check WP:RS/P and the logs on WP:RSN to see if there were previous discussions; second, read WP:RS and WP:V carefully for the rules and guidelines governing reliable sources, and try to articulate an argument based on those about whether a source is reliable or not. Reputation can be tricky to judge and is often established by looking at WP:USEBYOTHERS, ie. how other sources cite or refer to a particular source. When you're not sure or if you're stuck an an extended dispute, asking on WP:RSN is usually the only option. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thanks! i will try to review it all thoroughly.Mbsyl (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that GQ is currently under discussion at RSN as a result of this thread. Irritating that no notification was posted here. Here: [4]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion
Unsurprisingly, nothing has or will come of this.--Jorm (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is more of a request for either hardening the language used against Antifa or a softening of the language used against Proud Boys. First off, I am not a Proud Boy so don't draw conclusions on my remarks. However because I believe Wiki tries to stay neutral in its synopsis of various topics, I feel that you are NOT covering them correctly with the current language. Antifa beat a reporter almost to death, they have beat on peoples cars, they have beat people up because of wearing Trump memorabilia. This is a very violent group which should definitely be labeled neo socialist. They are equivalent to the brown shirts of WWII Germany, but are geared toward communism and socialism. The language is very soft compared to what you wrote regarding proud boys. I guarantee an Antifa member would be treated better by a proud boy than the other way around, tho they are both extremist groups. They will most likely be added to the Domestic terrorism list here shortly after this Portland incident.

I wont argue with you about your opinion BUT would like a response telling me your opinion why the language is so gentle to Antifa, while being so harsh to Proud Boys.

Thank You

Jim

jimlund12@gmail.com Jimlund12 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Articles are independent. You can argue that this article is too soft, which you have done and that discussion can continue. You can argue that the Proud Boys article is too critical, which you can do on that article, not here. But, comparing them is WP:OTHERCONTENT and to be avoided. O3000 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Issues regarding the Proud Boys article need to be dealt with on their talk page. Also your statement that "Antifa beat a reporter almost to death" is not really supported by my research. Ngo was out on the right talk show circuit within a day or two. The so called "brain hemorrhage reported on Breitbart was not backed by anything that subsequently appeared. Perhaps you have a source for us? Carptrash (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Note that WP:OTHERCONTENT says While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. And Buzzfeed news confirms that they were provided with documentation of his brain hemorrhage here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Nice article, which is good enough for me.Carptrash (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments like "They are equivalent to the brown shirts of WWII Germany, but are geared toward communism and socialism" make this request difficult to even consider. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Not difficult if we just focus on content, I think. The charitable reading is that this request is pointing out that the two articles could usefully be developed with an eye to the content of the other, hoping to thereby increase the NPOV of each. I agree with that point. What would be helpful is, as mentioned above, if Jim would make a specific suggestion. So, Jim, how about a specific suggestion? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The articles and topics are not parallel. A neofascist group (who is clearly more related to the brownshirts as such) is not something we should use a metric for this article. Direct action is not the same as what the Proud Boys do EvergreenFir (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Both are violent extremist groups on different sides of the spectrum. For that reason, it may be a useful comparison is possible. But we need a specific comparison to judge. Without that, there's really nothing else to say on this topic, since without a specific suggestion, there's nothing about the content of this article that's up for debate. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This is pointless WP:OTHERCONTENT. Continue to compare the articles and this discussion will be folded. O3000 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
"Both are violent extremist groups on different sides of the spectrum". No, that a false parallel. Stick with what WP:RS say. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to hat this as off topic. PackMecEng (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
RS do characterize each of these groups as a violent extremist group. That's what I said, and that's what's in fact supported by RS. And, again, WP:OTHERCONTENT specifically says not to dismiss all such comparisons, which can play a role in making a cogent argument. Might want to review it again. I think we should give the OP a chance to make a specific proposal; if not, then I agree that the thread is over. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Antifa isn't even an organization. The comparison is apples and cats. O3000 (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Both violent extremist groups. That's what I said. I didn't call them an organization. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Once again, this is not a group but a movement. Akin to the Civil rights movement (parts of which used violence and were extremist). It may include extremists but there is zero evidence that everyone who takes part in Antifa related activities is an extremist. The Proud Boys are a group, quite clearly. Can we please can the rhetoric? It's too similar to the Proud Boys claiming to be against domestic terrorism, trying to convince people that the fact that the deaths etc come from right wing groups and individuals. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
ADL says Antifa is a "collection" of groups. I don't see a distinction between collections and groups. So I think Antifa is a group. Sure, it's also a movement, and it does not have a hierarchical leadership structure or formal membership requirements, and in that respect it differs from Proud Boys, who have formal membership. But both are violent extremist groups. And obviously not everyone who is involved in an extremist group is an extremist. No one said that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I see that Gibson and five other Proud Boys were arrested yesterday and that the Oath Keepers have pulled out of today's rally because the organisers haven't done enough to keep out white supremacists. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Our article says groups and individuals, with ours. CNN said "Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform. The group doesn't have an official leader or headquarters, although groups in certain states hold regular meetings. Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many members support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across." Are you really saying that no one is an Antifa supporter who isn't in an Antifa group? Doug Weller talk 12:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
We are violating the rule against being a forum here, so let's stop. But no, I'm not saying that. There are obviously lots of Antifa supporters who haven't even participated in any Antifa activities. Nevertheless, Antifa is a violent extremist group. And no, that doesn't mean that everyone in Antifa has been violent. It does mean that everyone in Antifa is in a violent extremist group, and supporters of Antifa are supporters of a violent extremist group. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, you can keep saying that, but that repetition does not equal fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You're right. It isn't my repeating it that makes it true. It's the fact that Antifa is extremist and violent that makes it true. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect to all involved, I don't think we're making any progress here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Circular reasoning is circular. I agree with Dmuzid, this isn't going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It will go somewhere if OP makes a specific proposal, and not otherwise. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New article End Domestic Terrorism could use attention

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks. Note it describes Joe Biggs simply as a talk show host! Doug Weller talk 10:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Dayton shooter was an alleged antifa supporter and KKK counter-demonstrator

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html "A Twitter account that appears to belong to Betts retweeted extreme left-wing and anti-police posts, as well as tweets supporting Antifa, or anti-fascist, protesters." https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/dayton-shooter-was-armed-counter-protester-klux-klan-rally/OjUttVmHRpmBGqHNRGXyoL/ "The man who killed nine people in Dayton’s Oregon District was seen carrying a gun and protesting against the Ku Klux Klan at a rally downtown in May." I noticed there was no talk about this yet, so thought I would start this inevitable conversation. So, it appears that he has tweeted support for antifa And counter-demonstrated against the KKK. Sounds like antifa to me. I'm sure everyone will want to wait for this to be 100% proven, but until then, should we put something in the article carefully referencing this, given how big of a story this is?Mbsyl (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say absolutely not until we get some more coverage. This may become relevant, but we have to keep in mind that noting this here will inevitably tie antifa beliefs to the shooting by implication. Thus far, I see no ties. Time may well produce more sources and it may become appropriate to include at some point. But this is a big deal and we'd need metaphorically big sourcing. Of course, if consensus is against me, so be it! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't much like antifa, but I've protested against the KKK myself. Should I be added?</sarcasm> O3000 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
As the Dayton Daily News said, "He did not appear to be part of any group that was in the protest crowd." The report he attended is unconfirmed only part of the counter-demonsrators were antifa, according to a Time Magazine article.[5] I would point out that not everyone in the U.S. is either a KKK or antifa supporter, there is a middle ground. TFD (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
ABC News also quotes investigators as saying that the suspected shooter demonstrated a misogyny that was far more extreme than any of his political leanings. For inclusion here, it wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate his politics - that might warrant an aside on the page for the Dayton shooting itself, but to cover it here you'd have to demonstrate that they're relevant (ie. part of a manifesto, or investigators saying they seem to have been a motive), or generally have WP:RS coverage making that connection. Currently, reports are saying the opposite - specifically noting that there does not seem to have been a political motivation. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
There are a few sources mentioning his connection to antifa as well as Trump's comments about it.[6][7][8][9] PackMecEng (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
He wasn't a member of antifa, never associated with them and was not motivated by them. (Misogyny is not a typical antifa position.) If you surveyed the jails of America you would find lots of supporters of Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Warren, antifa, the Democrats, the Republicans, etc. Ted Bundy was a delegate to the Republican National Convention but we don't add him to the Republican article. TFD (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
We can mention in the article that he was a supporter. Plenty of sources mentioning it even the president commenting on is easily assures weight. PackMecEng (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
TFD the wiki describes antifa as a movement, not a group, so i'm not sure how he could be a 'member.' re: misogyny - not having 100% alignment on views doesn't disqualify someone from being part of a group or movement. do you think if Betts had posted Twitter support for the Proud Boys and demonstrated against people with them, that wouldn't be mentioned on the Proud Boys wiki article?Mbsyl (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of sources mention that Ted Bundy was a Republican. However, those are sources about Ted Bundy not the Republican Party hence it is relevant to his article not the article about the Republican party. The fact that the Republican Party supports penalties for people who act like Bundy shows that his membership did not encourage his crimes. Also, the fact that a movement has no formal membership does not mean it does not have members. At the very least one would expect that they would join with other antifa at demonstrations, which he did not.
I actually have argued against including crimes of lone wolves in articles about far right groups, unless reliable sources consider them significant in articles about the group. In other words, unless articles about a group mention them, then the fail weight.
TFD (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Re: Ted Bundy- The Republican Party has a very long history. Bundy is not a big part of that history. It wouldn't surprise me to see Bundy mentioned in say, the Notable California Republicans section of a CA Republican Party wiki, if he was from CA. American Antifa doesn't have a very long history, at least judging by its wiki article. One of antifa's main talking points is they haven't killed anyone, and I believe the wiki article says this. James Morrison's death is linked to antifa, and now there are several more deaths linked to someone who is arguably antifa - neither are mentioned at all in the wiki article. I'm curious at what point someone goes from being a lone wolf to a movement member. You are saying that if they show up at a rally to protest racists and support antifa through social media, that doesn't matter because they didn't hang out with other antifa at the rally (i.e. he wasn't a member of a social group, he was just a member of the movement - which is what the wiki describes antifa as)Mbsyl (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Until there is a nexus between his notability and antifa, I think this is simply shedding more heat than light. We may yet see that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Mbsyl, similarly the examples you provide are not a big part of antifa history. The way we know Bundy is not a big part of Republican history is that books and articles about the Republican Party make little or no mention of him. The same criteria apply to antifa. TFD (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
i don't think that metaphor holds up. and i think we both know if this guy had been posting support for Proud Boys or a similar group, it would have its own section on the PB wiki right now Mbsyl (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If that happened, I or someone else would delete it. Please WP:AGF and don't tell other editors what they know. O3000 (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This isfrom CNN https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/el-paso-dayton-shootings-august-2019/h_c3fe4a1d2b04da849422f817647227ab173.48.197.65 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a metaphor but of course it holds up. The Dayton shooter has more in common with Ted Bundy then either of them have with antifa or the Republicans. Neither of them carried out their crimes in support of these groups. But it is not up to Wikipedia editors to make the call, but instead to see what reliable sources say. If and when books and articles about antifa make the connection then we will add it. And as for the comment that I would argue differently had the killer been a Proud Boy, I argued against Breivik's inclusion in the EDL article and McVeigh's inclusion in the Michigan militia article based on the fact that they had little connection with those groups. If your only argument against antifa is ad hominem attacks, then you won't reach far beyond the already converted. TFD (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
it was a metaphor, but nevermind that. i would argue that violence is one of antifa's main defining characteristics, so i don't see how Betts has more in common with Bundy than antifa. Bundy didn't go to an antifa rally and post support for antifa. we don't know why Betts did the shooting yet AFAIK, but the fact that he showed 2 big signs of being antifa, in addition to the violent nature of his crime, seems like enough to at least make a little mention in the antifa article. if one of antifa's defining traits wasn't violence, i would agree that this is not WP:DUE. i didn't say you would argue differently if he was PB, but look at how well sourced the PB page is(n't) and how thoroughly/clearly violence associated with them is cataloged. the EDT rally happened yesterday and the wiki page for it is already almost as big as the antifa article, and its much more clearly organizedMbsyl (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how shooting your sister and her boyfriend along with a bunch of random people in a bar is related to antifa, fascists, politics, or any organization. Doesn't matter anyhow. No connection whatsoever has been made to antifa. As has already been said, if a connection is shown, it will be added. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Why is there no section on the attack on Andy Ngo? It is relevant to the violent facism of Antifa.173.48.197.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read through the Archives linked at the top of the Talk page. The topic has been discussed repeatedly. The short version: his attackers have not been identified, so we don't know if they were associated with antifa or just random people who jumped in. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe that the current consensus it to exclude the Ngo story because the attackers aren't identified. For example, the Richard Spencer punch is included in the article even though the puncher has never been identified as associated with Antifa, so consensus is that we can include such stories when they receive due coverage even if the perpetrator only appears to be Antifa. Rather, the current consensus is that this story about Ngo is not due for inclusion at the Antifa article. I myself think this is absurd, but the discussion is ongoing. I should add that the Ngo attacker was identified as Antifa by several RS, including the WaPo. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight Is there anywhere to make a list of things that arguably should be in the article but aren't? Paul Welch, Andy Ngo, James Morrison, Connor Betts, Mark Rudd's quote, Chris Hedges' quote. These all deserve space in the article IMO and it would be nice if there was a list that could be maintained somewhere so people don't forget all of the important things that are not included in the article. Mbsyl (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you could keep a list on your talk page. Do you think the Spencer punch should be in the article? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thanks, i might do that on my talk page. i think the spencer punch is a big part of US Antifa's history Shinealittlelight. they seem to frequently cite the punch and his tour cancellation as proof that their violence works (ignoring the fact that his tour was failing already, and the fact that they are suddenly trusting a white supremacist for validation of their tactics when it suits them.) Mbsyl (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with including it if we include the Ngo attack. But it looks like promotion to include the Spencer punch and not the Ngo attack, which is what we now have. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
agreed. it does seem like cherrypicking, as not as many people will dislike them for punching a white supremacist as they would attacking a gay Asian journalist. or a Bernie supporter (Paul Welch) for that matter, which is covered by 2 RS and exceptional in the level of violence (bat to the head), the setting in front of a large crowd during the daytime, the fact that they attacked someone on the same side of the political spectrum for merely having a US flag, the main attacker casually walking off after an arguable aggravated robbery while no one in the large crowd so much as looks at him, etc.Mbsyl (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Or, you know, people have good faith disagreements and bring differing interpretations to the facts at hand. Either way. Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: You can cherrypick or hold an absurd opinion with good intentions. So I don't see that there was any questioning of good faith here. But either way, let's focus on content. Do you think that the Spencer and Ngo attacks differ in some relevant way that supports inclusion of the former and exclusion of the latter? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This has been explained numerous times. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, "good intentions" and "in good faith" are not synonymous. Suggesting that people are editing based on what will make antifa more or less disliked strikes me as an unhelpful approach, that's all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, O3K, I must have missed where Spencer and Ngo affairs were compared in this way in the past. Can you point me with a link to the previous discussion (other than the one I started on this page above)? Thanks. Dumuzid, you don't have to render an opinion on the substantive content question I'm asking, but I'd sure love to hear what you think. Thanks! Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight -- I've weighed in on both subjects before; I don't think restating my opinion here helps. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Ack, you're right, Dumuzid; you said both occurrences were undue above. I forgot, my apologies. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This article on the Portland rally has some interesting comments

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[10] "Popular Mobilization (or PopMob), a coalition of leftist groups that organized the counterprotest, distributed flyers in Portland this week that stated: “If you oppose racism, white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and the xenophobic, ultranationalist ideologies of the far right (and our current administration), you are an EVERYDAY ANTIFASCIST.” “If you are not a fascist — then you are Antifa,” it continued." Some of the counter-protestors were dressed in costumes, eg a poo emoji. Which raises the question, at an anti-fascist protest, is everyone there to be considered an Antifa supporter? Seriously though, I think the only way you could be sure would be to ask them. Some clearly were, but not all. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center Does Not List "Antifa" As a Hate Group

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The implication is that either THIS article is a conspiracy theory, or the Wikipedia entry for the Southern Poverty Law Center is a mistake.

The fact that Antifa show up in masks (like the KKK) and use tactics more or less identical to those used by White Supremacists, including theater to draw attention to themselves, implies that legitimate news organizations and law enforcement do not yet have a definitive handle on who these counterprotesters are, their agenda, if any.

The fact that these protests seem to be backed in part by Alex Jones and his close associates speak volumes.

My suggestion is that this article either be removed or locked until the issue is resolved by a reliable source. This may take considerable time, but if this turns out to be a conspiracy theory, Wikipedia will be partially to blame for spreading it.

It took TEN YEARS for the article sourced by anti-vaxers to be redacted. I wouldn't wait as long to put a stop to this conspiracy theory, if that is what it really is. The result could be more than just devastating. Danshawen (talk)danshawen —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't even tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you suggesting that Alex Jones is somehow promoting the idea of Antifa as a conspiracy theory? That it's not a real movement? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Afraid I don’t understand this either. Are you saying they are a hate group? Doesn’t seem to match the definition, even if they were a group. And, I wouldn’t attach any meaning into what Alex Jones thinks or doesn’t think. O3000 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_13&oldid=1098410720"