Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Journalist opinions not needed

Disputed contents Special:Diff/985148518. Attributing "some people say" doesn't mean anything goes. What journalists think isn't representative of public reception and I don't believe we need to include it. Graywalls (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I find it curious you did not remove the negative opinion of Beinart though. That addition was tied to the addition of those who disagree that antifa is "a gift to the right", citing two examples, including Spencer's suspension of his college tour which was reported in The Washington Post and elsewhere. We already cite A. M. Gittliz to talk of some "anti-anti-fascist" and I simply added that he considered Charlettosville a win for antifa ("More than a year after Charlottesville, we can safely declare those antifascist mobilizations a victory–one of too few for the radical left in the Trump era.") and Natasha Lennard is a journalist for The Intercept. That article also does not seem to be "non-staff" as you wrote here, so what is the issue? That you seem to have a thing against squatting and The Intercept does not mean they should be outright removed. "There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept." I attributed it. Davide King (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I don't read the entire article over every single time. I just happen to notice something I believed to be unnecessary. The part "some journalists...." was immediately obvious that its reporting opinion. Someone could have cited the journalist's opinion and cited the NYT column and I would've said the same. Attributing who said due to potential bias is not the same as giving article space to present journalists' argument. With the context of what was inserted, I found it to be undue. It's not as simple as it's green on RSP, therefore anything goes as long as you follow what it says in RSP. As for "Peter Beinart, a professor of journalism and political science" that is more reasonable to accept as expert opinion. Graywalls (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I understand what you are saying but I believe you are being too restrictive, especially in light of Aquillion's comment below that highlighted how "this is one from a high-quality source as far as those go, and it has substantial secondary coverage indicating its importance" and it is not undue. The wording, with stronger and more sourcing, can be improved but I agree that it is worth preserving and that "how effective is Antifa?" and "is this a reasonable response?" are questions that have been discussed and answered in reliable sources and we may have a few sentences or a paragraph about it. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going by what you wrote in the prose and have not analyzed everything said in the sources. Arguments by journalists are not secondary source. Let's say something totally different.Like traffic experts say zipper merging at the last minute helps improve traffic flow. Columnists and journalists own position on this might be in the news, because it's sensational but that wouldn't be something to include here. Graywalls (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, then please tell us why you kept the negative opinion of Beinart. Davide King (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I simply took out the material that was past the quotation. Graywalls (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

to biased and only shows the "good" of antifa bet you didnt know they hit a black person in the face knocking his teeth out for protecting a trump supporter Cam brady 012 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No change proposed. FDW777 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxes

That entire section entirely undue with a lot of trivia like stuff shown below. I am not seeing why these things stay while criminal offenses by those identified as antifa related (by reliable sources) can not manage to stick into this article while tangentially related trivia like below are representing a sizable chunk of the article. What's the point of having "multiracial" other than sensationalism?

"In June 2020, a multiracial family on a camping trip in Forks, Washington were accused of being antifa activists, harassed and trapped in their campsite when trees were felled to block the road. In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, groups of armed right-wing vigilantes occupied streets in response to false rumors that antifa activists were planning to travel to the city while similar rumors led to threats being made against activists planning peaceful protests in Sonora, California. In Klamath Falls, Oregon, hundreds of people, most of whom were armed, assembled in response to false rumors that antifa activists would target the city, spread by a commander in the Oregon Air National Guard."

Graywalls (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

in fact, this entire section is a soapbox. It is absurd contents in this section is being kept while any addition of concerns said by reliable sources to be caused by antifa are given hard time about inclusion. I say all or much of contents in this section should be removed. Graywalls (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this section is out of proportion to the rest of the article. I don't agree that it needs to be cut entirely: it's reasonably well sourced. However, it's far too detailed for an overall page on Antifa in the US, so I'd be most happy with splitting if off and leaving a lead section/summary. I don't think this much detail is relevant to the overall Antifa article, but it's clear that there is plenty of material to make something like a 'Draft:Hoaxes about Antifa in the United States' page. Jlevi (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's natural and probably necessary for our discussion of hoaxes to be more comprehensive than our discussion of antifa actions because there's so much more grey area as to what's genuinely relevant in the latter case. That is to say, we often have a reasonable doubt, and thus a good reason to be cautious about saying, that a given action was performed by (people associated with) antifa; we seldom have such doubts when it comes to hoaxes (largely because today hoaxes spread primarily through textual media). There's also clearly a greater breadth of coverage for these incidents than for some antifa actions we've discussed including and decided to leave out: the passage quoted above is sourced to two national media outlets and one international one. But that's still missing the point to the extent that this material should be assessed on its own merits rather than on the basis of "we don't include x so why include y" – the claims and the sourcing are different enough that any comparison is incoherent and irrelevant. There may be a case to be made for cutting down that section, but I think that would begin (and probably end) with some of the specifically online occurrences discussed in the second paragraph, not with the widely-discussed instances of hoaxes and conspiracy theories leading to actual in-person mobilisations. Separately, I'd be opposed to splitting – the article's not at the length where WP:SIZESPLIT would factor in, and hoaxes are a vital part of how antifa's been discused and understood, especially over the last six months or so, so moving them to another article would be to the detriment of this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter how well sourced something is if the sources fail to sufficiently establish solid relevance. For example, Michael Reinoehl matter was very well sourced, but at that time, there was no reliable source supporting in their own position that he was actually tied to antifa. Similarly, "some right wing" supposedly harassing a group of people that are just THOUGHT TO BE ANTIFA thought to be Antifa doesn't belong in here. Graywalls (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you now think that there should be no coverage of hoaxes at all, since they don't involve people associated with antifa? It would have been useful if you'd said that to begin with, rather than focusing on the particular section you quoted and separate, irrelevant material. Either way, it would be a significant change to the article, which I'd oppose for the same reasons I'd oppose splitting this material into another article, and which I don't see as likely to attain consensus, though you're welcome to make the case for it (preferably without shouting). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Obtaining consensus falls on those wishing to include/retain, as it has been with the matter of trying to get Reinoehl into the article. Reformatted the emphasis. better? Graywalls (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's already in the article, it's the consensus version. WP:ONUS is about adding new material. FDW777 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The guidelines say nothing of such. Consensus by silence is only implicit until it has been disrupted and challenged. Graywalls (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:EDITCON. Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

...and this irrelevant in this case anyway as Jlevi, BobfromBrockley and myself have all opposed making the changes Graywalls has proposed (to the extent that Graywalls has proposed anything concrete), so we have not only an "implicit and invisible" consensus but also and explicit and visible one. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The section does have a lot of detail that may be trimmable, but we should proceed pretty carefully as it is factual and well sourced and much of it is clearly noteworthy. Maybe the best way to proceed would be for any editors who feel some of content is not noteworthy to make that case in relation to the specific incident? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Having had a bit of a look into antifa hoaxes to get a sense of what's been widely discussed and what hasn't, it occurs to me that the section ought probably to be expanded to cover the conspiracy theory surrounding the 4 November 2017 protests organised by Refuse Fascism. See, for example, The Guardian, The Verge, Newsweek, Washington Post, Time, Slate 1, 2 and 3. It might be a bit contentious, though, to start expanding the section when there's a general consensus to trim it a little, though, so thought I'd see what others think first. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Trimming information from individual events and adding similarly concise information on additional events are probably both a good idea. --Jayron32 11:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32's thoughts seem reasonable to me. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bike lock assault by Eric Clanton

The article doesn't mention April 15, 2017 violent assault by a Diablo Valley College professor Eric Clanton that resulted in a no-contest plea to the battery charge. 1 Clanton has been linked to Antifa. 2, 3, 4. Clanton struck people in the head with a bicycle lock. Unerlap (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I do think it would be reasonable to include at least some of these incidents and not let it be excluded with "antifa is a movement, not a group" technicality so long as reliable sources reasonably attribute it to antifa. This isn't to say we should include something in which only the alleged person self claims to be "antifa" if reliable sources don't attribute it to antifa in their own voice. Disclaimer: I'm not taking sides with Antifa, Proud Boys, or whatever. The inclusion/exclusion burden should be the same for both sides. Graywalls (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is due or not and I am certainly not stuck one way or another, but if we are going to include such incidents, which may not routinely mentioned when discussing antifa in articles such as "What Is Antifa?" which helps us with how much weight they give to each incident and so they are good sources for us to decide on whether to add something or not, we may also have to add more of its non-violent activities and protests that are notable but may not be mentioned by more mainstream news sources because non-violent activities do not get the same treatment from violent ones such as this. In addition, no one has yet mentioned how both Rolling Stone and The Washington Post provide some context which should surely be added, if the incident is mentioned.

Rolling Stones reported:

Clanton was a perfect target for /pol/. He was not just a professor, but an ethics professor who taught philosophy and critical thinking at Diablo Valley College in the East Bay suburb of Pleasant Hill. In a detail that provoked the chat board’s sardonic ire, his work encompassed “restorative justice from an anti-authoritarian perspective.” Once /pol/ had found Clanton’s name, its hackers found his OkCupid account, discovering that he had described himself to suitors as a “gender-nonconforming” sapiosexual interested in “helping to precipitate the end of civil society.” They also published the home phone numbers and addresses of some of his closest relatives. “Poor little terrorist snowflake,” one 4channer wrote, “about to get melted.”

But /pol/ was not content to sit on its scoop. On April 20th, Milo Yiannopoulos broke a bombshell story on his website. Topped by photographs of Clanton, the site announced that the Internet had identified “the antifa rioter who weaponized a giant bike lock.” One day after the story ran, the Berkeley Police Department got an email from the Alameda County sheriff’s office; it had been sent to the sheriff’s anonymous public tip line. “Recently,” the email read, “there has been an individual assaulting people with a U-Lock at various rallies and events in California. After intensive investigation a group of concerned citizens has identified the suspect as Eric Clanton.”

The Washington Post reported:

Clanton’s attorney, Dan Siegel, told The Washington Post his client has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

He emphasized that his client is innocent until proven guilty, but his “life has been upended” by anonymous people on the Internet — particularly people on 4chan.

The users of the message board known for a celebrity nude scandal, pranks and the creation and corruption of the Pepe the Frog meme are also known for their enthusiasm for identifying people they think have done wrong.

Lately, a popular target has been left-leaning activists who show up to pro-Trump rallies and other demonstrations, such as the uproar in Berkeley over the cancellation of conservative Ann Coulter’s scheduled appearance. BuzzFeed reported that in recent months “4chan users have become more and more interested in the identification and doxing of anti-fascist activists.” Doxxing is the making of private or personally identifying information public without the consent of the target.

In the BuzzFeed article, an image of a 4chan discussion thread showed users organizing. “An anti-facism petition went around, which dumb lefties signed, and now we are digging up any info we can find on the people who signed it. … We can make a fun game since the list is so long.”

Davide King (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like this context should be added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pol/ or a potential Eric Clanton article instead as it doesn't change the facts of the assault or the plea deal. Including the fact that the assault was caught on video is important. Clanton is stated to be an "'anti-fascist' activist" in the introductory phrase of an AP article. This article also mentions that the police say that he has a tattoo associated with the anti-fascist "Iron Front" movement. I think trying to include non-violent incidents as an attempt to counterbalance this violent incident would be an example of False balance unless they are as notable. Unerlap (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware that BLP1E applies also to people without an article. That's not saying it shouldn't be included in some fashion (I would suggest a section on direct action to condense such events) - but that overblowing or giving too much prominence to a single incident is a serious BLP concern. Koncorde (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

BLP1E states

We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

(...)

2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

I argue that both #2 and #3 are fulfilled. Please see Low-profile individual:

Low-profile: May have appeared on or been featured on such a show without their consent – e.g. "ambush journalism". May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of their job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party not themself.

None of these applies to Clanton. Clanton's role was substantial and well documented. In addition, the name of the individual has been widely disseminated. The national news articles are about Clanton's actions and don't just mention him in passing. Unerlap (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You quoted the "Media attention" section which is about people that have appeared in a media scenario. You need to argue not that he isn't low profile, but how he fits into the "high profile" criteria. To quote the main line in the introduction to the section: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event". For example, Glenn Kirschner is such a media person who has had a persistent high profile media presence across more than one single event as an expert on legal matters. Joe the Plumber started as a BLP1E, but was high profile because he sought out the attention, and subsequently became subject to public interest because he continued to promote himself.

To reiterate - I am not saying we do not mention Clanton, or his crime, I am saying that BLP1E applies when considering how we present the information and was intended as a reply to all users above. BLP policy applies also applies to talk pages. Koncorde (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The section states that all of these three conditions have to be fulfilled for a person NOT to be a subject of a Wikipedia article. Two of them are not fulfilled. If the conditions are not fulfilled for a person not to have a whole article, there certainly would be no grounds to remove just a mention. Since the name of the attacker is relevant information for this article, I believe you should show that it should not be included. Unerlap (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please ceased misrepresenting my position and read my full responses. Again, I am not arguing for it to not be included. I am making people aware that BLP is in effect. Both this section on the Talk, and any addition to the article, need to take into consideration all aspects of the BLP policy - and in particular the policy of 1E. If there isn't support for a full article we should be careful in what context and to what detail a subject is discussed on any other article Koncorde (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't restated your position in this response at all so I don't what you're talking about. Unerlap (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If the conditions are not fulfilled for a person not to have a whole article, there certainly would be no grounds to remove just a mention. Since the name of the attacker is relevant information for this article, I believe you should show that it should not be included. Neither of these asssertions are my position. Koncorde (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Unerlap, I do not see how the context should be added at pol/ and not also be added here, when Rolling Stone reported they doxxed him out. Considering you are so sure that it is such a notable event to be added here, surely the fact they have doxxed out anti-fascist activists and context, as reported in both sources which deemed it notable and relevant, should be provided. Unless, of course, you are interested only in us listing any self-declared antifa who committed any crime. I agree with Koncorde that a section on direct actions to condense the most notable events is a good thing; we already do that at the Activities and Notable actions sections, but they can be improved or expanded. However, your example itself is false balance since sources agree that much of antifa activism is nonviolent; it just happens that nonviolent protests are not so noteworthy when compared to violent ones. Both Mark Bray (a historian and expert of the movement) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) agree on this. Or is the CRS, a non-partisan think tank in Congress, too 'left-leaning' for your taste? I ask because we have had dozens of users and IP complaining about mainstream and centrist sources for being 'too left-wing.' Davide King (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think providing information about 4chan's skill and success in identifying Clanton as the attacker is off-topic for this article and it would be more on-topic for the 4chan article or for a potential Eric Clanton article. Do you disagree? But I don't have a strong opinion either way, so including this is fine with me. Your characterization as "self-declared" is incorrect - as I mentioned, the AP describes him this way in the very first sentence. Note that the ADL says about Antifa:

Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life. Antifa is not a unified group; it is loose collection of local/regional groups and individuals. Their presence at a protest is intended to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame. This is why most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive.

I think a summary of this paragraph would be a worthwhile thing to include in this article. Including the same amount of info about non-violent and violent activities of Antifa does not seem justified. It is incorrect to characterize a movement as non-violent when it is widely recognized as committing violence and being dangerous, even if most of its actions don't directly result in people being hurt. Unerlap (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Unerlap, where is the AP source you are referring to? I could not find it; even sources about Reinohel use the connection based on his self-declaration; no verification of stronger ties to antifa, for example as a member of a local antifa group, has been found. Again, if your sources themselves found it notable and useful to provide context, I do not see how that should not be clarified here and why we should only include the part you like the most. In addition, your comments show that many things you consider as fact are not really facts. "Giving examples of violent actions is important to provide depth to the article." This is an example of your own view. You also did not quote the ADL as saying that "it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose", noting that right-wing extremist movements are much more violent and have been responsible for hundreds of murders in the United States while there has been only a single, suspected antifa-related murder. "Including the same amount of info about non-violent and violent activities of Antifa does not seem justified. It is incorrect to characterize a movement as non-violent when it is widely recognized as committing violence and being dangerous, even if most of its actions don't directly result in people being hurt." In other words, you want us to describe that antifa is dangerous and represents an existential threat to the United States, but that it is not what scholars and analyses has said and we are not going to add a bunch violent actions just because far-right articles are fuller with them; and equate antifa, that for your admission does not "directly result in people being hurt", with far-right violence, even though that is resulted in hundreds of actual deaths and much more involved in assault than property crimes. Davide King (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Here it is. To quote: " A former San Francisco Bay Area community college philosophy teacher and “anti-fascist” activist was charged Friday with hitting several people in the head with a bicycle lock during a violent clash between supporters and detractors of President Donald Trump last month." I'm not sure what you're referring to in comparing Antifa to extremist right-wight movements as I haven't done so. You're arguing against the ADL article and providing your own POV. The ADL article was clear that it is indeed a dangerous movement involved in harassment. The ADL is not a right-wing source. I said some of Antifa's actions don't result in people being directly hurt, not that they don't in general. Unerlap (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Unerlap, given source says 'anti-fascist', not 'antifa', for which there is no single mention. Some may see the two as the same thing; others may distinguish between them, so it is not so clear. And like Reuters, the Associated Press is noted in avoid loaded terms such as 'terrorist' or other unclear terms. Nowhere does the ADL states that antifa is "dangerous", so that seems to be your own reading of them. It actually states that that "most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive". It is a criticism that is argued all across the spectrum, yet the ADL and most established sources and scholars emphasise that antifa is not a major domestic or terrorist threat and that it is the far-right and white supremacists that are the ones killing hundreds per year and are the major threat. This is not my opinion, is what established sources and scholars have emphasised, even in their own criticism of antifa. You may see dangerous and think like they are a threat but the main criticism is that antifa actually emboldens the far-right and so it backfires, so it is a danger or "dangerous" in that sense, not in the sense, which you seem to imply or believe, that antifa is "dangerous" that it is a major threat such as by killings people or being a terrorist organisation. Davide King (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "antifa" because it was a very obscure term until this attack or Aug 2017: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=antifa. As the ADL says: "These violent counter-protesters are often part of “antifa” (short for “antifascist”) (...)" Here is BBC talking about their "propensity for violence." Washington Post quotes Brian Levin with the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism "But a ragged and cacophonous core believe that violence should be the first thing used." They can not be designated as terrorists because this designation is limited to foreign groups. Unerlap (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As with any article, due weight applies: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

This means for example that the article about Donald Trump doesn't name the grandchildren of his second grade teacher, although it may be verifiable. We would only do that if reliable sources find it important enough to include prominently in his biographies.

Any other argument for inclusion such as "But readers need to know how violent antifa is!" is tendentious editing and violates policy. Note that we already mention that antifa sometimes use "direct violent action." We don't need to list each incident.

TFD (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see you making any reasonable argument as to why this incident is minor. It was national news, as verified by multiple articles in the national press and attracted a lot of interest - enough people searched for Clanton's name to appear in Google Trends. Giving examples of violent actions is important to provide depth to the article. Your example of Trump knowing the name of grandchildren of his second-grade teacher does not compare in any way to multiple people being injured by an attack by a person who is clearly Antifa. What happened is not a "minority view" as described by due weight. It is also not given undue weight by the depth of detail (unless Davide King gets his way and the whole story about 4chan is included). Unerlap (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Unerlap, sure, we absolutely should include every trivial incident involving anyone who ever professed any degree of support for Antifa, because otherwise people might accidentally come away with the impression that the problem is the far-right and not leftists. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Your statement that this incident is "trivial" is clearly contradicted by multiple national news articles as well as the Google Trends graph I linked to. The article you sarcastically linked does not provide any support to the claim that Antifa is non-violent and it is talking about the events of 2020, not 2017. Even so, it still says: "Some of those facing charges undoubtedly share far-left and anti-government views. Far-right protesters also have been arrested and charged." Unerlap (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Weight refers to articles about the topic rather than articles that mention the topic. I can find for example lots of articles about Albany, New York. That doesn't mean that we should have a few paragraphs about the city in the U.S. article. Note also that the section of weight I referred to was about presenting facts not opinions. It is very important to distinguish the two. We need to present the facts about antifa according to the weight they have in the literature about antifa. The ADL article for example doesn't mention Clanton. I don't think that anyone has mentioned him in years. What was the outcome of his case? TFD (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Your analogy does not apply. Albany is insignificant in the context of the whole U.S. Clanton's violent attack and the court case are significant in the context of Antifa. I haven't cited the ADL article in support of the notability of the event, as that has been established already by multiple other sources I cited. Instead, I think the ADL article about Antifa should be summarized and included in the article at another location but I suppose that's for another Talk section. Unerlap (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• I could see something about the incident being included. Plenty of sources on it so weight is not really an issue here. Just how we present it and where. PackMecEng (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As you know, that is not the criterion for weight. Plenty of sources say that that the serial killer Ted Bundy was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1972. While we might mention it in articles about Bundy, we don't mention it in the article about the Republican Party, because the sources were about him not the Republican Party. As you are aware, while articles about Clanton may mention antifa, articles about antifa don't typically mention Clanton. Do you understand the difference I am drawing?

While I appreciate that you think it is important, that is not the basis for inclusion. In your opinion, antifa represents an existential threat to the U.S. and the article should provide evidence. But weight says that articles should reflect mainstream coverage.

TFD (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In your opinion, antifa represents an existential threat to the U.S. and the article should provide evidence. What are you talking about? No, we go by how RS talk about the subject. With that in mind my statement is correct. The rest of what you mention is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF. Finally I do not appreciate you making ignorant theories about my motives. Focus on content please. PackMecEng (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What I am seeing is a totally different level of threshold for inclusion between the two opposing sides. (Antifa on one side, Proud Boys on the other Proud_Boys#Metropolitan_Republican_Club. That article is full of things like this, yet some people here are arguing putting a few sentences about bike lock attack is undue. To maintain objectiveness, it's imperative that both articles are held to comparable inclusion/exclusion standards and that should be achievable given multiple people work on both articles. Graywalls (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I agree on that because I like consistency and so I am concrned about that. Perhaps that may be true but it may have to due more to the fact that antifa has no leader, it is more of a decentralised movement while the Proud Boys is an actual organisation who has had official leaders and so it makes easier to follow and respect guidelines while many self-declared antifa individuals may not fit weight, than to an organised plan or plot on our part. I agree with The Four Deuces we should go by what "What Is Antifa?" articles say and routinely mention. Perhaps we have a few incidents and actions that are not really notable and mentioned while there a few that are but that we do not mention yet. Either way, that is the best way to establish notability and due weight. This particular incident, I have not seen it routinely mentioned. Even for Reinohel there has not been any further verification of his ties of antifa and sources have so far only go on based on his self-declaration. I believe you yourself noted that, are there any news that have run deeper and verified that? Davide King (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's a "movement" how do you explain things like "Rose City Antifa"? Technicality of "it's a movement and not a group" to refuse inclusion of incidents that received significant coverage is rubbish. If a person driving a Uber gets into a particularly unusual situation that gets beyond-local area coverage and the press relates it to Uber, then I would say that deserves an entry in Uber. Of course, the company's response is going to be "that's not our problem, the driver's an independent contractor". Such technicality isn't relevant in common sense. Graywalls (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I believe Arms & Hearts, with whom you have discussed at length there, or another user, also made the point that it is doubtful how much of an organisation Rose City Antifa reallly is. We do not describe it as an organisation but as a group, which is not exactly the same thing. I mean, if you believe that antifa is an actual organisation, or that it is not really a movement (I believe Black Lives Matter also has some local groups or chapters, yet it is "a decentralized network of activists with no formal hierarchy" and there are several similarities between the two) because it has groups like Rose City Antifa, I do not know what to tell you, other than that is your personal opinion and that I have not found it backed by reliable sources. I believe that The Four Deuces et al. have a point that we do not include any "incident[...] that received significant coverage", especially when all we have is self-declaration and so other ties are verified; of course, when reliable sources refer to protesters as "antifa" or "antifascist activists" is one thing, but it gets blurred and complicated on specific individuals. Rest assured that if this incident is truly notable and consequential for antifa, it will be routinely mentioned in "What Is Antifa?" articles in reliable sources and will be added in due time, just like the Reinohel incident. There is no rush. Davide King (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact Jason Dalton shot eight people, killing six, in between picking up passengers for Uber and it's not mentioned in their article. That's a lot more serious then any allegations against antifa supporters. I would point out though that this is not typical behavior of Uber drivers, nor does Uber encourage drivers to do this sort of thing, and he wasn't driving Uber passengers during the shootings. I don't know why the Proud Boys article would have coverage of individual acts of violence, but there's no reason why we should copy their approach. In fairness, I did say at the Proud Boys article that it should not read like a rap sheet. TFD (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read the PB article in an age, but it looks like it needs paring back to the subject of the article and not the laundry list approach. Koncorde (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There are about 2 million Uber drivers in the U.S. and they performed over 10 billion rides. Antifa is maybe hundreds or thousands of people and their events are not very frequent, yet resulted in substantial harm. The amount of violence committed by an average member or in an average interaction with the public is many orders of magnitude different. In addition, as you said, what Dalton did was not during his work time as a driver. We have no idea (and we shouldn't consider) what these people do at other times. Unerlap (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I was replying to Graywall's comment, "If a person driving a Uber gets into a particularly unusual situation that gets beyond-local area coverage and the press relates it to Uber, then I would say that deserves an entry in Uber." [07:24, 25 October 2020] I didn't bring it up they did. I never made the argument that since Dalton wasn't in the Uber article, Clanton shouldn't be in this article. Okay? So let's stop talking about Uber. TFD (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, probably because Proud Boys is a distinct group with a founder, a leader and thus authoritative sources for specific positions. Antifa is an ideology: opposition to fascism. It's not a group, it has no leader. Obviously it's used as a whipping boy for all apologia for the far-right, but the only unifying principle is being against fascism, and ultimately that's an unequivocally good thing. We already settled that. There was a war and everything. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Everyone that identifies as part of Antifa are anti-fascist, not everyone that identifies as anti-fascists are Antifa. PackMecEng (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because some people call themselves some term doesn't mean that they stand for it. Unerlap (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Deciding who is or is not a member of antifa is difficult since it does not have formal membership, although some antifa organizations do. Reliable sources however are able to identify antifa demonstrations. For example, they might say that antifa protested a neo-Nazi rally. But they can't say which persons in the counter-demonstration were antifa. I think here we could be guided by the concept of common purpose. Common purpose "imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise." If someone commits a crime during an antifa demonstration, would the other participants be criminally liable. If so, then it belongs in the article. If not, it might be included provided we explain the person was acting alone. In that case the criterion for inclusion would be weight. TFD (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If a person self-identifies as Antifa or RS say they are a member that is all that is required. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No, use the words "self-identifies with Antifa". It is not an organization, and there is no membership. --Jayron32 13:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is sounding an awful lot like the no true Scotsman fallacy. Again if a RS identify someone as part of Antifa or the person themselves identify as part of Antifa that is all that is required. PackMecEng (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

In the Streets with Antifa - Luke Mogelson in the New Yorker

This may be of interest: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/02/trump-antifa-movement-portland Vexations (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, I have added it to further reading for now, but I agree it could or should be in the article. Do you have any suggestion on how to do that? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Having read through it, I found it a tedious exercise in both-sidesism at best, and a very wilful and dangerous exoneration of the far right at worst. That's neither here nor there if we're citing it (and I think we should, especially on the wildfires conspiracy theory), but I don't think it belongs in the further reading section. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, perhaps it is because I have not read it all and properly, but I did not think it would do that; if it does that, I agree and you are free to remove it. Davide King (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

State that antifa is a far-left XXXNerdSlayerXXX (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This was rejected at this well-attended request for comment. If you have sources to present that have not been presented before, you may do so. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words

Isn't... Isn't "Some scholars", in the lead-in of the article, the very definition of weasel-wording? How has this been around for so long? It needs to be changed, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.128.173.20 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

No, not really. See the second paragraph of WP:WEASEL. The scholars referred to are listed by name elsewhere in the article. You should feel free to propose alternative wording if you think it's an issue, though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Needs revision

The article is not up to date, lacks citation,for example it cites most of antifa are peceful, when in actuallity is the opposite, either update the articleto current events, put more citation, or unlock it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.201.226 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I left you a welcome message. Please see the first three bulleted items under "Policies and Guidelines". Taking those factors into account, suggest your change here, with proper sources supporting the change you're proposing. This list is often used as a feeler. If your sources are anything that is caution mark or red, they most likely won't be implemented. Same with twitter, blogspot. Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This is good advice by @Graywalls. It appears the proposed editor has a political agenda and their edits are unlikely to be accepted into the article. They are nevertheless encouraged to post proposed edits through the appropriate process and see what happens regarding consensus among editors in the Wikipedia community. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, actually cite examples, cite sources and propose a change of text backed by said sources as the user above explained you. The Perennial sources list is a good place to start. We have already added the killing of Aaron Danielson, which is a current event; we simply provide context as sources, scholars and other experts do. You write that "for example it cites most of antifa are peceful, when in actuallity is the opposite", citation needed please? Both Mark Bray (a historian and expert of the movement) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) agree on this. Or is the CRS, a non-partisan think tank in Congress, too 'left-leaning' for your taste? Also please note that, as we write in the Hoax section, there has been much disinformation and lack of understanding about antifa. Many users and IPs, who have done similar requests, seem to have fell for such things, hence why the page was blocked. There is plenty of criticism and mention of violent actions already in the article. Davide King (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/antifas-history-and-current-status-in-portland/283-8a9d1048-69e9-4baf-879d-b59d1c93c41a source I plan on integrating soon. Graywalls (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, am I the only one who gets an error saying "Access Denied

You don't have permission to access "http://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/antifas-history-and-current-status-in-portland/283-8a9d1048-69e9-4baf-879d-b59d1c93c41a" on this server.

Reference #18.b4fc1402.1603610325.3aabe89"? Davide King (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I found access through the Waybach Machine, but I do not see how that says anything different? What exactly would you want us to add?

Antifa in Portland: quite often we see them as some of the most disruptive demonstrators on the streets. But antifa can't always be picked out in the crowd.

Our VERIFY team found that antifa, which stands for anti-fascist, is a loosely connected series of groups with shared left or extreme left ideology, that has no central governing body, no defined roles and because of their admitted secrecy, it's hard to know how many people count themselves as members. [...] "I think it’s fair to say it's a movement I would say the ideas about anti-fascism for them are (currently) concerns in the United States about racism," said Rodriguez.

He said the most current version of antifa seems a lot like what's happening in Hong Kong, as people fight Chinese authoritarianism. [...] Our team found that antifa supporters generally campaign, organize, and protest, sometimes violently, against actions, people, and organizations they view as promoting authoritarian, racist, homophobic or xenophobic beliefs.

Where you referring to this?

PSU sociologist and Black studies professor Shirley Jackson said antifa has actually blurred the focus for the Black Lives Matter movement in Portland, since protests began back in May. "They believe in what they're doing. However, I think they also need to understand how difficult they may be making the situation for the promotion of Black Lives Matter in this time where Black people are really trying to make some headway," said Jackson. Professor Rodriguez agreed. He said antifa is good at getting people on the streets quickly. "But what they're not so great at is coming to the realization that eventually social protests seek to bargain," he said. And that, Rodriguez said, is a roadblock to trading protests for progress.

Again, as you correctly noted for the above user, please provide an example of text you would change, backed by sources. Note that this does not negate Bray and all other sources who say much of antifa activism is nonviolent and that only sometimes it can turn out violent; and you cannot attribute that solely to antifa. According to several studies and analysis, (Black Lives Matter et al.) protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, with police and counter-protesters sometimes starting violence. Davide King (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Shirley Jackson's and Prof. Rodriguez's would be worth summarizing in the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, no issue with that. If you already have in mind how to summarise them, I say go for it. Do you think we should summarize both the reference to the protests against authoritarianism in Hong Kong and Black Lives Matter? Both are interesting and worth-adding points. Davide King (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll come back around and add something unless Graywalls beats me to it. I'd probably give one sentence to each expert summarizing their views, including the BLM and HK matters. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong? This article is Antifa (United States) and there is another article Antifa that is not constrained to US matters. Graywalls (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What is your point? You were the one to provide this source and the source mentions that "the most current version of antifa seems a lot like what's happening in Hong Kong, as people fight Chinese authoritarianism." They are still discussing antifa in the United States. The issue in whether this is undue and whether there is more notable academic commentary, as written by bobfrombrockley. Davide King (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why their views are noteworthy. Neither is notable enough for a WP article. Neither are experts on this topic. Neither are widely referenced in reliable sources on this topic. They appear to be random talking heads briefly quoted who happened to be local to Portland. There are dozens of other non-expert academics who have expressed opinions on antifa; we should be more selective about what we consider noteworthy. We do we need more opinion in this article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I am unaware of these other academics who have commented specifically on American antifa. Feel free to offer some. However, I think two sentences from academics who have at least some relevant expertise (in society-related fields) are of more note than some of the other details we have in the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Reems of opinion pieces have been published from the left and from the right about antifa; many are written by academics. Any number of academics have been quoted in passing in articles about antifa. Here are a few examples.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] So, the question is: which ones are noteworthy? Surely those cited regularly by reliable sources and/or have some specific expertise in antifa which makes them authorative (rather than vague generic expertise in society-related fields. These two professors do not meet that threshold. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, that makes sense. I suggest that you summarise those and add them. By the way, I have moved them to Effectiveness section as it seems to be more relevant there, so Mudde et al. should be added at Academics and scholars. Davide King (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Davide King. We definitely don't want to add all of them, just the noteworthy ones. IF I ever find time I will look more closely and summarise any that are. The more urgent point I want to make is we should remove the non-noteworthy academic quotations we currently cite. Am I alone in thinking that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not a good basis for making cuts. Whether someone has a Wikipedia article often does not align with whether they are notable. They may be notable yet no one has created an article on them, or they may have an article yet fail the notability guidelines. And in any case, in such a politically charged topic, I don't think drastic cuts are a good idea. Also, as I said below, "It is not the case that someone's sole research focus has to be antifa for them be a reliable source or to be due. At articles on Donald Trump are we only allowed to cite scholars who solely study Trumpism? Obviously not." Crossroads ^-talk- 20:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not proposing drastic cuts. I'm proposing the removal of one recently added sentence. It's true that the notability of a commentator alone is not the only index of noteworthiness of their comment in a given article. Other indicators would be wider secondary coverage of their comments, or other reliable sources seeing them as authoratitive on this topic: these comments do not meet these tests either. If there was a lack of commentary from academics in RSs, then we might include some that didn't quite meet these standards, but this is a topic with an embarassment of commentary around it, including from academics (as I show above), so why are we (cherry-?)picking these particular quotes? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Biased article compared to similar ones

This article is supposed to be unbiased but when compared to articles about similar groups on the right wing is MUCH more charitable, examples would be that Antifa are presented as non-violent despite numerous cases of them engaging in violence and them being violent by their own admission. The point about them being "not an organisation" is a point of contention, this article simply acts as if their side of the argument is true automatically, the article fails to mention their status as domestic terrorists. The article refers to the groups as anti-authoritarian which again is not objective, just because they say it that doesn't make it so, there are lots of others who claim the opposite and by definition their MO is to violently suppress ideologies they deem to be fascist. They also do not solely target neo-Nazi or white nationalists in their violent attacks, again, just because they say it does not make it objective, there are cases of self proclaimed liberals, conservatives and anti-fascists being attacked by antifa. Overall this article reads like outright pro-antifa propaganda and many statements are just their on talking points, this group is objectively anti-free speech, far left and violent by nature. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, this article is clearly not especially when compared to articles about other political groups. R065X9 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)R

R065X9, that's because Antifa is not a group, it's a movement - there is no controlling entity and no coherent ideology, and most who have expressed allegiance to date have indeed been nonviolent. If you contrast this with a group like Patriot Prayer or Proud Boys, they have leaders whose statements are typically interpreted by sources as summarising their ideology; these generally include elements of white supremacism. There's also the rather obvious point that an anti-fascist organisation has nothing to do unless there are fascists to oppose: the marches are started by fascists, so Antifa are likely to be counter-protesters against armed fascist groups, not instigators or protesters.

All that leads to sources outside the conservative media bubble not identifying them as anything like the problem that fascist groups are - reality-based sources tend not to judge the objective threat of a group based on the colour of their hats. And we follow the sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your complaint is filled with misinformation which does not appear in any reliable sources. I have a welcome message on your talk page. It provides links that explain how editors decide to present information in articles. TFD (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You are so full of bias, why are you allowed to be a mod? You claim that Antifa only goes after fascists, when that is clearly not the case. To them, simply voting for Trump makes you a fascist. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/19/uneasy-tensions-mount-during-san-francisco-free-speech-protest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choochootrain1 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Great work providing a "reference" that doesn't even mention antifa. FDW777 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Antifa is a group, this isn't up for debate, they organise, wear uniforms and have a flag as well as common beliefs. 2. Most police officers are non-violent, does that mean we are not supposed to mention police brutality on wikipedia? Likewise most Proud Boys are nonviolent, your bias is showing. 3. The organisation calling itself antifascist does NOT make it so, this isn't something I should have to explain, the fact they label others as fascists is irrelevant, otherwise we better start saying that North Korea is democratic. Keep your bias off what is supposed to be an objective site, wikipedia is a place for facts, not propaganda. - R065X9— Preceding unsigned comment added by R065X9 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. 1 is wrong, we've had this discussion multiple times. Please see the archives. 2 is just a rant, which I will not engage. I suggest you read up on the rules here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

this photograph

Patriot Prayer vs Antifa protests. Photo 11 of 14 (25095096398).jpg There is no reliable source confirming they're antifa, let alone Rose City Antifa in specific and the only thing the photograph depicts is some person holding an anarchist flag while dressed in black. All other explanation is assumption made by the image creator or editor here, thus it's original research. Graywalls (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Who is to say File:Enrique Tarrio.jpg actually is a picture of Enrique Tarrio (that you added to his article)? Applying your argument, it's an assumption made by the image creator or editor here, thus it's original research. FDW777 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You have a case if the photo itself doesn't offer reasonable identification. He's not wrapped up in plain black unmarked outfit that prevents identification. A picture of apple that says apple is self explanatory. A picture of a box that is labeled box of apples is quite a bit more questionable. Graywalls (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Enrique Tarrio but I think Graywalls' point is reasonable and it's in line with arguments I've made at Rose City Antifa ([16]) and Torch Network ([17]). It's not a matter of reliable sources or original research, neither of which really apply to photographs, but rather a matter of being especially cautious when making potentially contentious claims about presumably living people, and weighing that against the minimal benefit the image offers to the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are different arguments entirely. The argument I object to is that any claimed description of an image by an uploader is original research, and only image captions published by a reliable source are acceptable. Given they are images likely to be copyrighted, it has the potential to disqualify a vast percentage of images across Wikipedia based on spurious claims of original research. FDW777 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Had there been antifa flag visible in possession of the rioters, the picture itself would be self-describing. Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, what about File:Leopard 2 A7.JPG? Is it original research to add that to the Leopard 2 article? That's the slippery slope your argument goes down. FDW777 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It could be. There was an article (I couldn't exactly remember which) where an incorrect type/specie of something was put as the picture and went unnoticed for a long time, because of original research. Graywalls (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Then it's clearly an issue in need of far wider discussion that just this section of this talk page, as your interpretation of policy would effectively disqualify many thousands of images uploaded by editors or taken from places such as Flickr (depending on the identity of the uploader) across the entire encyclopedia. FDW777 (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly? This probably is a topic that needs broader discussion on the wiki, because most images are just assumed to correctly depict the claimed subject matter. There's not really any research or citation to confirm 90% of them, just a combination of "looks good enough" and trusting the person adding the image. Most of the time that seems fine, but then we have things that slip through the cracks (potentially for years) depicting the wrong subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Death connected to antifa

Associated Press reports that 48-year-old Michael Forest Reinoehl was shot and killed by law enforcement officers on September 3, 2020, when he pulled a gun as a federal task force attempted to apprehend him near Lacey, Washington. Agents from the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service had located him after a warrant was issued for his arrest as a suspect in the killing of 39-year-old Aaron "Jay" Danielson, a Patriot Prayer supporter who was shot to death on August 29, 2020, near a Pro-Trump rally in Portland. According to AP, "Reinoehl had described himself in a social media post as '100% ANTIFA.' A regular presence at anti-racism demonstrations in Portland, he suggested the tactics of counter-protesters amounted to 'warfare', and had been shot at one protest and cited for having a gun at another." Does this reported antifa connection merit mention in Wikipedia's Antifa (United States) article? It would serve to balance the existing statement, According to a 2020 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, there have been zero deaths linked to antifa. NedFausa (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

From his interview: "I am 100% anti-facist,” Reinoehl said in the Vice interview. “I’m not a member of Antifa. I’m not a member of anything." [18] O3000 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's well established that no one can be a member of antifa because it's neither a formal organization nor an informal group. Please note that the Associated Press quotes his self-description in a social media post as "100% ANTIFA." I trust Wikipedia editors will grasp this important distinction. NedFausa (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You can be a member of a local antifa group. Most RS refer to him as an antifa supporter. As said earlier, we can't assign killings by Republicans or Democrats to the respective parties. O3000 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Republicans and Democrats are members of their respective parties. Antifa (United States) cites a report ballyhooing that antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades. (Emphasis added.) Based on the AP story, it is fair to describe Michael Forest Reinoehl as an antifa activist. He should therefore be included in our article. NedFausa (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

He is an antifa supporter. He is an antifascist activist. I'm having difficulties with assigning individual crimes to a movement. If you go to anti-war, anti-vaxxing, anti-disco music rallies, and you kill someone, does that apply to the movement? I'm not sure where the lines are. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I get it. This ain't my first time at the rodeo of Antifa (United States), where I've previously made 133 edits (4.1% of the page total). I just thought I'd drop by after a 3-month absence to take the temperature. Thanks for reminding me of the lengths some will go to whitewash Antifa USA as a nonviolent movement composed of pacifists who wouldn't hurt a fly. NedFausa (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, don't make personal attacks. Stick to discussing content, not editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'm outta here for at least another three months. I feel stupid for even trying. NedFausa (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Membership in an organization without formal membership can be inferred based on a person's interactions with other members of the group. So far we have no reliable sources that claim Reinoehl was a member of antifa or that he associated in any way with them. Most importantly, there is no evidence that he killed Danielson while carrying out an activity with (other) members of antifa. TFD (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This article and its discussion always falls into the No true scotsman argument, in that any negative aspect of the movement is atributed to no "real" members or advocates, often labeling the person "antifascist" instead of Antifa, disregarding that there are sources which clearly specify local chapters. This person has been associated with Antifa by pretty much every mainstream media source

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arrest-portland-shooting.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-reinoehl-suspect-in-portland-shooting-is-killed-by-law-enforcement-11599193942 https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-investigating-antifa-supporter-michael-reinoehl-in-portland-shooting-11598904528

Loganmac (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Antifa supporter" is a very weak connection. I support the civil rights movement. But, my actions in life do not reflect on the movement. O3000 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion and the one above under #Include the recent murder in Portland OR: What matters is whether sources draw the connection. If green sources at WP:RSP regularly tie the person to antifa, then so should we. We follow the sources. It shouldn't be complicated, but I often see arguments on this page based on how someone personally understands antifa rather than on what sources say. There is frankly no need for debates about "membership" and whatnot. And one wonders if the person was a supporter of a non-violent and violent right-wing movement, whether there would be these attitudes of 'wait and see' and 'how strong was the connection?'. But fine, we can wait a bit and see what developing sources say. Editors also need to make sure not to confusingly conflate antifa and anti-fascism in their talk page comments. Antifa is just one form of anti-fascism, and as even Mark Bray said to Vox, these are self-described revolutionaries. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum. They’re not interested in and don’t feel constrained by conventional norms. Most Democratic Party politicians, for example, are anti-fascist but not antifa. If anyone really thinks antifa is just anti-fascism (because it's literally the name!) then they can try to get this article deleted as a WP:POV fork. Otherwise, let's avoid the (possibly unintentional) equivocation. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

But then, if a source says that Democratic legislator x killed his wife, do we put that in the WP article on the Democratic Party? O3000 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That's comparing apples and oranges. The Democratic Party is a highly mainstream political party, while antifa is known for nonviolent and violent direct action rather than...policy reform. A legislator's political party affiliation is clearly relevant to stories about him, while the political views of some guy who killed someone is not normally treated as relevant. Yet in this case, sources do so. Why do you think that is? And a more relevant comparison than your question is this: If this exact same scenario played out, but this person was being identified in sources as a supporter of Patriot Prayer and his victim as a progressive, would editors be making these same arguments? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that sources are no more making a connection in this case as in the case of a Democratic legislator. They're just saying he supports antifa. In the case of Patriot Prayer, is it a member of supporter? I would NOT make a connection if only a supporter, unless it was shown he was with the group. I haven't seen anyone say he was there with antifa. Now, clearly in an article about this shooter, antifa must be mentioned. Just not sure he should be mentioned in an article about antifa. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the news does frequently discuss the political views of killers. For example, the Kenosha shooter was a Republican and a Trump supporter - something stories about him do emphasize - but no one is suggesting that we put him on the pages for the Trump presidency or the Republican party. As far as If this exact same scenario played out, but this person was being identified in sources as a supporter of Patriot Prayer and his victim as a progressive, would editors be making these same arguments? goes, it's important to assume good faith (otherwise, we could as easily turn that around and ask why the people so eager to mention this on this page haven't been so aggressive about adding similar random accusations against supporters of non-progressive groups to their pages); but rather than flinging such baseless implications of bad faith at each other, we can ensure consistency by looking at comparable articles and coverage. Judging by articles for comparable groups I think it's pretty clear that there's an unusually intense pressure to mention any time anyone who supports Antifa is accused of anything in this article, which I absolutely do not see elsewhere. Aside from this incident, for instance, the Patriot Prayer article's activity section only mentions actions taken by the group as a whole or by things related to its leader that sources directly discuss in terms of the group's future; we don't mention "random Patriot Prayer supporter X was arrested for doing Y", and I couldn't find anyone suggesting those sorts of things on talk. I think that that supports the idea that it's WP:UNDUE here, at least right now. --Aquillion (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

When editors are making arguments that that others feel are poor and lead to violations of NPOV, addressing those is not a failure to AGF. It would be impossible to discuss NPOV otherwise. As for why the people so eager to mention this on this page haven't been so aggressive about adding similar random accusations against supporters of non-progressive groups to their pages, I for one certainly would be, but I know from looking around that such incidents never fail to get listed without my involvement, so why would I bother? As for the unusually intense pressure, well, that could be because people are trying to add things they shouldn't, or maybe people are trying to prevent the addition of things that should be added, or perhaps some of both. Point is, that cuts both ways. As for the Patriot Prayer article, I'd dispute that characterization; it talks about stuff like how the police found members of the organization carrying loaded firearms on the roof of a parking garage overlooking the site of the August protest and that Patriot Prayer member Ian Kramer beat Cider Riot patron Heather Clark unconscious and broke her vertebrae. To be clear, I do not believe that should be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you can possibly think those things are comparable - look at the sources. The first one details a group of Patriot Prayer members bringing firearms to a rooftop overlooking an upcoming Patriot Prayer protest; it directly relates to the group's activities because it is directly connected to the protest that they formally planned. The second one is part of the coverage of criminal charges against a group of Patriot Prayer members for something they did while led by the Patriot Prayer leader, with the coverage extensively detailing what these arrests mean for the future of the group as a whole. In both cases the coverage is almost entirely focused on Patriot Prayer as a group and extensively covers the activities being discussed in that context. By comparison, none of the sources for this have covered it as an "Antifa activity" or as something with serious implications for Antifa, merely as something that one supporter is accused of. --Aquillion (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion's rationale. I also do not think sources, at least those given sources below, give the strong connection, at least strong enough to be in this article, those for inclusion are claiming. They do not call it an "antifa protester" or that it was part of an antifa activity. They are all saying he was a (self-described) supporter and on his Instagram post stating "I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!" and yet he also said "he was not a 'member' of antifa, but supported the ideology." So which is it? It seems to be that he was an anti-fascist, but he was not a 'member' of antifa or connected to it as an antifa activity or so much as to warrant an inclusion in this very article. He claim he was a supporter, Ted Bundy was also a supporter of the Republican Party, so I think The Four Deuces was right in making that comparison (as both were described as supporters and not as engaging in Republican or antifa activities) and that this should not be mentioned in either article. Davide King (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Lots of reliable sources are mentioning some sort of connection between the suspect and Antifa. BBC calls him a "self-described antifa supporter" and notes his "I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!" Instagram post. The New York Times describes him as an "antifa supporter". The Wall Street Journal also describes him as an "antifa supporter". The Washington Post opens its article by describing him as "[a] vocal proponent of the far-left antifa movement", and the article says of the Vice interview: "Reinoehl said he was not a 'member' of antifa, but supported the ideology." NPR says that he "identified with the militant antifascists known as antifa".

So, reliable sources describe some sort of connection to antifa, ranging from a "supporter" of antifa to someone who "identified with ... antifa". In any case, the context in which the word "supporter" is used matters: in these articles, the purpose of including such language is to highlight his connection to antifa, not to minimize it. As far as this Wikipedia article goes, it is not our place to debate whether someone being a "supporter" of antifa is too weak to merit highlighting their connection to antifa; reliable sources have made that decision for us. And to expand on a point Crossroads made, antifa's notability is derived from its "nonviolent and violent direct action" over the past few years, so it seems relevant to include a killing whose perpetrator's "support" for/"identification" with antifa has been highlighted by reliable sources. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC); edited 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC) to use "suspect" language

Well, as an encyclopedia, yes it is our place to debate whether someone being a "supporter" of antifa is too weak to merit highlighting their connection to antifa.... in an article about antifa. Clearly it is WP:DUE in an article about him. Not clear about this article. So, it belongs in another article. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree that it is our place to debate whether or not the shooting is worth mentioning in the article. When I said that I don't think it's our place to debate whether or not the connection itself is too weak to merit highlighting the suspect's connection to antifa, my intention was to dispute the purpose of the "member vs. supporter" debates, not the debate as to whether or not it merits inclusion in article. I believe that the debate on due weight should be held without concern for whether or not "supporter" is too weak an affiliation. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC); edited 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC) to use "suspect" language

• And to expand on a point Crossroads made, antifa's notability is derived from its "nonviolent and violent direct action" over the past few years, so it seems relevant to include a killing whose perpetrator's "support" for/"identification" with antifa has been highlighted by reliable sources. But that part has not been highlighted by the sources - it is WP:SYNTH. If anything that is an argument against inclusion, since it implies that the reason people are demanding inclusion for something we normally would not mention in an article of this nature is because they see it as a way to present an argument against the "nonviolent and violent direct action" summary in sources. That argument is absolutely not something we can make ourselves; without that all we have are "an antifa supporter is accused of an unrelated crime", which is plainly WP:UNDUE without more in-depth coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not intend to argue that the shooting is an argument against the "nonviolent and violent direct action" summary; to the contrary, I believe a shooting is covered well by the summary of "nonviolent and violent direct action". I intended to argue against the notion that a shooting by someone whose support for/identification with antifa is well-documented by RS's does not merit inclusion in this article. Antifa's notability is derived largely (not entirely, but largely) from media coverage of its "nonviolent and violent direct action", so I believe this shooting is notable enough for inclusion. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this. It's not our place to debate what constitutes "full membership", he has been associated with the movement by reliable sources and has even in one ocassion self-described as antifa. Again, all arguments against mentioning this person fall under the No true scotsman retort which is a really thin thread. Loganmac (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The only association in reliable sources is that he said he was "100% antifa." He also said, "I am not a member of antifa." The homicide did not occur at an antifa demonstration and there is no evidence he attended with antifa members. We had a similar discussion about Timothy McVeigh. Initially, reliable sources falsely claimed he was a member of the Michigan Militia. But people like him are not people people and it turned out that he was not a member. Anders Breivik on the other hand had extensive connections with the English Defence League and we mention it in that article. And Ted Bundy, who was a delegate to the Republican convention and went on to murder dozens of women is not mentioned in the article about the Republican Party because his crimes were wholly unconnected with his political affiliation. TFD (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ted Bundy's murders shouldn't be mentioned in the Republican Party article, nor should a murder by a Democratic politician be mentioned in the Democratic Party article. But to compare that to this issue is a stretch. The Democratic and Republican parties are notable because each has a history of being one of the two major political parties in the United States for well over a century; given that context, some Democratic or Republican politician committing murder is not notable enough to be mentioned in an article about that politician's party (unless that murder has a significant impact on the party's history as one of two major U.S. political parties). Antifa, on the other hand, is a movement whose notability is largely derived from media coverage of "nonviolent and violent direct action" from those affiliated with the movement. Given that context, a shooting committed by someone whose support for antifa is highlighted by reliable sources seems to me to be notable enough for inclusion.

I should note that the Instagram post that reliable sources are citing doesn't merely consist of the suspect saying he's "100% ANTIFA"; some of the articles I listed (including the Washington Post and NPR articles) include more text from the Instagram post, in which he expresses a willingness to fight alongside antifa. That being said, it's also not my place to judge whether or not the suspect's affiliation with antifa is significant enough based on the Instagram post, or whether the shooting needs to have occurred at an antifa demonstration for the connection to antifa to be significant. Reliable sources have made that decision for us; they've decided that his support for (or, in the language of the NPR article, that he "identified with") antifa is significant enough that it is worth highlighting in articles about the shooting. This doesn't automatically mean that we have to include the shooting in the article; rather, it means that whether the suspect's connection to antifa was too weak to be relevant to the shooting is a moot point in the context of this Wikipedia article, because reliable sources have made that decision for us. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC); edited 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC) to use "suspect" language

Reliable sources have also determined that Ted Bundy's membership in the Republican Party is significant enough to mention in books about him. You need to show that articles about antifa mention Reinoehl. Anyway if Reinoehl had had an actual connection to antifa, other than his statements, we would know by now. TFD (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We could argue in circles about what it means to have an "actual connection" to antifa, and whether the suspect fits that criteria, but Wikipedia editors' opinions on whether the suspect had an "actual connection" to antifa is irrelevant. What matters is the part about RS's articles about antifa mentioning the suspect; if they do, then the shooting belongs in the article. (We can mention the shooting without mentioning the name of the suspect, given BLP concerns.) And some RS's have already written articles explaining antifa while mentioning the suspect and his support for antifa in the beginning of the article: Deseret News, Indian Express, and The Wall Street Journal.

Comparing an article about a political movement that has only recently gained media attention largely due to its direct action in recent years to the Wikipedia article for a party that has had a prominent role in all areas of U.S. politics for over a century is not helpful here. I would like to note that the article on the alt-right mentions the Charlottesville car attack, as it should. I could just as easily make the argument that this should be removed from the article because the Democratic Party article doesn't mention Preston Brooks' attack on Charles Sumner or the Chappaquiddick incident. Of course, the Democratic Party article shouldn't include these acts of violence, because they're inconsequential compared to the Democratic Party's history as a major U.S. political party for nearly two centuries. To be clear, my argument isn't that the Portland shooting and Charlottesville attack are perfectly comparable events; rather, my argument is that in the context of whether or not to mention violent incidents, it is not useful to compare an article on a major U.S. political party to an article on a political movement that has recently become prominent due to its direct actions. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC); edited 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC) to use "suspect" language

The Charlottesville car attack occurred during a demonstration that had been organized by the founder of the alt-right, which was protested by anti-fascists. Since it was the main event that occurred at the rally, it has to be mentioned. If someone is killed in an antifa demonstration, that should be mentioned too. But we don't include every crime by every person who has expressed sympathy for the alt-right in the article. We don't for example list every Trump official who has been indicted. TFD (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not argue that we should include every crime by anyone who has expressed sympathy for the alt-right in the alt-right article, nor did I make that argument for antifa. I agree with you on that issue, but it doesn't answer the question of whether this particular shooting should be included in the article. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally I would look at tertiary sources such as a section about antifa in a political science textbook or a descriptive article in mainstream media. They show what the weight of various topics is. Unfortunately they are not available so we either have to wait or guess, which requires some judgment and different editors may come to different conclusions. The only connection we have though is that Reinoehl said both he was 100% antifa and not a member. But he has no known association with antifa members or attendance at an antifa meeting or demonstration and was not with antifa members when he allegedly carried out his attack. He appears to have had been mentally unbalanced rather than an actual member. TFD (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the solution is to wait a bit to see if some future articles on antifa mention the shooting (assuming my understanding of BLP policy isn't horribly far off here). Also, I'd like to reiterate that any editor's judgment of the sufficiency of the suspect's connection to antifa is irrelevant here. What's relevant is what RS's make of it. (In addition to the sources above, NPR just released an interview with Mark Bray explaining antifa with the suspect mentioned at the start of the interview, so I think there's a fairly strong case to be made that mentioning the shooting is not undue given the nature of antifa's notability. I'm mostly concerned about seeing how articles handle the fact that he's considered a "suspect"; interestingly, that word did not appear in NPR's description of the suspect in this interview, but we can wait to see if future articles follow suit.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In light of Doug Weller's comment below, and given that RS's are referring to the man as a "suspect", I'm more skeptical about including the shooting in the article, at least for now. I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia handles individuals referred to as "suspects", but if mentioning this shooting in the article would violate that policy, waiting for more coverage of the shooting before making a decision is probably the best way to go. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How Wikipedia handles suspects is encapsulated in WP:SUSPECT: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. In other words, we need to steer clear of this story about a non-public figure who is at any rate marginal to our topic, at least until there is more certainty. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we should wait to see what sources make of this shooting and the suspect. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

On the narrow question of whether Reinoehl should be classed as an "antifa supporter", and whether the killing should be considered "linked" to antifa, Brian Levin and Gary LaFree (both quoted as experts in the present article) appear to take the view that these questions should be answered with "yes", as does Daniel Byman.

Sources:

If Reinoehl is implicated in the case, it would mark the first time in recent years that an antifa supporter has been charged with homicide, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. … Gary LaFree, chairman of the University of Maryland's criminology department, said the case could potentially be included in the university's Global Terrorism Database as the first act of terror linked to antifa. (Voice of America, Sep 1; Reinoehl was charged with second-degree murder two days later)

I asked Brian Levin about this. He leads an extremism research center at California State University, San Bernardino. He's been tracking the left's evolving response to right-wing violence in recent years. And I asked him what went through his head when he heard that the shooter was an anti-fascist, and this was his reply. BRIAN LEVIN: Here it is. For us, it wasn't a question of if; it was a question of when, and here it is. (NPR, Sep 4)

This “arms race” that seems to be starting up among members of the far right and the hard left is extremely disturbing, especially as the nation heads into the thick of the political season, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, pointing out that the Portland shooting was the first known killing by an antifa supporter. (Orange County Register, Sep 7)

... antifa in the United States was not linked to deadly violence until August 29, when self-proclaimed antifa member Michael Reinoehl allegedly shot a right-wing activist who was a member of Patriot Prayer. (Daniel Byman in Vox, Sep 22)

I don't wish to make a case for or against inclusion in this article at this time, but thought that as this specific point was discussed at length above, it would be helpful to post what I've found in relevant sources to date. --Andreas JN466 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's a source from the Government Accountability Office that may be useful: [19]. It notes that no deaths were linked to far-left extremists in general between 12 September 2001 and 31 December 2016: "During this period, no persons in the United States were killed in attacks carried out by persons believed to be motivated by extremist environmental beliefs, extremist “animal liberation”beliefs, or extremist far left beliefs". This may or may not be applicable to questions about antifascists in particular, as antifa/antifascism is not mentioned specifically in this report. Jlevi (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466 and Jlevi, we currently write in the lead at Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl that "Danielson's killing marked the first time in recent United States history that an antifa supporter was charged with homicide."

In the body, we currently states that "Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the California State University, San Bernardino, commented to Voice of America in an article published on September 1, when investigations were still ongoing, that if Reinoehl was implicated it would mark the first case in recent history of an antifa supporter being charged with homicide. Commenting in The Orange County Register on September 7, Levin said the incident was the "first known killing by an antifa supporter", describing it as "an outlier but also a bellwether. [...] You have a perfect storm in this country with a polarized population, a presidential election, a global pandemic that is frustrating and devastating people, and disinformation and conspiracy theories spreading on social media. The biggest threat is still, far-right white supremacist groups. But you also see that Facebook has become fertile soil for the mushrooming of small groups and lone actors." Voice of America reported that Gary LaFree, chairman of the criminology department at the University of Maryland, said "the case could potentially be included in the university's Global Terrorism Database as the first act of terror linked to antifa."

References

Aquillion, Arms & Hearts, bobfrombrockley, Crossroads, Cullen328, Doug Weller, Emir of Wikipedia, FDW777, The Four Deuces, Graywalls, Greyfell, Ivanvector, Jared.h.wood, JzG, K.e.coffman, Muboshgu, XOR'easter (apologies if I missed any and for the many pings, I thought it would be good to be as inclusive as possible), should it be mentioned and included here? If so, where and how to word it? Davide King (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

His self-proclaimed military experience couldn't be verified. His self-proclaimed antifa affiliation needs verification. Only thing we know for certain is he says media says he says he's 100% antifa. I'm not satisifed about inclusion until something beyond he says, she says shows connection Graywalls (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, thanks for your comment. From my understanding, he seemed to see antifa as anti-fascism, so they may well have been more of an anti-fascist activist than antifa, unless, as you wrote, his self-proclaimed antifa affiliation is verified, for example if he belonged to a local antifa group. Davide King (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, to be clear, I am also 100% anti-fascist. For example, I'm not a fan of police who "don't want" to arrest someone, killing them instead.

Guy (help! - typo?) 07:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:Even though he proclaimed military experience, https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909515885/protester-suspected-in-portland-shooting-death-killed-by-law-enforcement here they say Army has no record. so I'd think adding him (or Aaron Danielson to PP) without a reliable secondary source affirming their membership is undue. There's no rush. Those people should be left off of PP or Antifa pages until reliable sources say in their own voice about their affiliation. Graywalls (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I agree, it makes sense. In addition, LaFree and Levin seem use more careful and hypotetical wording, so we would need stronger wording rather than "the case could potentially be included in the university's Global Terrorism Database as the first act of terror linked to antifa" or "that if Reinoehl was implicated it would mark the first case in recent history of an antifa supporter being charged with homicide." If LaFree and Levin have commented more on this, that would be helpful; but until then, I believe it is still undue here. Somewhat ironically and perhaps terrifying, if we add that "Reinoehl was [the first] antifa supporter being charged with homicide", we may also have add that this would also be the case of the first killing of an antifa protester by the government as "the Thurston County sheriff's department is conducting a criminal homicide investigation into Reinoehl's death" and several news sources "described [Trump's] statement[s] as appearing to endorse extrajudicial killing." Just to be clear, I do not think either are due for the article, as things stand. Davide King (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Davide King. I haven't seen any ongoing debate in media or scholarly sources as to whether Reinoehl was tied to antifa or not. He's been routinely described as a "supporter" of antifa (Washington Post) or an "antifa activist" (New York Times, last week). The Guardian said the other day, "anti-fascist activists had not been linked to any deadly violence in the US before the shooting in Oregon", citing the same CSIS research we are citing here. I lean towards including a mention. (Incidentally, JzG, that New York Times article takes Trump's "they" in "they didn't want to arrest him" as referring to the local authorities in Portland, though I've also seen an Oregon Live article pointing out that it was somewhat ambiguous whether Trump meant the marshals or the local authorities. The NYT article has video of the statements; it's noticeable that their write-up reverses the order in which Trump spoke these sentences. NYT evidently wanted to remove the ambiguity, and leave the reader with the impression that by "they" Trump meant the Portland authorities who he said had been dragging their feet. Wonderful times.) --Andreas JN466 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, as always, the problem is that you can't join Antifa. It's like the homosexual agenda: it exists more as a whipping-boy than as an actual thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Then all we can go by here is sources. If the New York Times says he was an antifa activist, and Levin says he was an antifa supporter, etc., then – absent equally weighty sources disputing that characterization – we have little basis for second-guessing them. --Andreas JN466 13:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included, but with a caveat which I'll get to. All that matters is that reliable sources - in this case reputable news media and experts on extremism - make that connection; editors can't overrule that with their own talking points about the nature of antifa. We do not editorially minimize or hide bad behavior by the far-left because they claim to fight for a Good Cause, nor out of a misguided and wrong belief that anything negative about them helps the right, nor because the far-right is so much worse. There will probably be a need to make this matter into an RfC; I'd suggest typing up a proposed addition that is not overly long and asking if it should be added. That said, I'm about to make an WP:IAR-type argument. I suggest we wait a month or two until after the US election and the outcome becomes clear and indisputable. I think people will be in a better mindset then to decide such controversial issues, and it's also possible that sources will become even more weighty on this matter by then. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the "wait a month or two" approach. I also think that we're obligated to dig deeper into our available sources than whatever two-word epithets they use in headlines and pull quotes. If X, Y, and Z characterize someone as an "antifa supporter", we can obviously report that; we should also report the grounds on which they make that assessment and what, to them, being an "antifa supporter" (or "antifa activist", etc.) entails. The same concerns apply to semi-disorganized movements across the political spectrum, e.g., if an individual were described as a "Boogaloo supporter" or "QAnon promoter". XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, XOR'easter, as I stated in the thread below, I do no hold a definitive position yet and I am willing to change my mind based on the strength of arguments and sources provided. I agree that it is probably better to wait, especially now that "the Thurston County sheriff's department is conducting a criminal homicide investigation into Reinoehl's death". If the investigation concludes that it was a murder or extrajudicial killing and sources highlight this, we may also have to add that this was the first "antifa supporter" killed by the police/government and not just that this was the first antifa-related murder. Of course, this is conjecture as things stand, but it does show that it is better to wait, see how the investigation concludes, etc. I also agree with XOR'easter that we need to "dig deeper into our available sources than whatever two-word epithets they use in headlines and pull quotes". For example, what is meant by "antifa supporter"? Do they mean that he was a member of a local antifa group, which would make it more due; or that he was a supporter of antifa the same way one is a supporter of liberalism and conservatism (we do not mention any liberal or conservative-related murder and the FBI and other sources agree that antifa is more of an ideology/decentralised movement than an organisation), which would make it less due in my view. I could be wrong though. In other words, was he only an anti-fascist activist (while antifa may see the two as the same thing, sources and others may disagree, i.e. one can be an anti-fascist without conducting antifa, i.e. anti-fascist direct action, or being a member of antifa local group, which may or may not be the case of Reinohel) who sympathised with antifa, or was he more tied to antifa, for example as a member of a local antifa group? So I believe XOR'easter raised an interesting point and I also agree this does not apply only to antifa. Davide King (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I also think we can and should wait, there's no deadline for an encyclopedia. I also agree with XOR'easter and Davide King's posts above. We need to be very careful about random journalist comments which are often based on cursory/no research. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the pinging me on this, Davide King. I see that the Reinoehl investigation has been added to the Analyses and studies section and I agree with the inclusion. I would like to point out that the Civil rights organizations section has the same no murder linked to antifa wording but does not include the Reinoehl investigation. As an alternative to adding Reinoehl again, I suggest moving the content of the Civil rights organizations section to the Effectiveness section and removing the redundant wording. This would also allow editors to remove the needs expansion tag on the Effectiveness section. Jared.h.wood (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, thanks for your comment. Are you referring to "there have not been any known antifa-related murders" wording? That is actually a quote from the source and several reliable sources have noted that, at the time they wrote and before Reinohel, there was no murder or death linked to antifa, so I think it is fine to note that as we do in the body for the ADL and The Guardian and that they have since added Reinhoel. As for your move proposal, that is a good one. However, do you think that any of what I added here can be better summarised and paraphrased? You are also free to add or suggest more academic or scholarly sources and also to substitute one of the sources I used for another that you feel is more relevant or due, etc. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, Yes, the wording you quoted is what I was talking about. You asked for my opinion on this. Please know that I recognize that I am out of my depth here, and I worry that my suggestion deviates from the topic of this already very long talk topic. But I will try to express my thoughts as one simple suggestion. If you would like to discuss it further, perhaps a new topic would be warranted. Here it is: This article and the new edit you are working on are dominated by direct quotes from sources. As a reader, I would prefer to have the relevant POVs clearly and boldly stated instead of having to parse through so many direct quotes from sources. This is especially true where the direct quotes are time context sensitive and become outdated as time passes. I searched for a Wikipedia guideline that covers this but couldn't find what I was looking for. Hopefully what I'm pointing out makes sense. If it does, I'd be happy to try creating an example in an appropriate place. Again, I'm out of my depth here. Jared.h.wood (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jared.h.wood. I agree that my edits "are dominated by direct quotes from sources" but that is because I did not exactly how to summarise or paraphrase them, or I wanted other users help me doing that. So I believe the solution was to follow PRESERVE, tag them and better summarise and paraphrase them rather than simply remove them. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so I thought of adding content that could be relevant to the article and that we would work on the wording to improve it. I thought it would be better to "go with the flow" since discussion did not provide any way to improve the wording, or better sources to use and with a proposal of how incorporate them. Davide King (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Archive after 14 days? Or less?

Any reasoned objections to me adjusting the archive bot to archive after 14 days instead of 30? Or even less, maybe 10? This talk page is very busy and getting really clustered, and after a week and a half to two weeks, conversations tend not to be restarted. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)