Jump to content

Talk:Antifa (United States): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 259: Line 259:


I imagine editors other than [[User:ValentinesDay88|ValentinesDay88]] have opinions on whether information about Willem Van Spronsen's attack on a detention centre in Tacoma, Washington belongs in this article. While the article cited in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=906318311 their addition] doesn't draw any connection between Van Spronsen and antifa, other reliable sources do, including [https://heavy.com/news/2019/07/willem-van-spronsen-emma-durutti/ Tom Cleary in ''Heavy''], who describes him as "affiliated with the Puget Sound Anarchists and local antifa groups" and quotes him as saying, in his "manifesto," "I am antifa". I think a sentence in the article cited to this source would probably be appropriate. – [[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I imagine editors other than [[User:ValentinesDay88|ValentinesDay88]] have opinions on whether information about Willem Van Spronsen's attack on a detention centre in Tacoma, Washington belongs in this article. While the article cited in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=906318311 their addition] doesn't draw any connection between Van Spronsen and antifa, other reliable sources do, including [https://heavy.com/news/2019/07/willem-van-spronsen-emma-durutti/ Tom Cleary in ''Heavy''], who describes him as "affiliated with the Puget Sound Anarchists and local antifa groups" and quotes him as saying, in his "manifesto," "I am antifa". I think a sentence in the article cited to this source would probably be appropriate. – [[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 13:57, 15 July 2019

Template:Friendly search suggestions

RfC: antifa and terrorism

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

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

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

Survey

Please provide evidence that what I "think" is wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENSOR is specifically about content considered to be "objectionable or offensive‍". I don't think anybody has objected to the inclusion of these claims on anything approaching those grounds, and I don't think you really believe that anyone has. The policy is expressly not about material that runs counter to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or is believed to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D I say mention the terrorism allegation, but attribute it to Politico per WP:REDFLAG. I have some issue stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice given the silence of other reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) --Despite having drafted Option D (rather poorly, I adimt), I have been swayed by many of the arguments here that given some combination of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, the best course is to keep this claim out. Therefore Option C. Apologies for both my flightiness and poor drafting. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dumuzid, would you care to draft some language, add it as a new Option D, and create a new Option E as ??? R2 (bleep) 19:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahrtoodeetoo, I thought I'd run it by you here first, but I would want something like,
Per Politico, by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.
I think it's important to note the Politico report, but we also have to say that it's kind of murky. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C Per WP:REDFLAG, we should not make include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." This story has mostly been picked up in the "echo chamber" of unreliable websites and no one else appears to have seen these secret documents. At most it could only be mentioned with in text attribution saying it was a claim made in Politico not an established fact. TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't follow. The story was picked up and cited approvingly by Newsweek, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and The Hill. Hardly an echo chamber of unreliable websites. R2 (bleep) 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said mostly. It haven't seen the story reported in cable or network news (except Fox) or American quality newspapers. That seems to me that they put little credit in the story or think it is unimportant, both of which are reasons to exclude it. TFD (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D Attribution might be a better alternative that Option B. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B This is reliably sourced factual content. It's highly significant, and the story was picked up by other reliable sources such as Newsweek, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and The Hill. Option B reflects the source; Options A and D do not. I would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant when it published that antifa's activities were "formally designated" as domestic terrorism. Alas they didn't; but that doesn't mean we should exclude this important information, or add unsourced commentary. R2 (bleep) 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As was explained to you above, the Politico source specifically says that The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public. I'm baffled that you could think that your preferred version is backed by that source while omitting that key aspect, or that you could muse about how you "would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant" while leaving out the one key clarification that the source you're trying to use provides. Without that clarification, you are misusing the source, meaning that B is not a workable option, fullstop - even if you think the source is worth including, you must summarize all of it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C per Simonm and TFD. Alternatively, if anything is to be included it should be Option D. That way readers are aware of the full context behind the statement.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D Except that I'd drop the final sentence unless that final sentence can be sourced. I think attribution is warranted here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't like that last sentence either (and I wrote it!), but it feels wrong to leave the "classification" out there as if it were a well-understood and known thing. I'm still mulling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without additional good sources, I favour Option C or Option A. Options B and D are both absolutely unacceptable based on a single source which is quite likely to be mistaken or mispeaking. We have nothing from the DHS to corroborate the vague claims made by the single source. This is hearsay at best. If a DHS classification list did exist then we can be absolutely certain that other sources would have covered it too. The fact that there is only one source for this claim very strongly suggests that is mistaken. Option B simply gives credence to the unreliable claim and is unacceptable. Option D is its weird, nervous cousin. It makes the claim and then partially walks it back with a caveat that is unsourced editorialising. This is weaselly. Both options B and D are also worded incorrectly by saying "Antifa's activities" which suggests an organisation with agency. Antifa is not an organisation. In short options B and D are both dumpster fires and would need to be reworded even if we had sufficient sources to support what they are trying to say. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the above, I am now leaning more towards C than A. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B or D Seems to be the most reasonable description. I do not think D is necessary but would be okay with it as a compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPTION A - nothing new has occurred to shift the long-standing text on the 2017 tidbit. I’m thinking it should have been attributed to Politico back when as that seems the source, but the option D goes into an unacceptable too much ‘unclear what that means’ and meanwhile keeping it the same seems OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D: Its only one sources claim.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B (invited by the bot) if you can find a second source for that, otherwise A or D. BTW you have a structural problem with this RFC as currently arranged. Roughly speaking the "include" sentiment is divided between three options (A,B,D),and the exclude sentiment not divided and all in C. A fix would be combine results from A,B & D into a "include at least a little bit" sentiment.
Agreed re:structural issue. Galestar (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C - What we have is an issue where an "anonymous DHS employee" provided Politico with documents they claimed classified "antifa" as a terrorist organization. DHS has refused to comment publicly, and there has been no further corroboration of the story. I don't doubt the Politico reporter was shown documents by someone in DHS, but whether those documents were legitimate or provided out-of-context is very unclear. Reliable sources can make mistakes or be fed misinformation, so without further corroboration, I don't think it's due weight to include this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C, or, failing that, A. Strong oppose to B and D; both are both completely unacceptable - they misrepresent the source by giving the impression that the DHS publicly made that designation, which numerous sources (including the Politico article itself) specifically say it did not. Even with proper wording, it would be WP:UNDUE - this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim with very little coverage relative to what you'd expect if it was worth including, and at this point it's clear that the story went nowhere and doesn't really say anything meaningful about the topic; dredging up, essentially, a two-year-old article that failed to gain traction doesn't make sense. But the wording proposed in both B and D completely misrepresents the source in a way that makes them flatly unusable as written. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D or B - Option D, preferably without the last sentence, unless it can be sourced. Mcrt007 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose B as it states something as fact that cannot be verified and as has been pointed out above suggests that it was a public statement rather than something coming from anonymous sources. Strongly oppose D for the reasons given by DanielRigal and Aquillion and of course the last sentence isn't sourced. Strongly opposed A because it's wrong. The FBI and DHS did not report anything. Anonymous figures within those organisation told, not reported, Politico various things. Which leaves me Support C unless someone comes up with reliable sources other than Politico. If WP:UNDUE applies anywhere, it applies here. Note that I am not supporting terrorism. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C per Doug Weller et al. Sources really don't back up the Politico story, and the whole things smells rotten to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C as above. Just don't see the sourcing for such a label. O3000 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C per Doug Weller and others. We need context from reliable sources before passing this on, and we shouldn't be intentionally including confusing details just because we can find a flimsy source. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C - A single anonymously-sourced claim reported in a single source doesn't appear to merit any weight here, particularly given the inflammatory context of the word "terrorist." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C - per Doug Weller.--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C - From the news, it is clear that Antifa does have a tendency towards violence, and if the DHS equates "violence" with "terrorism", the source may even be telling the truth. The problem is that most people don't equate "violence" with "terrorism." To most people, "terrorism" denotes random attacks, with murderous intent, on disfavored groups of people, such as 9/11, truck bombings, the Mazatlan or Hasan Nidal shootings, etc. That's quite different from Antifa's preferred form of violence, which appears to be relatively low-level violence, such as thrown objects or nonfatal beatings, against individuals it doesn't like. It's not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend it is.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorism is defined slightly differently by various major institutions in the US. The Department of State defines it (approximately) as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f). The Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political." More US definitions: here. Mcrt007 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C - per a gross lack of addtional, stronger sourcing failing WP:V for an exceptional claim. The fact that it was all reported as an internal discussion with no further clarifications means policies are against its inclusion. Goverment agency internal discussions usually can generate all kinds of wild shit out of sheer ineptitude alone, we're not going to list them until an official statement is made. Option B and D are completely unacceptable for we're going to be responsible for another citogenesis incident. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 04:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had not heard the term citogenesis before but I was aware that this is a thing that can happen. I am pretty sure that I have seen deliberate attempts to trigger it on this article and several others. It is good to have a name for it. In a post-truth world, editing Wikipedia can feel like a step towards editing reality itself. We need to take a tough line on this in order to discourage a pipeline that runs along the lines of: Unsupported assertion from an anonymous source -> Credulous journalist -> One RS source -> Wikipedia -> Other RS sources via Wikipedia -> Perceived truth. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D without the last sentence: This information has been reported by several reliable sources and is clearly relevant. The claim that this information is somehow exceptional is wrong; on the contrary this classification isn't much of a novelty compared to how this movement has long been classified elsewhere. Antifa, as the term is understood in Europe where it originated, is a loose movement traditionally affiliated with "anti-imperialist" communism ("imperialist" meaning the U.S./NATO/the western world); as such it was seen as a threat to national security in countries like the Federal Republic of Germany. The "Antifa" movement has long been classified as "extremist" and "violent" in German government reports, and is monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the agency tasked with matters of domestic extremism and terrorism, as openly stated on their website and in their public reports on extremism. This is the main definition of Antifa/"anti-fascism" published by the federal office:

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

In order to understand what the term has come to mean, especially in Europe, one has to remember that for decades, the Soviet Union daily used the word "fascism" to describe the western world and "anti-fascism" to describe the Soviet struggle against the western world (the official name of the Berlin Wall being one of countless examples: "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart"); as a result "anti-fascism" and "Antifa" took on a specific meaning, unrelated to historical fascism (even social democrats were for years smeared as "fascists" by the Soviets and their supporters).
The decades-long established official view of the German government on "Antifa" really isn't very much different from what is now reported to be the American government's view on this movement. This is particularly significant since the German government is often regarded as the antithesis to Trump these days. (As most people know, I'm not at all a supporter of Donald Trump, but we should evaluate the relevance of this piece of information based on its merits rather than an automatic rejection of everything the Trump administration does.) --Tataral (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, is American Antifa really the same thing? Are they just adopting a common moniker? I am not sure (though I am far from an expert) that we can really rely on prior or geographically disparate experience here. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the majority of Americans involved in loose "Antifa" groups in the U.S. have a full understanding of the history of the term/movement in Europe and all its connotations, but on the other hand they have adopted the name and symbols and professed goals of this historical movement from Europe. Regardless, it's noteworthy if the U.S. government considers them to be "domestic terrorists". My main point above was that this isn't very exceptional when the German government has called the similarly named movement in Germany "extremists" and "violent", and monitored them in that context, for decades. --Tataral (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow -your arguments on this rfc are by far the most insightful. Thank you, Tataral! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

  • It's an inappropriate use of WP:NOTCENSORED to argue against the application of WP:FRINGE. The idea that a loose ideological grouping which have killed no people in political violence is considered terrorists by the state without any such indication from the state is the very definition of a WP:FRINGE statement, and the fact that it showed up in Politico should be making people doubt the reliability of Politico, rather than lending credence to this fringe nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simonm223, there may be an angle to this that you're missing. The fact that a group of people has been labeled as terrorists by the government doesn't mean they are terrorists. This is especially true in this administration, which lacks credibility across the board. I think this story is comparable to other instances in which the federal government has targeted non-terrorist groups as terrorists, for example here. The fact that the Trump administration is targeting left-wing groups is plausible, even likely, and highly significant. It's consistent with Trump's "both sides" rhetoric. And the fact that they would publicly deny it is totally unsurprising to me. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, see WP:RGW and WP:NPOV. I don't care who you love or hate, but this page is not for defending terrorists. wumbolo ^^^ 19:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost me Wumbolo, but the purpose of my comment above is to try to bring us toward a consensus, and I don't know if your response helps in that respect. I don't think anyone here is loving or hating or defending terrorists. R2 (bleep) 19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also lost, but about the comment about a group of people being labeled as terrorists. R2 I agree with you about credibility, but where were they labelled as terrorists. Wumbolo's post seems an attack on editors who disagree with him. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when asking for reliable sources gets you labeled a friend of terrorists. So which, laugh or cry? Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, according to the Politico source, Antifa's activities were labeled as domestic terrorism. In my view this is somewhat akin other left-wing groups that the feds have added to terrorist watch lists in the past, like Greenpeace or PETA. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo I'd remind you of WP:NOTFORUM your belief in imaginary leftist terrorists is irrelevant to whether this is a violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if someone actually described a terrorist act or even planned terrorist act about whomever Antifa is supposed to be. Otherwise, I go with Option E. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could be mistaken, but don't believe there's any evidence antifa has ever engaged in any sort of terrorism. But that doesn't seem to be a basis for ignoring this significant development, which, in my view, reflects more on the federal government than it does on antifa. R2 (bleep) 22:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, Objectcive3000, but we also have Politico, which might not be a top-tier RS, but I'd say is B+, making a significant claim. I think it definitely merits inclusion, but also needs context to make sure it doesn't veer into WP:UNDUE. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I look askance at declarations from this gov't. I suggest we wait a tad and see what comes of this. My own opinion, which is irrelevant, is that antifa is a disconnected bunch of drunken, pissed off assholes with nothing better to do. But, I was wrong when I missed the fun in 1789 at the Bastille. O3000 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't breaking news. 2017. FWIW these weren't "declarations" by the government. This was investigative reporting using multiple sources and documents. R2 (bleep) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Your version still carries the implication that they have been publicly designated as domestic terrorism, when the source specifically says otherwise. I'm baffled that you can continue to make that mistake despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you. I don't think the source passes WP:DUE at all, but your consistent insistence on misreading it in a way that makes it seem more dramatic and important than it actually is only undermines your arguments for inclusion, since it seems like an implicit acknowledgement that once the The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public bit is included in the summary (as it would have to be, in any version we put in the article), the whole thing becomes a nothingburger not worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dumuzid I don't know what is meant by "formally designating" something as domestic terrorism, but I suspect it has something to do with this. There was a DHS office that tracked domestic terrorists, and according to the reporting there might still be one. R2 (bleep) 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you're right, and I also suspect that maybe the journalist phrased it in a way that the source might not have; all that said, it's still just...terribly unclear! So it goes. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have anything other than an unconfirmed story almost two years old, not mentioned in any of the major mainstream news outlets and with zero followup? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was exactly the point I was about to make. The "concerns" highlighted in the Politico article amounted to precisely nothing. There was no sign of widespread coverage at the time, and none since. More likely is that it was useful for the Trump administration to portray Antifa in an unfavorable light at the time, statements were made by government officials to that effect, and Politico and a couple of other Beltway media organs lazily reported them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what are these acts of domestic terrorism they are supposed to have carried out? The Weather Underground article says the FBI considered them a terrorist group, then outlines various terrorist actions they carried out such as bombing the Capitol, the Pentagon and various other U.S. government installations. I haven't seen any coverage of antifa carrying out these sorts of attacks. On would expect that Politico's article would at least explain the reasons for the label, if in fact their story is accurate. TFD (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you see, someone who might or might not have been a member of an antifascist group threw a milkshake at a racist blogger, and that's exactly the same as what the Weather Underground got up to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a plain violation of BLP to call Ngo a racist blogger without providing RS to that effect. Also, they didn't just throw a milkshake at him; they sucker-punched him in the head, repeatedly kicked him. Then they threw something that looks like milshakes on him. He had to go to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a brain hemorrhage. Relatedly, here is a video of Antifa smashing private property and terrorizing people: [1]. There are, of course, many other examples of this sort of behavior. It's very surprising that people are acting like we've never seen this sort of thing from Antifa. Obviously both 'antifa' and 'terror' are going to be disputed words. But we have RS reporting something about this dispute, and with attribution it seems clearly to be due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you posted a video from an anti-Trump demonstration in January 2017 (see DisruptJ20) in a discussion about an entirely unrelated anti-fascist demonstration in June 2019? Neither the video nor the description anywhere mentions "Antifa". Are you confused or are you actively trying to mislead people? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The video was relevant to the question whether Antifa has committed acts of terror, which was also under discussion. I figured some would deny that the black clad "protestors" in the video were Antifa. The matter is disputed. In my opinion, the existence of this dispute is part of why the Politco report is worthy of incusion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean finding examples of academics talking about Quillette pushing a bias in articles on race is a trivial task. Quillette is a racist blog. Ngo writes for a racist blog with articles under his byline including this one and this one. Basically quack quack. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't say he writes for a racist blog; you said he's a racist. That's a violation of BLP. An opinion piece in Arcdigital is not RS for such a claim. Quillette is not a blog. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia describes Quillette as an online magazine, not a blog, but I can't find any description for "arcdigital" which seems to be an obscure (Medium hosted) blog with only 1500 followers. Nicholas Grossman, the author of the article you linked to, seems to be an academic, in the so-called Political Sciences field but he has virtually zero citations and peer-reviewed research. He laments the Quillette article pushes "bad Social Science" - that's quite likely, especially since the entire Social Science field is full of junk research and bad statistics which affect (though to a lesser degree) even so-called "top-studies" like those peer-reviewed and published in the highest impact "science magazines" (Nature & Science) where less than 1% of "researchers" active in the field get to publish. The argument of "pushing a bias in an article" can easily be used against any publication which chooses to publish this kind of research, statistically week or, even worse, invalidated by future experiments (even for Science magazine) if the qualification criteria is just pointing to an anecdote (e.g.: an article presenting what could be junk statistical findings). Mcrt007 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinealittlelight: This is not a "dispute", it's a clear-cut case of someone drawing connections that are not only original research but also straightforwardly false. You're either not possessed of sufficient grasp of the factual issues to provide anything of worth to this discussion, or you're not attempting to provide anything of worth, but rather to soapbox and distract from the question at hand. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

With all due respect, I don't think this is one we're going to reach any sort of agreement on. Though I hate invoking it (because I think it very much overused), this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I'd like to suggest we agree to disagree here and get back to what we're doing with the article. Feel free to ignore me, however. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. TFD (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to imply the actions carried out by antifa are not politically motivated? Also yes calling Andy Ngo racist is of course a BLP vio and should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's about international terrorism. Domestic terrorism is defined as: to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."[2] Attempts to intimidate a minority population are not considered terrorism, but hate crimes. Attempts to intimidate a political group, such as neo-nazis, do not come under either category. PackMecEng, no, why do you ask? TFD (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because above you mention Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. which I took as you implying it was not to change government policy or the like. Is that incorrect? Apologies if I am mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And again, let's remember WP:NOTAFORUM - this is largely irrelevant to the question at hand which centers on WP:DUE when dealing with a statement made by one publication and never verified in another independent source. Frankly US law could call tuna sandwiches terrorism and it wouldn't be relevant to whether Politico is due mention. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa is not a "group" and as such this article should address this common confusion and/or mischaracterization

Far ranging discussion on topics discussed many times before that proposes no RS supported revisions WP:NOTFORUM applies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There have been a number of news organizations, pundits, politicians, and other prominent figures, especially on the right, but also on left and from the mainstream media, that incorrectly describe Antifa as a groups, describing it the movement as if it is an organization with members and a leadership rather the the reality in which it is a loose political movement that fights fascism. While there are groups associated with Antifa, they do not represent the Antifa movement. Due to this mislabeling (or a simple misunderstanding of the nature of Antifa), many right-wing critics of the Antifa movement have suggested trying to use laws designed to go after against engaging in illegal political activities such as the KKK, ISIS, SLA, etc. including terrorism laws and the RICO act. The article should have at least a paragraph mentioning this confusion about (or in some case, intentional mischaracterization of) the nature of Antifa as the arguments for going after "Antifa" under terrorism laws or RICO act and any counterargument for why that would either a) not work or b) be bad practice even if it did pass legal muster. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you from an empirical point of view, but can you point us to any reliable sources which make this argument? The simple fact is that if the reliable sources are confused, the Wikipedia article will be as well -- that's the nature of this encyclopedia. With apologies to Winston Churchill, I think it's the worst possible arrangement, except for all the others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's true, if it's not what the sources say? Benjamin (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed correct that "Antifa" isn't really an organisation, but a very loose movement, as is also clear from European sources. Antifa is clearly European in origin, and claims that they "fight fascism" should be treated with extreme caution; rather they fight what they claim to be fascism – a very important distinction – which has historically, in Europe, included pretty much everything related to liberal democracy and "capitalism" (see above for a more detailed explanation), as "anti-fascism" had become a smear term used by the Soviet Union to disparage the west (as seen e.g. in the name of the Berlin Wall, "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart). Even in the U.S. context of opposition to Trump and his policies, we cannot simply adopt the position of Antifa that the U.S. government is "fascism" (I have previously argued for the inclusion of some material in articles about Trump and his policies about scholars debating a possible relation between Trump's policies and fascism, but there hasn't much support for the inclusion of such material). --Tataral (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Because there's no evidence that it is a group. The Civil rights movement was not a group but there were many groups involved. We know that the KKK, ISIS, etc have an organisational structure. And of course not all the sources, probably not most of them, call it a group. What actual evidence do you have that it is a group? Even reliable sources can be wrong. Doug Weller talk 19:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tataral, do you have any reliable sources to which you can point for the idea that American Antifa has adopted the Soviet definitions? I certainly appreciate your expertise, but original research is not usable here on Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re: no evidence that antifa is a group.

can you explain how the organization structure of ISIS and Antifa differ? is a group required to have a principal leader in order to be a group? if the members generally have a large overlap in political strategy, culture, history, goals, ideas, words and phrases, congregate on social media, listen to the same podcasts, etc. - is this not a strong qualification for a group? group definitions from merriam webster: number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship. an assemblage of related organisms —often used to avoid taxonomic connotations when the kind or degree of relationship is not clearly defined (bold emphasis added by me)Mbsyl (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And a whole society can be called a group by our definitions. And our article. But Group itself is a dab page which includes both social groups as you are describing and organisations. As I said, Antifa resembles the Civil rights movement - both made up both of individuals unaffiliated to any specific groups and specific groups (such as Rose Antifa). It doesn't sound as though you have much understanding of ISIS -- also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or officially as the Islamic State. Did you know that the UN calls it a terrorist organisation? How are they similar? Doug Weller talk 08:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not saying antifa and isis are similar - i was just hoping you could point out the differences in their organization structure, and in doing so help me understand what you mean by 'group' exactly.

definition of terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. how closely do you think antifa violence would fit this definition? also: see https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-cult-of-violence-always-kills-the-left/ -written by far left Chris Hedges, noting that ex-head of the far left terror group Weather Underground "sees his old self in the masked faces of the black bloc and antifa" https://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/antifa-anti-fascist-action <says their violence can not be ignored. due to his prominence/arguable expertise, it may also deserve a quick mention that "former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik" who was nearly head of DHS, has also said they should be called a terrorist group. Mbsyl (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Mbsyl (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I get my indenting wrong here, but a couple of thoughts occur. First of all, it's easy to point out at least one major distinction between Antifa and ISIS: the latter has an avowed leader. Also, let's stipulate that there are many nuanced definitions of terrorism, and it's above our pay grade here to make that call in any sort of legal sense. That being said, my gut says "yes, this is terrorism," because it is essentially political violence. But my head asks: at whom is it directed? It doesn't seem to be "civilians," really, though there is certainly incidental damage and violence. Secondly, what is their goal? Opposition to the groups they see as "fascist," certainly, but that sort of second-effect political goal strikes me as somehow different. Do they have an actual agenda beyond that? I could be wrong on either count here. I'd honestly like to know. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i know isis has a leader. that's why i asked "is a group required to have a principal leader in order to be a group?" sorry..i didn't put things very clearly. its not just your gut that says its terrorism, its supported by a former far left terrorist and an ex police comissioner of America's biggest city. would you say that the 9/11 hijackers weren't terrorists if their mission was really aimed at the military (i.e. getting the US military/political system out of the Middle East, as I believe they have stated was their main goal)?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbsyl: if you read their article I think it would be more obvious. Eg they have a Cabinet ()government) a council of high-ranking members of government. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Do they have an actual agenda beyond that?" Re-electing Donald Trump? Tom Harrison Talk 18:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's obviously a difference between goals and unintended outcomes. From what little I know, I would put that possibility in the latter category. I was asking about the former. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbsyl:, {it's not really helpful to call everyone to your left "far left.") Low level political violence is not generally categorized as terrorism. Secret Service agents arresting someone for threatening the President for example is not an act of terrorism on their part, although strictly speaking it is politically motivated (protecting a politician) and violent (an arrest). No reliable sources refer to street brawlers as terrorists. Also, U.S. law uses a stricter definition of domestic terrorism. The terrorists must terrorize the population, not just a subset of the population. That's why hate crime murders are not prosecuted as terrorism. We are in any case getting into original research. Terrorists are whoever reliable sources say they are, otherwise they are not. TFD (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
its helpful to say who i'm calling far left that isn't. if you're referring to chris hedges, i suggest you read his wiki. if you're referring to weather underground, same thing. they are both arguably RS in regards to this topic. i think we are seeing different US law definitions of terrorism. what i am seeing: The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). Mbsyl (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it does say that, Section 802 of USA Patriot Act is more restrictive,[3] and it's pointless to take an act at face value when courts may interpret it differently. Can you provide any examples of anyone prosecuted for terrorism for street fighting? While far left may not be a clearly defined term, the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right says, "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5)[4] I got the impression from his article that Hedges did not advocate violence, terror or dictatorship. Mind you, I sometimes watch Fox News and they seem to call anyone who does not agree with them far left. TFD (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i think that definition should say "the New far left" or "the violent far left" as black-bloc/antifa isn't very representative of the far left (see: the [total??]lack of prominent far left voices supporting their violence, [which is a big part of who they are, according to antifa historian Mark Bray], and comments by chomsky, chris hedges, richard cohen - the last 2 who have debated antifa thought leader mark bray about his encouraging political violence.) i think its a big over simplification to call it street fighting. see: paul welch video, andy ngo attack, lack of coverage of paul welch, lack of response by large crowd of onlookers, arguably due to being scared to upset the group who just did what was arguably an aggravated robbery of a US flag at a political rally in daylight.Mbsyl (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Referred to as militant; timeline Jan - Aug 2017, each section cites originating RS (WaPo, CNN, CBS, et.) for verification; Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left (referred to as violent counter-protestors). It all depends on perspective. Center sees both sides as problematic, domestic terrorists. How law enforcement sees them: "Domestic extremist movements covered will include white supremacists, white nationalists, black identity extremists, animal rights and eco-terrorists, anti-government and other radical separatists groups. ¶ In addition to the previously mentioned training topics, and due to several recent highly publicized violent protests and demonstrations, a large portion of the course will focus on Antifa/Anarchists and their current method of operation around the United States."
And one more Guardian article: "The report frames political street violence in America as an evenly-poised battle between “antifa’s”, described as “an alliance between anarchists and communists to confront and defeat fascists and white supremacists by whatever means necessary”, and “anti-antifa, a loose collection of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, Ku Klux Klanners, white identity groups and a group called the alt-right”. It's what the sources say. Atsme Talk 📧 02:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think its fair to say that 1 class taught to North Carolina police represents the view of 'law enforcement.' if antifa's main goal is to confront fascism directly, why not act in a way that doesn't alienate most people, build a large coalition, and go after the far right people who have real power, who could arguably take over our government as a cheap hobby, like they may have nearly done with Gen. Smedley Butler. antifa is not fighting fascism, they are giving the far right video clips of people's rights being violated via scary looking people who vaguely represent the left, which the far right uses to boost recruitment/political power. this is why antifa's biggest supporter is richard spencer (who they often cite saying antifa's tactics made him stop his tour - in order to justify their violence, with no sense of irony or the fact that maybe he's lying so that antifa will keep being violent, and because it helped hide the fact that he Really cancelled his tour because no one was coming.) https://gizmodo.com/richard-spencer-postpones-college-tour-no-one-was-atten-1823720014 Mbsyl (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)`[reply]
Mbsyl, while I agree with the general tenor of what you say here, I would remind you that history is full of people with honest and earnest goals, who go about pursuing said goals in sub-optimal or self-defeating ways. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you provide call them terrorists. And note the ADL source (most antifa) says, "Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years." So they don't even call violent nazis terrorists except those that engage in terrorist actions. If reliable sources do not call them terrorists, we cannot determine that they are, per no synthesis. TFD (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, no - PBS - white supremacists were Democrats, sorry. Catch-up on your history. The shift to alt-right in the US doesn't date back very far historically; it's recent and most of the info is coming from left-leaning academia and media. It has become political. There was also a strategy that was used called playing the Race card. Labels are temporary - actions are what get documented in history. Historians will get it straightened out over time - we just have to endure the "trends", and not try to distort history based on political motivations/propaganda which is designed to divide, not unite. Atsme Talk 📧 03:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that some misinformed right-wing activists try to recast the Southern Democrats as left-wing. I suppose that makes Karl Marx and his supporters right-wing because they supported the Republican Party during the Civil War. TFD (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, Atsme, is the ADL source correct or not? It does include the claim you mentioned, but it also includes the claim TFD mentions. Dumuzid (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting pretty far off-topic, but since you're trying to argue against sources based on a flat misconception I feel I have to correct you. You're not strictly wrong about groups like the first (19th century) KKK being largely Democrats, but you're wrong about almost everything else. First, the second KKK (the first 20th-century one, and the one you're most likely referring to) consisted of both Democrats and Republicans, as detailed in our Ku Klux Klan page. Second, being Democratic in the early-to-mid 20th century (let alone the 19th century) doesn't mean someone was left-wing; the Democratic and Republican parties weren't completely sorted out in to left- and right-wing parties until much more recently (see democratic party in the mid-20th century and Conservatism in the United States for details on the process.) Third, by far the most importantly, the KKK (and similar groups) have always been considered a right-wing extremists in all their incarnations. See Right-wing politics and the Ku Klux Klan, which have extensive high-quality sources going into detail on why all three incarnations of the klan were right-wing extremists. Understanding the definition of right-wing politics would explain to you why this is (since right-wing politics is about defending hierarchy, or arguing that it is natural and proper, which includes defenses of racial hierarchies); it would also explain why Antifa is classified as left-wing (because they oppose hierarchies.) Obviously there is some complexity here when dealing with eg. right-wing populism or left-wing governments, but these words have actually well-defined meanings - they're not meaningless labels. The numerous, extensive scholarship that labels the KKK as right-wing and antifa as left-wing are based on extensive analysis of their goals, their underlying drive, their motivations, and how these things fit into the larger dispute over whether society should be organized on hierarchical lines. This isn't "recent" or the result of "left-wing academia", this is a basic, essential part of the entire field of political study. Politics change over time and don't break down into the strict comfortable labels we're used to, but the shift to American politics along racial lines in the mid-to-late 20th century is extremely basic stuff, as is the fact that the KKK and their ilk have always been defined as right-wing (they are practically the defining example of a right-wing extremist group). --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is getting off-topic, and I see some discussion about Antifa that belongs on a forum, not here. Here we should be discussing the article, not its subject. I'm pinging a couple of other editors who have commented elsewhere on this, @Arms & Hearts and Sam Sailor: . Doug Weller talk 13:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doug, for trying to bring the discussion back on topic. I agree with Notcharliechaplin that the article would benefit from a section that makes clear that antifa is not a formally constituted organisation with a leadership, membership etc., though as ever we need to be careful not to go beyond what the sources say. In this case, I think we could use sources like The Washington Post, which says "antifa is not itself an interconnected organization, any more than an ideology like socialism or a tactic like the picket line is a specific group"; the Anti-Defamation League, who say "[a]ntifa is not a unified group; it is loose collection of local/regional groups and individuals"; and Vox, who say "[a]ntifa is not a monolithic organization, nor does it have anything like a hierarchical leadership structure." We probably can't use these sources, however, to suggest that the kind of misunderstanding or misdescription that Notcharliechaplin describes is commonplace. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doug - I support hatting the off-topic portions of this discussion, and will not partake in further parlance in that regard. No good ever comes of blame shifting; i.e., left blaming the right and vice versa, based on whatever nuanced definition describes right and left today. Facsism is another attempt to shift blame despite multiple definitions that state otherwise. I'm of the mind that subjective blame contributes to the rise of SJW, anarchy and violence, often against innocent people. I mentioned Fascism because it's the ideology that gave birth to Antifa, so it plays a role here. Antifa has been described as domestic terrorists per RS, secondary and third party. We just need to exercise caution regarding what we say in WikiVoice, make sure to not present opinions as facts, and use in-text attribution with quotes for material that may be challenged. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 16:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: no, they were never described as terrorists. At least not in the original and only source, which was then copied by others. Their activities were so described. A big difference. Again, there were no sources other than Politico and very few media (except the right) reported what they said. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that source, Doug - from what RS say, it was a confidential report and I'm wondering how it was leaked to the public and by whom? Wish we could be this investigative and steadfast on some of the Trump allegations, but as I've been told, we accept & trust what RS say and that's what we go by. Atsme Talk 📧 17:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the source to which everything seemingly relates back: [5]. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the source I've seen, Dumuzid. It was also published by others citing Politico, the latter of which is more center than WaPo, although Politico's editor in chief used to write for WaPo. We ran with the Trump-Russia dossier when no other media would touch it but the relatively unreliable BuzzFeed, not to mention the dossier being unverified. Even if we had the actual document that Doug speaks of (which would be a primary source that we're discouraged from using) we should go with the RS that viewed the document and published an article about it. It was published by 3rd party sources as well, so I'm not understanding why there's even a question of it being included. Cite a quote from Politico with in-text attribution, and add 1 or 2 more sources to go with it and be done with it. Atsme Talk 📧 17:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a ADL primer on Antifa that describes it as a: "a loose collection of groups, networks and individuals who believe in active, aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements.": https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa Thus by the ADL understanding, it is not a "organized group" or "Organization" that has a leadership structure and other features found in an organization. As such, you can go after it like you would ISIS, the KKK, the Italian Mafia, etc. Here is another article on the distinction: https://psmag.com/social-justice/antifa-isnt-so-new-after-all Here on the other hand is an National Review article describing it incorrectly as a organization (one of many right-wing articles to do so): https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/andy-ngo-antifa-kkk-rico/ --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any common misconception about Antifa, I would very much be interested, as it would be relevant for that article. Benjamin (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there are because the average person has never heard of them. Any misconceptions would come from right-wing blogs that try to blur the distinction between them and the Democratic Party. But it is not the role of Wikipedia articles to debunk conspiracy theories, there are sites such as Snopes and other fact-checkers for that. TFD (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa Creating and Spreading Hoaxes?

This should be mentioned in the article, seeing as you have a section titled "Hoaxes." [1]2601:49:1:5316:C8D4:4023:EA9F:4615 (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you summarize it, and state what exactly you'd like added to the article? Benjamin (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have another source? O3000 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'd certainly need better sources than the The American Spectator. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And the source says "spoof" rather than hoax. "Journalist Andy Ngo Staged Attack by Antifa at Portland Protest" and "Andy Ngo hires Proud Boys to pose as Antifa and attack him at Portland Rally" are headlines one would never see in the American Spectator, even if they were true. A hoax would have attributed them to a mainstream publication. The intention is humor. TFD (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Intention is not humor, as you can see in the article if you read it. Saying that you would need "better sources than The American Spectator" says nothing about the quality you're looking for or why it should be dismissed. Seeing as you have quotes from twitter as sourced, this should qualify. In particular it mentions that Antifa is trying to spread misinformation and "Fake News" on the topic of Andy Ngo. "In a Twitter thread posted on Monday, evolutionary biologist Heather E. Heying shared screenshots of doctored American Spectator and Reason headlines she had found circulating the Twitterverse. The articles (comparison below) had been doctored to claim that the attack was a false flag orchestrated by Ngo: the altered headlines say he hired members of the Proud Boys to assault him in a manner reminiscent of Jussie Smollet’s staged assault in January." - I fail to see how this is any different from the #PunchWhiteWomen "spoof" played up by people "trolling Antifa." It appears that you're being selectively biased against this source because it shows antifa perpetrating the identical tactics that the people against them are employing.2601:49:1:5316:983F:6EDB:2E5F:BBBA (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply not notable outside the sphere of the American Spectator; whatever quality we assign to that publication, I would want to see other RSes cover this before we make a big deal out of a story that boils down to "there's fake stuff on the internet." If it gets covered elsewhere I would certainly reassess. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's claim is clearly nonsense - we have to follow our policies, in this case WP:UNDUE - one mention, particularly in a source with no indication that it passes our criteria for reliability, is not enough for an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://spectator.org/fake-news-antifa-trolls-spoof-american-spectator-reason-headlines-on-andy-ngo-incident/
First off Dumuzid, no one is saying this story is a big deal as it would only need to be a single sentence mentioning the activity within the "Hoaxes" section, and secondly, I fail to see how this being "just within the realm of the American Spectator" keeps it from being relevant as you have a Salon article in reference to the #PunchWhiteWomen. Secondly you have Vox, which is far less respectable than the American Spectator, referenced multiple times. As far as I'm concerned, this article does meet the criteria for reliability as it is not self-published, does not have questionable sources as their basis for the article, and has a long publishing history which should stand for itself as evidence of their clout. Unless of course you have proof for their lack of reliability, they must be credited.2601:49:1:5316:C474:454D:FBA9:8821 (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two thoughts occur. First, reasonable minds can differ! I think it undue, but you obviously don't, and that's okay. You may well reach a consensus with which I disagree. But I disagree that "they must be credited" in the absence of "proof for their lack of reliability." Insofar as "credited" here means the information must be included, I don't think so. It's entirely possible to have information in a reliable source that is nevertheless WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, a source isn't reliable until it's not; rather, sources must be shown to have several factors, including a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if the American Spectator were shown to have that here (and I honestly don't know one way or the other), it would not be enough, for me, to merit inclusion in the article. Again, I am often wrong! So, by all means, persuade away and may the marketplace of ideas do its thing. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderless

@Arms & Hearts:, I looked at the sources and couldn't find "leaderless" as per your text change[6]. Of course there are some "leaders" in some individual groups. It's just that there isn't any centralized organization and separate groups may not even talk to one another. Seems that the current text is a closer fit to sources. O3000 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox article by Sean Illing says: "Antifa is not a monolithic organization, nor does it have anything like a hierarchical leadership structure." Though the word isn't used, the second part of this sentence is synonymous with "leaderless." Nonetheless, we could more closely mimic the language used in the source. How would you feel about changing "a leaderless movement comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals" to something like "a movement without a leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That looks OK.The two forms aren't quite synonymous. O3000 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

Change: The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] To: The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing, militant, autonomous[7] groups in the United States who claim to be antifascist.[11] JustNoting179 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources; the current wording is supported the sources cited in the article, whereas your proposed wording is not. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt, a guideline which warns against using language (like "claim to be") which implies that a point is inaccurate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources listed that supposedly support that assertion:
  • [7] Source only says that Ryan Lenz of SPLC makes this claim.
  • [8] Literally titled Antifa: Guardians against fascism or lawless thrill-seekers? and only says that their own members claim they are antifacist.
  • [9]Small local news. Claims that they are antifascist are coming from members of the movement themselves. Note that this article also says and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security classified their activities as “domestic terrorism.”. You can't use it for this but then refuse to use it for the terrorist claim.
  • [10] Maybe the only source that states as fact that they are anti-facist, however it's a yet another small local news outlet.
  • [11] Again local news outlet. Again only stating that that's what they say about themselves.
So that argument isn't very convincing, in fact the opposite is true. The current text is not well supported by the sources and the proposed text is. Galestar (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be convincing to you personally, but that doesn't change consensus. Since there is no consensus for this edit, this request has been closed. This discussion isn't closed, just the edit-request. It should not be re-opened until consensus has changed. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about me. It's about if the current text is verifiable and supported by the sources given, which it isn't. Galestar (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that I didn't claim that the citations included in the passage in question support the claim; rather that "the current wording is supported the sources cited in the article" (emphasis added). Per MOS:LEADCITE there's some leeway as to whether claims in the lede that are also made, and for which sources are cited, in the body of the article require sources be cited in the lede. That being said, that guideline does also suggest sources be cited in the lede for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". So, for the record, sources currently cited in the article that explicitly equate antifa with anti-fascism include KIRO 7, Kansas City Star, CNN, the New York Times, Wired, Wired again, and AOL. That's seven out of the first fifteen sources cited in the article. If you want to add any of these to the lede that would not be inappropriate, though adding all might be excessive (especially as there are no doubt many more—I didn't look at the other 92 sources cited). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can debate this if you wish. But, it's highly unlikely that you will be able to change consensus. I don't know what they're for -- but it's well documented that they are anti-fascist. O3000 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly Structured "Ideology and Activities" section

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

IPA Transcription

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

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

Willem Van Spronsen

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

It's been pointed out in a few (non-RS) places I follow that while Van Spronsen was not the first person to die in one of these concentration camps, he is the first person to die trying to liberate one. I'd say his connection to antifa activism is notable and I'm certain a RS can be found. Furthermore, while I am generally very opposed to WP:NOT WP:CRUFT lists, I'd suggest his activities are significant enough in this instance to warrant mention. That said, I think it's critical that Wikipedia express this action in a neutral way. While some editors may be inclined to vilify him and while others (including myself) may hold his actions as meritorious, Wikipedia should do neither. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)&oldid=906383317"