Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Strange Portal links

I am really struggling to see how several of the portal links are justified:

• Anarchism portal - Not sure if this is supported.
• Communism portal - This seems completely bonkers. Are there any even actual communists left in the USA external to the fevered imaginations of those nostalgic for the Cold War? Even if we accept that these are left wing groups, and I think we are still arguing about this, there is no justification for a link to anything as specific as actual Communism that I can see.
• Punk rock portal - Not seeing any direct link here. This is not a band or a musical genre.
• Social movements portal - This one seems OK to me.
• Social and political philosophy portal - This also seems OK to me.

So that looks like two good links, two bad links and one that is on the border. What do we all think? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I would kill the punk rock portal. The anarchism one seems to be supported [1]. I'm not sure either on the communism one, it's mentioned in the article but I don't know if they are the best source. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The punk scene, along with ska are sorta tied in with antifa, but only tangentially see Cultures of Violence in the New German Street p66 or The SAGE Handbook of Popular Music p286, however I believe the portal does not really belong. Anarcasim should stay, and although antifa were first created by communists, that portal really has no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks all. I have removed the two dodgy ones. I also trimmed some of the See Also links that were not obviously relevant. I'm glad we got that sorted before the next question 'cos that is coming right up... --DanielRigal (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It says Anarcho-communism on the tin, or at least in the infobox, and the punk lineage is a direct one. kencf0618 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the citations on the historical and ideological lineage of Antifa, I've put the portals back up. kencf0618 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the Communism one should definitely be removed. This is an article about US antifa (in which big-C Communists (the subject of that portal) play the most minor role). If it was an article about European antifa in the 1940s, fair enough, but it isn't. Can we delete it again please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Big C Communism has nothing to do with anarchism. The Communism portal should go. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Another source, more on signs, pronuncation, politics

NYTimes[2] "Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization; most organized groups are local, concentrated in Texas and the Northwest. There’s not even a consensus among adherents as to whether to pronounce the term AN-tee-fah or an-TEE-fah."

", some antifa activists claim inspiration from the left-wing paramilitaries of Weimar Germany and from the Black Panther Party." - Note the 'some' and Weimar Germany.

"Few antifa groups wear masks or carry firearms," "the two sides have been clashing for months. “We bullied antifa,” a website called Men of the West crowed in May, after an ex-Marine smashed an antifa leader head first into a lamppost for touching his flag during a confrontation in Austin."

There's also a photo "A counter protester holds a “Antifa” sign at the Boston Free Speech Rally earlier this month." The sign? A red circle containing a Swastika with a diagonal red line crossing it out. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why the United States Antifa DOES have affiliation with Antifaschistische Aktion and why their color(s) are Black.

Hello,

I have kind of coined this dispute a "Wikipedia War". Nothing drastic, just a saying.

Now, on to the discussion at hand.

The reason why I believe that Antifa does have affiliation with Antifaschistische Aktion is because they share essentially the same exact ideologies and customs. This is indisputable and quite incorrigible to say otherwise. If Antifaschistische Aktion wasn't a thing, then Antifa won't be a thing either. Will there be something similar in it's place? Of course, but not to the general degree of what it is today. This is why a portion of Antifa US today wave the Antifaschistische Aktion flag, because that is who they are and they are showing who they are and where they came from.

This is why there is an "International" box for this page and others. It is because it is to show their International counterpart(s). So, this is why Antifa is in direct relation with Antifaschistische Aktion.

And the reason why Antifa is primarily black is because of several factors. But if we look at Antifaschistische Aktion back then, they wore black. What does Antifa US today wear? Black. This is indisputable. And they also wore masks back in the day too. Thus, they do not have to be an "organization" to have official colors. They do have a set primary color and that is black.

Sources: https://www.fastcompany.com/40455758/how-neo-nazis-and-antifa-are-creating-the-uniforms-of-the-revolution https://antidotezine.com/2017/04/25/origins-of-antifa/

These are 2 reputable sites that state their general history and discusses about the 2 statements I have set forth. I am open to debate, but I think personally, it will be silly to be against what I am trying to publish because it is factual.

And here is a quote from FastCompany, the same link that I am citing. "The media tended to identify the Charlottesville counterprotesters who were part of Antifa as wearing all black. This is a form of dress known as “black bloc,” a strategy developed by anarchists in 1980s. The idea is to wear black clothing and items to conceal your face, like bandanas or motorcycle helmets, to make it hard to distinguish between people. These face coverings also help protect against mace and other gasses.

Over the last few months, people who have wanted to be associated with Antifa have worn the movement’s logo—a set of red and black flags—that was inspired by the symbol used by German communists in the 1930s who also resisted fascism. It is now easy to buy Antifa-branded gear on websites like Antifa Wear and Etsy." Aviartm (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Aviartm

Here's a good Twitter discussion on Antifa vis-à-vis Black Bloc which provides further tactical and ideological context. https://twitter.com/stcolumbia/status/902247918886940672

kencf0618 (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Why should anyone think the Spanish website Antifa wear proves something about an American political movement? It just show that Fastcompany, which is a business magazine, isn't a reliable source for Antifa. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kencf0618, I never stated that Antifa and Black bloc are interchangeable terms. Yes, it is a tactic, but I can assure you that the very vast majority of Antifa participants wear Black. This is a given. Aviartm (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I never discussed about Antifawear.com, I do not know why you brought it up. And it doesn't necessarily matter if it's from a Business Magazine, if their researchable proof to back up the claims and that everything checks out, which it does, it can be used as a reference. Antifa may be using Black bloc.

And, if we can not reach a compromise, I wish to propose a "Tactics:" box for the InfoBox. "Over the last few months, people who have wanted to be associated with Antifa have worn the movement’s logo—a set of red and black flags—that was inspired by the symbol used by German communists in the 1930s who also resisted fascism. It is now easy to buy Antifa-branded gear on websites like Antifa Wear and Etsy." - FastCompany (Same citation).

Companies cashing in on a fad is hardly new, although it is ironic that anti capitalists are being used to turn a buck. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A business magazine may be a reliable source for business but not for this. You need to stop adding stuff to the infobox that isn't fully discussed and sourced in the article as that is what is required for material to be included. You can go to WP:RSN to ask about your source but if you do, announce it here. Doug Weller talk 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

And that's not what infoboxes are for. And 'gear' isn't a tactic. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Recalling that this is also about Antifaschistische Aktion, that was a German movement during the Weimar Republic early in the last century. Our article on it does discuss the modern movement there, also called at times Antifa, and says that "has no practical historical connection to the movement from which it takes its name, but is instead a product of West Germany’s squatter scene and autonomist movement in the 1980s." I've seen no sources suggesting they share the same ideologies as the Weimar Republic group which was part of the German Communist Party. Besides the fact that Communism then was very different from Communism now, today's Antifa movements aren't Communist. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Pelosi condemns ‘violent actions’ of antifa protesters

Found this article at 'Pelosi condems...' but couldn't add due to protected status of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel syme (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Over-quotation

I've added a tag and category for what looks like an extreme case of over-quotation in this article. If anybody is willing and able, please help by rewording quote-heavy sections to use Wikipedia's voice when possible and to summarize/paraphrase sourced content in other cases. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Differentiating between Antifa and Black bloc, noting that One People's Project is Antifa

Although they clearly aren't the same, the article does suggest a couple of times that they are. See Further Reading, for instance, which has some Black bloc stuff that isn't about Antifa. We also have the sentence "During the inauguration celebrations mask-wearing "black bloc" protesters raged across the area just outside of the security perimeter, smashing windows and burning cars." The source differentiates and calls them allies,[3] we make it appear they are the same.

One People's Project is referred to as Antifa here. I'd urge editors to read the linked article in which OPP's founder discusses Antifa, etc. "Though “violence on many sides” rhetoric has defined antifa in the public imagination, Jenkins insists such standoffs are only part of what the movement does—and not the most important part." Doug Weller talk 08:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Smear Campaign"

I highly believe that the paragraph discussing a "smear campaign" either should be heavily revised or removed entirely. It doesn't belong under criticism (because it's not really criticism if it's a smear campaign) The relevance to the greater critique of antifa is questionable, it doesn't fit in with the NPOV criteria for an article and it takes up a third of a section that really should be about Criticism against the antifa, not about 'smear campaigns'.

I'm in favor of removal, personally.

EDIT: I've decided to put a POV-section marker under there. Kazuok (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Just noting it's been given its own section which now seems appropriate. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this works alright. Kazuok (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

And their battering people again

Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley And again Gibson and the cancelled Patriot Prayer meeting are mentioned, if Doug has no objections I'll be restoring that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. This really seems too trivial. There's a lot going on and there will be more. Do we really want to mention events that didn't take place? Doug Weller talk 16:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It was cancelled over fears of violence from antifa, and given this was the first event cancelled over fears of antifa violence, the second being linked in the WaPo post I just gave I figure it warrants mention. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Per above, it seems worth including if it was cancelled because of Antifa. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that the raison d'etre of Antifa is to deny Fascists a platform, I concur. kencf0618 (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "Do we really want to mention events that didn't take place?" I've added a definition (at "We Are All Antifa") to help you understand the nominal purpose of the anti-fascist movement: to keep fascist events from taking place. The comments by Darkness Shines, InsertCleverPhraseHere, and Kencf0618 are manifestly correct. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty condescending. I actually know the purpose of anti-fascist movements - they exist to prevent fascism from gaining control, not just to prevent events. And by nominal do you mean "Existing in name only; not real:" or "trifling"? I asked a general question. I'm probably unnecessarily concerned, but what a nice tactic it might be to announce an event and then claim you cancelled it because of Antifa. Stranger things have happened. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "event, n. 1. Something that happens; occurrence <such an event would shock the conscience of the world>. 2. Course of events — often used in plural <events proved the folly of such calculations>." So what you mean here is generally in accord with what I mean here.

By nominal I mean "existing or being ... in name ... but usually not in reality; formal." The purpose of the Antifa movement at Charlottesville was to oppose fascism. Its usual purpose (at Berkeley and elsewhere) is debatable. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We Are All Antifa

anti-fascist (¦an-ˌtī-¦fa-shist) also antifascist, adj. Opposed to fascism. — anti-fascist also antifascist, n.

fascism, n. A political ... movement ... that stands for a centralized, autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

"Republican, adj. 2. Relating to ... one of the two major political parties in the U.S. ... usually associated ... with favoring a restricted governmental role in social and economic life." "Democratic, adj. 2. Relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. ... associated ... with policies of broad social reform and internationalism in foreign affairs." (Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you looking to add exactly? PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: An inline tag for [promotion?], per WP:NOTADVERTISING policy, for promoting a product in the lead. The most authoritative sources on the issue say Bray's not a "Dartmouth historian", he's just a short-term Visiting Scholar at its Gender Research Institute. Also, his doctoral degree (Rutgers '16) is in Modern European and Women's and Gender History, not Modern American History. More at Dartblog. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the text in the lead is promoting his book? If so, that is a wildly inaccurate interpretation of that text. If simply mentioning the existence of a book is promotion, then you're going to have a lot of tagging to do. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

He says he added it because I didn't seem to understand what anti-fascist movements do, see his statement above. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@AlexEng: That interpretation is accurate. The text promotes the book. Mentioning the existence of merchandise in the lead promotes that merchandise. More important, the book isn't scholarly work. Also, the description of the author is somewhat promotional, and can be improved. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I don't think it should be in the lead. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use the Daily Mail as a source

We decided via a discussion at WP:RSN that we wouldn't use it. It got a lot of publicity at the time. There are a lot of new editors who don't know this, but if you add it it will just be removed. Please understand that we can't overrule that discussion here so there's no point in trying. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Weller, your statement doesn't appear to be in the spirit of Wikipedia's culture. Consensus often shifts depending on editor involvement. In fact, from what I understand, whenever an editor says, "Consensus has been established and cannot be changed" usually means that editor has repudiated Wikipedia's inclusive culture. Are you saying that any decision you have been involved with cannot be changed, even if more editors get involved and decide to go in a different direction? Please advise... 152.130.15.14 (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't around at the time but I recall reading about it, an RFC was concluded that the Mail was not generally reliable and use of it was to be discussed on a case by case basis. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Either way, shouldn't use it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the RFC? If not, then it doesn't exist. Also, have all Daily Mail refs been removed from Wikipedia? If they haven't, then you administrators better get cracking, or your RFC has been completely undermined. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the link to it [4] PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I didn't take part in the discussion, so comments about me are irrelevant. And the comment about it not existing, and the even weirder comment about Admins which is also irrelevant, look like trolling. Anyone can remove text. In any case, we can't override the decision here as it was a community decision with a lot of discussion. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideologies in infobox really need sourcing and to be in the article itself

Anarchist terrorism was just added. It's a redirect to Propaganda of the deed, and means, according to that article, " primarily associated with acts of violence perpetrated by proponents of insurrectionary anarchism" - which of course seems pretty inappropriate. That might apply to the Weather Underground but not here. And how about Alter-globalization? Where is that discussed in the article? Or Anarcho-communism? Seriously folks, you can't just drop things in an infobox that aren't clearly discussed and well sourced in the article. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, can't find any verifiable source that indicates that they are terrorists.Gabriel syme (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Have deleted terrorism as I assume that's basically vandalism. My view is we should also delete all the other ideologies except Anti-fascism.BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-fascism, which is hardly an ideology, is the only thing all its followers share. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, how much consensus do we need to remove the rest of those ideologies? Gabriel syme (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is policy, so actually consensus isn't needed to remove disputed unsourced material. If sources are found, they can be replaced. Doug Weller talk 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm new to editing, are you saying I could boldly remove them now and be within policy?Gabriel syme (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I did some looking on the articles in the infobox links to, from what I can see none of 'anarcho-communism', 'anti-capitalism', and 'alter-globalisation' describe their ideologies at all. They are definately 'anti-facsist', and it seems easy to make a case for radicalism. Going to remove the first three above.Gabriel syme (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa raising funds for a network trying to improve access to abortions

Patriot Prayer is based in Portland. Rose City Antifa has a different tactic with this group - they want to use the demonstration to raise funds for an abortion cause: "But this time, antifa members apparently also are changing their tactics. One of the most prominent antifa groups, Rose City Antifa, has asked its supporters to write down every time they hear a white supremacist buzzword or comment or see an alt-right logo such as Pepe the Frog banners. The group is asking supporters to donate a dollar or more for each of the comments or actions that will be given to the National Network of Abortion Funds, which seeks to improve financial and logistical access to abortions."[5]

Antifa isn't all about violence, although you might not guess it from this article. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This is very true. These are committed ideologues, community organizers, and activists; they don't operate in a vacuum. Citations soon. Or as soon as press coverage improves. kencf0618 (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: RCA may have a problem. Consider that abortion is a fundamental tenet of white supremacists (in accord with the guidelines set out by dem Fuehrer). I must agree with your remark that "stranger things have happened." This is one of them, and it happened. There is at least a chance that not everyone in that group shares a common purpose. Just sayin'... --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream disavowal

After the assaults by antifa and other alt-leftists on the peaceful protestors at Berkeley last week, there has been a wave of condemnations and disavowals from politicians and the mainstream media, including Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, and the Washington Post, among others. Note in the article? 152.130.15.14 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Evidently, Trevor Noah from The Daily Show also just disavowed and repudiated Antifa (calling them "Vegan ISIS" LOL). This is starting to turn into a landslide of public opinion and pundits. I think it should be mentioned in the lede that so many public leaders are throwing this group under the bus. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am shocked -shocked!- that the mainstream disavows a radical movement. kencf0618 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Section Question: "Activity" and "Approach"

Why is there a separate section for "activity" and approach"? They seem too similar to split into two sections. Policypolicy

(talk) 08:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Emic and etic. kencf0618 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Katrina and Harvey relief efforts & organizing

We need to suss out WP:RS & WP:BIASED, I think. On the one hand it's not enough just to claim that a source is not reliable, and on the other hand partisan sources can be reliable. Indeed they might be the only inside sources we've got, given the nature of the subject. kencf0618 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Independent UK covered the Harvey relief efforts.[6] Doug Weller talk 19:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It had been deleted under the ambit of WP:RS, which is why I brought up the subject here. It wasn't suitable according to certain WP:SPAs. If and when far leftist blogs are politically wikipedia correct, let me know. kencf0618 (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

SPAs like me? The reason I reverted your edit was because you lied in your edit summary saying The Guardian was removed as RS and accused the previous editor of vandalism. Policypolicy (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of "Russian propaganda bots have created and amplified stories about alleged Antifa violence"

This was removed because an editor didn't like the sources. But there are plenty of other sources that back this, and a simple search on Russian bots and antifa turns them up.

Bloomberg: Pro-Russian Bots Sharpen Online Attacks for 2018 U.S. Vote "And while many online campaigns are clearly fake, bots are also used in more sophisticated efforts that start from a basis in truth. A top theme users boosted the week after the Charlottesville clashes was “alt-right alarmism” about the left-wing anti-fascist movement, known as Antifa, according to the dashboard findings. The most-tweeted link in the Russian-linked network followed by the researchers was a petition to declare Antifa a terrorist group." Other papers have used this article as well, eg [7].

The Daily Kos: Russian Propaganda Bot Network Targets Antifa.

Slate: Russian Bots Are Trying to Sow Discord on Twitter After Charlottesville

Fortune: Former FBI Agent Says Russian Twitter Bots Were Behind Push for McMaster Firing

The Colorado Independent has a story titled Recent stunts suggest anti-”alt-left” propaganda campaign just got local.[8] This discusses not only the Russian bots but also attempts to frame Antifa in Colorado Springs as well by fake graffiti and Facebook pages. It appears that this isn't the only city where fake Facebook pages have been created.

There are more simmilar stories, not just about the bots although there are more sources discussing them. Eg a doctored photo Photo of ‘Antifa’ man assaulting officer was doctored, analysis shows

This needs to be replaced but with more detail. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

How to spot a fake Twitter Antifa account.[9] Doug Weller talk 10:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If it is true (and I'm assuming it is at the very least partly true) then this is very well worth including in the article but the sourcing still needs to be valid. The Daily Kos is unlikely to help here but the several of the others mentioned above look suitable. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it because WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, multiple high quality mainstream sources. Slate blog, Daily Kos, The colorado Independent aren't high quality mainstream sources. The fortune article is for a seperate incident and doesn't corroborate "Russian propaganda bots have created and amplified stories about alleged Antifa violence". And bloomberg: "the most-tweeted link in the Russian-linked network followed by the researchers was a petition to declare Antifa a terrorist group." WP:NOR "Russian-linked" != "propaganda bots" and "petition to declare Antifa a terrorist group" != "created and amplified stories about alleged antifa violence".

There's nothing extraordinary about the claim, so I modified the language slightly and sourced it to Bloomberg and Salon. By the way, if you actually read Bloomberg's article "the Russian-linked network" in question is used for what the article refers to as "Russian influence operations", so that's the language I used in the article. And the Salon piece refers explicitly to "Antifa violence". This is for real. Newimpartial (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't think that the russians using "propaganda bots" aren't an extraordinary claim? It's a massive conspiracy theory and still isn't well sourced. "if you actually read Bloomberg's article", no I did read it, you're breaking it up into seperate parts ("antifa violence" and "russian influence") and using them to create a conclusion ("russian propoganda bots have created and amplified stories about alleged Antifa violence") not explicitly supported by the sources (see WP:SYNTH). Policypolicy (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Although the fact (and it does seem to be a fact) that Russia is manipulating social media in the Western World may be extraordinary, it does seem to be a fact and is aimed evidently at all sides of the political spectrum. It's been in the news for months in relationship to non-Antifa related activities. The Colorado Independent is clearly a reliable source for the local news about Antifa, there's no reason to expect nationwide coverage of graffiti in Colorado Springs. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

There's also no reason to include it if it's only source is local news. It's WP:UNDUE. Policypolicy (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Policy^2, the Russian influence operations documented as using bots are the same ones documented as generating the anti-Antifa twitter traffic. That isn't synth, it's correct reading of antecedent references in an article.

And how are these claims extraordinary? It's 2017. If the bots were claimed to be tweeting on they own initiative, that would be extraordinary. :p

Botnets are the new normal.Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Loren Balhorn as a source

Balhorn is a grad student.[10] Does he qualify as a reliable source? Doug Weller talk 21:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the outlet, I'd say no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd cautiously say yes, even though I am not a fan of the outlet. The article is extremely well sourced, albeit via hyperlinks rather than by footnotes - I've followed a good many of them, and they are very solid. I think he's an ex-grad student, but is there a WP rule that says grad students can't ever be reliable sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the source is fine. The relevant guideline is WP:SPS, which says that a self-published source by someone who is not an established expert in the field is not a reliable source (but a self-published source by a recognised expert usually is a reliable source). In this case we are not dealing with a self-published source, but with an article published by an established media organisation that lists its editors and editorial board members on its "about" page. In other words, the identity of the author is not really important here; the reliability of the publication is what's at stake, but doesn't strike me as a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know he's a contributing editor. Let's see what he says. "Today its legacy is almost entirely lost to the Left." He first mentions the Communist party when he writes about post-war Antifa, saying " adopting the word “Antifa” from a last-ditch attempt to establish a cross-party alliance between Communist and Social Democratic workers in 1932" "Pivotally, these circles were not spontaneous instances of solidarization between traumatized war survivors, but the product of Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Communist Party (KPD) veterans reactivating prewar networks. Albrecht Lein reports that the core of the Braunschweig Antifa was made up of KPD and SPD members in their forties and fifties who had avoided the front, though Catholic workers’ organizations and other forces were also involved." Then, after 1946, a 40 year vacuum so to speak with no Antifa, and he states that ". The modern Antifa with which most people associate the term has no practical historical connection to the movement from which it takes its name, but is instead a product of West Germany’s squatter scene and autonomist movement in the 1980s — That all makes sense and I agree we can use Balhorn. But @BobFromBrockley and Arms & Hearts:, does "the first group described as Antifa was the Antifaschistische Aktion which formed on July 10, 1932[19] (from which the contemporary Antifa draws, in part, its aesthetic and tactics)[20] by the Communist Party of Germany with the covert support of the Third International.[21] really represent what he says? I mean sure, he says "many of the tactics and visual styles of the German Antifa can be seen emerging in cities like Berkeley and elsewhere." & that's the bit that is linked, but the rest of the sentence, linked to another source, doesn't match what Balhorn says - that author doesn't link Antifa with the SPD at all but I think that's because he is writing about Germany before 1945, Balhorn is writing about post-war Antifa which in fact also included the Centre Party (Germany) and the DDP[11]. How about we try to use the essence of Balhorn's article, which is I believe what I've quoted, not just the bit about many of the tactics/visual styles. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No, Balhorn is not a reliable source. An opinion of a grad student is not notable, you need independent reliable sources. Loren Balhorn posted on jacobinmags blog (https://www.jacobinmag.com/blog?page=30, archive: http://www.webcitation.org/6tCLRXoWL) "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Loren Balhorn is not an established expert. Policypolicy (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Specifically responding to the reliable source issue: This is not self-published, so SPS is not the relevant policy. I think that for a source like Jacobin, you need to take it on a case by case basis - some of its articles are clearly well researched; others less so. I think this is an example of a well researched one. I have gone through many of the sources he uses, and they are very strong.

This is not "the opinion of a grad student": it is a heavily sourced research-based article rather than opinion piece. Anyway, I can't see where WP policy says grad students can't ever count as reliable sources. At any rate, Balhorn is not a grad student; he was a grad student and now has a Masters degree. His article is not written in his capacity as a "grad student", but in his capacity as a published author, journalist and translator, which is what his job is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Our concept of notability doesn't relate to whether we can use a source. I'd still like to use his "Today its legacy is almost entirely lost to the Left." - see my question below. Or "he front, though Catholic workers’ organizations and other forces were also involved." Then, after 1946, a 40 year vacuum so to speak with no Antifa, and he states that ". The modern Antifa with which most people associate the term has no practical historical connection to the movement from which it takes its name, but is instead a product of West Germany’s squatter scene and autonomist movement in the 1980s " Our article makes it look as though there is a closer connection then there actually is, leading to our article being exploited to show that Antifa is basically a Communist organisation by various right-wing websites, which isn't fair to either the Communists or Antifa perhaps. :-) Doug Weller talk 12:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

How is "the ideological lineage of Antifa in America can be traced to Weimar Germany?

I'm not clear what this means. What ideological lineage? I didn't think there was an Antifa "ideology". Doug Weller talk 12:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's bad wording. The source says "ideological descendant", which is where it comes from I think. Will delete the "ideological" bit.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Antifa: US security agencies label group 'domestic terrorists'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html this seems to be needed to be added, any objections? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See above: §#Statement concerning DHS declaring Antifa as terrorist. =/ -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark Bray

How is Bray not RS for his own opinions? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

He is and his comments on followers' politics need to be directly attributed to him, not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think we should mention this book. I'll add that his book points out that followers do more than fight fascism: "Most of the anti-fascists I interviewed also spend a great deal of their time on other forms of politics (e.g., labor organizing, squatting, environmental activism, antiwar mobilization, or migrant solidarity work). In fact, the vast majority would rather devote their time to these productive activities than have to risk their safety and well-being to confront dangerous neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Antifa act out of collective self-defense." Doug Weller talk 18:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

While we should include some sympathetic scholars and writers for the sake of neutrality I agree with Doug that there's no reason for Wikipedia to take a side with him - especially since he takes such a casual approach to the wanton violence they've committed, even after admitting they have no allegiance to Western society or values. That would be a significant bias. Kazuok (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

To my mind Mark Bray is analogous to Charlie Gillett in this matter. The Sound of the City: The Rise of Rock and Roll, a seminal history of early rock music, was published in 1970; Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook is likewise an early seminal history. (It's just gone into its second printing, so I won't be getting my copy until late September.) Like it or not, he is a reliable source, and not to put too fine a point on it, he is a reliable source which we have now, WP:IDLI and concerns about Western Civilization not withstanding. That said, merrily adjust his citations in accordance with encyclopedic tone as ye may. kencf0618 (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't give a dime to Mark Bray personally. I'm satisfied as long as the criticism section stays intact and isn't vandalized by antifa sympathizers. Everything else I've put on the Talk page has been my own personal opinion as a page contributer. Kazuok (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

___

I've tagged "Antifa's militant challenge to militant free speech has been regarded as problematic" (cited to Lozada) for failing verification, and added a detailed reason to correct the record. As Lunsford et al. explain in "Fallacies of Argument", under "Equivocation": "Equivocations are usually juvenile tricks of language."

A professional journalist, especially a WaPo reporter, might be surprised to find out on his own that he's attributed as the source of this juvenile agitprop. Moreover, Lozada calls out Bray for inciting violence. (And don't forget the sucker punch of white nationalist Richard Spencer in Washington on the day of Trump's inauguration. When Bray calls his book "an unabashedly partisan call to arms," it's not just a metaphor.) Yet the passage in the lead may erroneously suggest to some readers that Lozada either did or likely would elegantly excuse this attack as the movement's "militant challenge to militant free speech" (albeit a problematic militant challenge to militant free speech). I've advised him of the error (by email). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Bray's publisher (Melville House) says "MARK BRAY ... was one of the organizers of Occupy Wall Street". Maybe not. Our entry on Occupy Wall Street gives the names of the people and groups who did organize it. He's not one of those people, and he's not known to have led any of those groups.

Melville House also says "He is the author of Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street". That book appears to have been self-published using the Zero Books publishing service. The author's self-description: "Most recently, he was an organizer with the Press and Direct Action Working Groups of Occupy Wall Street in New York City... Mark is a PhD Candidate at Rutgers University studying modern Spanish history..."

Accordingly, I would not recommend that any aspiring (or conspiring) Antifas rely on Bray's handbook for legal advice, for suggestions on how to identify an informant, or for any other existentially important information. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC) 01:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC) 01:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times: After Bay Area violence, California debates classifying 'antifa' as a street gang

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-antifa-gang-20170904-story.html

71.182.241.30 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

and considering treating white nationalist and neo- spi violence as terrorist acts

You missed "later that day, legislators in Sacramento advanced resolutions that would treat violent acts committed by antifa movement’s enemies — white nationalists and neo-Nazis — as terrorist acts under state law." Doug Weller talk 20:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Both are too early to mention however. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

TheValeYard rewording source in their own words

Refer to Revision 799133755

TVY changed

"were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets"

(direct quote from the cited source)

to

"were behind various acts of political violence"

(original quote from TVY, "political violence" not in source)

Full quote from the cited source: "Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets."

Biased rewording of the source, "political violence" is substantially different from "the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets".

Also in the edit, TVY added the word "reportedly" into the sentence: "Confidential documents examined by Politico reportedly indicate". The word "reportedly" is irrelevant when the statement begins with "Confidential documents examined by Politico'"

And the last change reverted was that TVY removed the sentence: "Department of Homeland Security has accordingly classified their activities as domestic terrorism" Most important part of the article (in the title), I've re-added that, no reason to delete.

TheValeYard, you're going to need to explain why this edit was considered "biased", I have reinforced my edit. Policypolicy (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement concerning DHS declaring Antifa as terrorist

I can find no reputable news source to support this claim. A direct web search does not result in confirmation. Outside of inference in the wording of an article on Politico (not considered a neutral news source) dated today 9/1/17. VeganBeans (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Politico is a reliable source, and it is also attributed to Politico, so it is fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed. That said, these are internal documents which were leaked. Publicly and officially Antifa has not been designated as a (domestic) terrorist organization to date. kencf0618 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, how should it be worded in the article? Should we just add a sentence similar to your 'Publicly and officially Antifa has not...' above?Gabriel syme (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I don't think the U.S. Government "designates" certain groups as domestic terrorist organizations like it does for foreign terrorist organizations (even if domestic groups do engage in "domestic terrorist" activities). Recently, National Review has published an insightful article about this. ^Falling_Gravity 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

They did not define them as a terrorist group, but their actions were defined as "domestic terrorist violence". Though I am not sure what difference that makes vs calling them a terrorist group. PackMecEng (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course they aren't a group, so that's a problem with calling them a terrorist group. A source from a couple of hours ago.[12] Doug Weller talk 20:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Source says both DHS and FBI -- original rev globbed them as U.S. Govt. kencf0618 changed to only DHS but it's not worth arguing about. Since there's no "official" proclamation, I was careful to attribute to Politico and not as a matter-of-fact (plus it's their scoop).

FBI designates some individuals as domestic terrorists[13] but tend not to do so as often for groups. Example of designation for the latter are Sovereign Citizen movements [14] and other such articles [15] (they've even an RSS feed) -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've wondered about this. On the one hand we've been dicking around about how the Antifa is constituted as a group, and on the other hand terrorist organizations designated as such by the feds all seem to be overseas. Good luck infiltrating the Antifa crew... What is there to infiltrate? I suppose that someone shall be charged with terrorism instead of a hate crime eventually, direct action-cum-terrorism, but que sera, sera. kencf0618 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it should how ridiculous and knee-jerk reactionary the Executive Branch is these days. They declared a group that does not exist to be a "terrorist organization". TheValeyard (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: The reports are dated early 2016... Before this executive was in office. Also the report did not call them a terrorist group, but that they engaged in domestic terrorist violence. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about including the terrorism portal at the bottom and the category terrorism in the us at the bottom. Any support for removing these?Gabriel syme (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerning your 'concern' regarding labeling: recent actions meet definition for such.

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.[16]

(Irony of the State applying this label isn't lost on me; but I digress.)

Can't see why we should exclude links given this, and statements from sources. Not really our call to make; we are only parrots. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, I took some time to take a better look at what else is categorized as domestic terrorism in us and see that it probably should be included there.Gabriel syme (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that IGD is RS enough to be included in article, but people might want to look at this fact checking of the Politico article: https://itsgoingdown.org/taking-trash-fact-checking-politicos-antifa-attacks/ Extract: An earlier article by Meyer, focusing on Nazi groups (“Domestic hate groups elude feds”), presents a very sober assessment of the legal notion of “domestic terrorism.” In that piece, the Meyer notes “the FBI and the Justice Department don’t keep lists of domestic terrorist organizations.”BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad sources

A lot of bad sources in the article like Free Beacon (which has published completely fake stories; see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/) as well as biased and sometimes misleading outlets like Fox and DailyWire. 172.58.96.17 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Mediabiasfactcheck.com doesn't seem to be a well-known fact-checking site and looks amateurish. The page linked above also misrepresents the Politifact article it links to, which doesn't accuse the Free Beacon of publishing a fake story, but rather describes a fabricated quote related to an interview published by the Free Beacon. (As a more general point, note that Wikipedia has no prohibition on "biased" sources as such, because all news outlets have a bias or an editorial line of some sort – reliability is vital, but a reliable source is not the same as an "unbiased" one.) All that being said, I agree that the Free Beacon is an undesirable source for this article and we should avoid reproducing any claims that appear solely in that publication. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Dailywire is as reliable as huffpost or other outlets. I added a Dailywire source, if you have a problem with it, take it up with me. Fox is as reliable as any other MSM outlet like CNN. Also, you need to sign your post with four tildes. I fixed it, you anon, but next time use proper conduct. Kazuok (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

'but next time use proper conduct'? Or what? That doesn't seem quite in the spirit of this endeavor, right?Gabriel syme (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's bad netiquette for someone else to have to go into the logs and sign their post for them. It's like drive-by posting. Kazuok (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it bad netiquette to use threatening language such as 'next time user proper conduct'? I see you've changed your name to NacionalUltrix. The plot thickens!Gabriel syme (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Gabriel, first of all "Next time, use proper conduct" is not threatening. It's a polite, but firm, reminder, of the rules of the project here. I don't know if English is your first language, but I'm going to assume you took my tone wrong. I changed my username to help avoid harassment as my old name was unwisely chosen. I'd ask you stay on topic, Gabriel, and defer any questions or comments about me personally to my talk page. Now, do you have anything on topic besides your attempt to tone police me? NacionalUltrix (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My mistake if I mistook your tone. Certainly there was nothing polite about your statement, but yes, you're right, you do seem to take firmness quite seriously. I'm not sure what you mean about English being my first language, perhaps you are implying that might affect my ability to appreciate tone? I do find it quite instructive that you ask me to talk personally on this page, instead of leaving a message on my talk page concerning this issue. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gabriel syme: I wanted you to defer it to either my or your talk page so we could remain _on topic_ here. I am a direct person, and being direct in English is not considered rude, but I know in some languages/cultures direct speech is impolite, so I thought if English wasn't your first language you would probably have misinterpreted. Either way, the topic is Bad Sources. Do you have anything to comment here or what? NacionalUltrix (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kazuok: No, signing people's posts is a good idea, it avoids the confusion that an unsigned post can cause, sometimes making it appear someone else entirely made the edit. See WP:UNSIGNED. People do it for me at times and I appreciate it. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Fox News is as reliable a source as CNN, don't try to suggest otherwise. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Why did someone edit the sig in the above statement to reflect a different ip address than previous? It strikes me as vandalous. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Gabriel, I had to fix the OP signature the first time because I buggered an edit with the OP's IP. That isn't vandalism. Check the logs and confirm for yourself - I did my edits in good faith and will stand by them, and admit if I buggered something. NacionalUltrix (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gabriel syme: I don't see that, here's the diff. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I accidentally messed up the OP's IP address which I think is what confused him, the first time I tried signing the post for the anon OP. I later saw and corrected the problem. You and Gabriel can feel free to confirm the logs for the talk page and let me know if I did bugger it. I double checked my work and confirmed I did the right IP for the new section edit. NacionalUltrix (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The competing edits seem to be [17] and [18], but I can't seem to determine on my phone who the original poster was. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Free Beacon is not a WP:RS and should be removed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

American Terrorist Organization

What governmental or nongovernmental organizations have declared Antifa a terrorist organization, and on what basis did they do so?

Terrorist organizations typically all have some central leaders or hierarchy, and make a name for themselves by carrying out and taking credit for killing people in high-profile events. What murders or attempted murders has Antifa undertaken?

The remainder of the article suggests that they are a loosely affiliated political movement, which undercuts the idea that they are a terrorist organization.

Accordingly, this article should be amended.Jaedglass (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa it's filed under domestic terrorism. But I honestly find it to vague too put it here. Shayco122 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is kind of weird, New Jersey is a pretty random source of authority about what Antifa is or isn't. Are there any federal agencies that concur? In the US, traditionally hate groups are monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who began in the 70's to litigate against the KKK. This article points out the difference between Antifa and hate groups, although it doesn't address the 'domestic terrorism' label https://www.bustle.com/p/is-antifa-a-hate-group-people-are-divided-but-the-criteria-is-clear-76285 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjleone (talk • contribs) 09:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the key point is that Antifa isn't a coherent body. It can't be declared a Terrorist Organisation as it is not an organisation at all. Also, the terrorism claim is pretty preposterous anyway, but lets indulge it for a moment. What would it take to justify inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the aricle? Here is what I think it would take:

• An official (state or national) government body (or maybe an organ of the UN) would have to officially and unambiguously designate a specific named group as a "terrorist organisation". Ambiguous tweets or other unofficial comments don't count. Mud slung by opponents does not count. Mud slung by media pundits does not count. Anything vaguely aimed at "Antifa" as a whole can't count as it isn't an organisation. It has to be a specific group that actually does exist as an organised group.
• That group would need to either describe itself (at least half-plausibly) as being an "Antifa" group or be described as "Antifa" by the same government body.

If that were to occur, and I'm not saying that it ever will, then that, and only that, would justify the article in saying that that particular named "Antifa" group had been designated as a terrorist organisation, and even then only that specific named group.

Do we agree that this is fair? It seems to be in line with the way we would treat similar situations in other parts of the world. (I seem to recall similar issues arising around the correct designation of various Kurdish groups in the past. I never expected to see the same sort of arguments cropping up in the USA.)

I guess that still leaves the question of actions by individuals but unless anybody official actually officially designates any individuals as both "terrorist" and "Antifa" then that doesn't seem to be a pressing concern. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks

Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists ‘domestic terrorists.’

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235

Already in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

FBI and homeland security finally officially class them as domestic terrorists http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4844296/Homeland-Security-deem-antifa-domestic-terrorists.html 27.33.120.120 (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL i.e. generally unreliable. Jim1138 (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

There's rumors of investigation but neither the FBI or the DHS has declared them a terrorist organization, I don't know how they would since its not an organization at all. This wiki article contains misinformation implying otherwise. Ultimately, though, this entire article is trying to portray a disjointed social movement as a violent organization. Antifascism is a single issue, thus people who claim the label aren't connected to eachother in any way aside from their distaste in Nazis. There are antifascists that focus on political change and aren't views. You're skewing a decades old, single issue movement, made up of diverse people, as a violent organization. This isn't informative, it's propeganda founded on a composition/division fallacy and cherry picked events. Somejerk (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There are antifascists that focus on political change and aren't (and haven't been) violent.**edit Somejerk (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Re political ideology description

In relation to Doug Weller's revert (here), I'm not sure what the issue is. An explanation was given in the edit summary that the political ideology given in the infobox would be changed to match that given and cited copiously in the lead paragraph. Moreover, the reverted sentence about "not only radical, but extremist" is found in the Politico citation (regarding extremist) and in the preceding citation following the "radical" description. Can you please explain what is wrong with the edit? Ergo Sum 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Politico source is opinion, Doug's removal was entirely correct. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing sources and the text they sourced isn't justified. This is a movement and trying to pin all the people involved into one tiny box isn't appropriate. In any case, radical left means far left or extremist, so that was redundant. The current version (unless it's been changed again) is sourced. The Politico piece is problematic and still hasn't been picked up very much by the main stream media. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself, shouldn't this be the kind of extraordinary claim that would warrant more sourcing? Gabriel syme (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Left vs far left

Most people generally consider Antifa far left, yet my edit to include this was reverted. Can someone else please comment on whether Antifa is classified as left wing or far left? Alex of Canada (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Alex of Canada

I'm assuming that you changed it without reading the article? Infoboxes shouldn't reflect our opinions but sources. And they say both. Not surprising as it's a movement and movements attract people with varying politics fighting a common cause. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I see someone didn't like this, removed the references, and changed the infobox. I've reverted. We shouldn't just remove clearly reliable sources we don't like so we can change the infobox. Doug Weller talk 05:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added a quote from a Rose City Antifa member saying that their supporters span the left-wing movement. Also, I thought I said this before, 'radical left' is 'far left', I'm not sure why we are using both. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I am very happy to see that colors have been added!

I have been fighting for this for about 3 weeks and they also rejected my claims even with sources. And I am very happy and thankful to whoever who got it through! :) Aviartm (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aviartm: No problem. Ergo Sum 17:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Did you add the colors? Aviartm (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Ergo Sum 17:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Nice! Aviartm (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed, pure opinion, not RS for statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no "antifa" entity, you can't say "their colors are black and red" when there is no actual "they" to apply such characteristics to. I 100% agree with the removal. TheValeyard (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think a brief and carefully worded mention of the colours in the body of the article could be acceptable so long as it was clear that it is something that several but not all groups use, and certainly not falsely presented as any sort of official thing. It is utterly unacceptable to have it in the infobox as that creates an immediate false impression that this is an organisation with a central body capable of choosing official colours like those of a political party. It is not our job to help anybody build or decorate their straw man and, whether or not that is what anybody here intended, that is the the effect this would have. If we want to dig into colours more deeply, and I'm not saying that we need to, then maybe Pastel Bloc could be mentioned as a counterexample. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Nothing has to be an "organization" to have official colors. This is quite incoherent in my opinion. You are insinuating that they have to be a organization to have colors. I am more than happy to talk this out, but if you saw a group of 30 students and they were protesting and all wore green and yellow for environmental awareness, you can easily make the conclusion that their colors are green and yellow. And we can do the same thing for Antifa. They primarily wear Black. Red is a lot more questionable, but whether we call it "colors" or "tactics" in the infobox, it should either state "black" or "black bloc" because that was Antifa does. Aviartm (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

But official means just that, official, formally decided and agreed. Movements have no way of making such decisions. I agree with DanielRegal as to how this can be handled. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

True Doug, but several movements that have no centralization can agree unconditionally on how they want to be represented. But there are several groups where there is not centralization but they all have a common image which they wish to be associated with. Aviartm (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I agree with Daniel & Doug. It's fine to say something in the article to the effect that antifa primarily wear black and/or their flags and stickers are often black and red, but putting it in the infobox without explanation adds to the common misconception that they are a single organisation. In fact, my instinct is to remove the infobox, as it isn't appropriate for a non-organisation. I've looked at some other articles for diffuse movements (Environmental movements, Anti-war movement, Pacifism, alt-right, Militia organizations in the United States, etc) and they don't tend to have infoboxes, and certainly don't have colours in the infobox.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you BobFromBrockley. Aviartm (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Spoofing

Apparently there's some disagreement over whether Antifa spoofing should be included in this article. @Saturnalia0: here would be the place to discuss. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems sufficiently relevant to me. What is the nature of the disagreement? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have withdrawn his dissagreement with this edit. Interestingly enough, he seems to have lost interest in pushing his agenda through Wikipedia. Gabriel syme (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Snopes has a story about a fake poster claiming Antifa wants to murder white children (it's also anti-semitic). I see Pamela Geller was pushing it.[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Politico statement doesn't belong in the lead

I've reread the article carefully and I think we need to handle it with more care. I carelessly thought that " according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO" meant that they had been given documents. Looking again, I see "Some of the DHS and FBI intelligence reports began flagging the antifa protesters before the election. In one from last September, portions of which were read to POLITICO". Read to them? Even if we believe that Politico verified who they are talking to, that doesn't make the documents authentic. Their report has been widely repeated by right-wing websites, etc, but hasn't received much attention from mainstream media, and that lack of response after a week leaves me wondering why. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a vital distinction to be made between the DHS/FBI publicly declaring Antifa to be "domestic terrorists", and them doing so privately/internally, and that private/internal designation happening to have been leaked/reported on. The former would be worth including in the lede if it were the case, but it isn't; including the latter seems like more of a stretch, and risks misleading the reader into thinking the former is the case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree, should be dropped down to the critisicsm section, which really needs to be renamed to reception. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think how it is right now covers this important fact well. It was picked up by several RS and is seen as a defining characteristic of the group. PackMecEng (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph should go. The alleged designation of "Antifa activities" as terrorist, published by Politico and those subsequently picking it up in a way pretty much designed to confuse "terrorist activies" and terrorist organizations" is unencyclopaedic as part of the lead and should be covered as part of the mainstream reaction to Antifa.

But then, the third paragraph isn't great either. Newimpartial (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

'Terrorist activities' isn't a defining character of the group. My point is that very few reliable sources mentioned the Politico report. If it were a defining activity you would see it in virtually all the mainstream sources discussing Antifa. And it isn't a 'fact', it's simply what Politico has said. No evidence has been provided. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree with removing it from the lead. The article itself is pretty vague, and as mentioned above, other reliable sources haven't seemed to pick up the story and there's no followup coverage. Gabriel syme (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Also strongly agree with removing it from lead. It is a really sloppy article that is hard to summarise because it is so slippery in what it is actually saying and about whom (e.g. slippage from antifa to anarchists), can easily be torn apart and hasn't been picked up more widely. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Slippery slope - now evidence presented in articles that are labeled "sloppy" is unworthy. How convenient. "'Terrorist activities' isn't a defining character of the group." Actually, for anyone walking on public streets who can be considered to support the President [read: "fascist"], that absolutely is a defining character of the group. It's only not a defining character for those who feel they know they will never be on the other end of the stick, the urine bottle, the mace, etc., in other words, the majority of people editing this page. GreenIn2010 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@GreenIn2010: Your comments above veer very close to being personal attacks. Please try to remember to comment on the article's content, rather than the contributors, especially with regard to politically contentious topics. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Throwing water or urine, or civilian use of mace, isn't a recognizable form of "terrorism" anywhere in the world as far as I can tell. Treating it as such smells like rampant POV-pushing, and is not reliably sourced. It belongs in the "reactions" section under "fears". Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial -- "Throwing water or urine, or civilian use of mace, isn't a recognizable form of "terrorism" anywhere in the world as far as I can tell" -- so you don't know. Maybe it depends upon whom the urine or faeces or mace are being hurled. You should come back when you can tell for sure. Quis separabit? 14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa quote

The Rose City Antifa quote in the lede ("People in our group come from across the left sector. we have people who are anarchists, we have people who are socialists, we even have people who are liberals or social democrats") contradicts the first section of the article, which seems to say that Antifa is anarchist and exclusively anarchist. Looking at the three references attached to that claim in the first sentence, we have The Independent, which talks about Antifa and anarchists in the same breath but not necessarily as the same thing; the San Francisco Chronicle, which does make an explicit connection between Antifa and anarchists, but only in passing; and CNN, which describes Antifa as an anarchist group in the title, but is mostly a republication of the via interview with Rose City Antifa members which includes the quote describing Antifa as not just anarchists. I think we should probably remove "anarchist" from the first sentence, but I'd like to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree, although, from my readings and observations I am sure there are some anarchists that attach themselves in support of Antifa, when they group together as an active entity they are not at all anarchistic. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari -- you got it. Quis separabit? 14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A source at one point used for their beliefs in the article says "The social causes of Antifa (short for anti-fascist or Anti-Fascist action) are easily identifiable as left-leaning.

Most members oppose all forms of racism and sexism, and strongly oppose what they see as the nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies that Mr Trump has enacted.

However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy."[20].

Doug Weller talk 20:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm afraid I'm finding your comment somewhat cryptic. Could you clarify the relevance of that quotation to my question? Best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Apologies. First, I didn't make it clear it was a quote, then I didn't reply directly. I agree it should be removed. The quote is part of what we should be looking at on writing about the politics of people in the movement. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, and thanks to Somedifferentstuff for making the relevant change (and for their other helpful edits to the article). I agree that it would be good to use that quote or something similar in the lede, and to suggest that anti-fascism means specifically being opposed to racism, sexism, nationalism and anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment – to say "The salient feature of Antifa is to oppose fascism by direct action" is all well and good, but fascism is not necessarily a single thing and we ought to flesh out what Antifa folks mean by it. I also note that anarchism, communism and socialism are now mentioned on equal terms in the lede, but the article is in Category:Anarchism in the United States but not Category:Communism in the United States or Category:Socialism in the United States. Should it be added to the latter two, or removed from the former? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Is most certainly more trouble than it's worth, any objections to getting rid of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No objections from me. If we can find a more appropriate type of infobox than this then maybe that would be better still but I don't think the current box is anything more than a lightning rod for trouble. If we do get rid of it then we need to make sure that everything valid it contains gets moved into the body text, if it is not already there. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no infoboxes for social or political movements. Someone could create one I guess. I'm not at all sure it's that useful to have one. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox civil conflict}} is sometimes used for social/political movements, but I don't think it's anymore suitable for this article than {{Infobox political party}}. I agree that the infobox doesn't add anything to the article and causes problems by oversimplifying issues that are complex and contentious, and I wouldn't object it being removed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I support removal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This Breitbart link (PRESS template)

E.M.Gregory, I love you like a brother, and I'm proud to call you "comrade" in our ongoing struggle, but Breitbart is not a news organization, and the article is not a valid piece of investigative journalism. In other words, there is nothing "routine" about it, and in effect what you're doing is advertising the disruptive efforts of a banned editor who can't let go of Wikipedia (and is now probably getting ready for the next exposé, starring yours truly, haha). Seriously, if you want to make this stick, go by RSN, and then start an RfC on this talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I brought the question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Did you see the recent history? Someone is mad cause I didn't invite them to my birthday--and I didn't even throw a party! Drmies (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)