Davide King (talk | contribs) →Discussion: you just keep saying "We follow RS" without replying for why we should use sources that are only marginally about antifa to support a big claim as this in the very first sentence; nor there have been responses to SPECIFICO and others who raised objection about how "These labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers." |
Davide King (talk | contribs) m →Discussion: typo |
||
Line 466: | Line 466: | ||
:::::: No, we do not agree. You wrote {{tq|[t]hese are news reports about Antifa}} but they are not; they are only marginally about antifa and ''far-left'' is nothing but a passive mention. They are news report about what is happening right now with the protests and the comments of Trump and others about antifa and the ''terrorists'' label. Seriously, compare ''The New York Times'' to all others. There are only three paragraphs about the current events and Trump, then all the other paragraphs are about antifa and this is a source that can actually be used to support the ''far-left'' claim because it is specifically about antifa and what it is, not a marginal or passive mention in reports that are more concerned about the protests and other people comments. If we ought to put those qualifier, I agree with {{u|The Four Deuces}} that they should be academic, not any source found on Google after typing {{tq|"antifa" "far-left"}} because I am sorry but that is what you seem to have done; you have not actually read the sources, you simply saw they mentioned ''far-left'' and jumped on it. If you have actually read them all, I do not see how you cannot see that all but ''The New York Times'' are spending much more paragraphs reporting on what is happening than antifa and what it is as outlined by ''The New York Times''. Finally, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analysing is that it is mainly American news outlets that use ''far-left'' while internationally either ''left-wing'' is used (''The Independent'' and ''The Week'') or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on ''far-left'' merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use ''far-left'' because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 06:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) |
:::::: No, we do not agree. You wrote {{tq|[t]hese are news reports about Antifa}} but they are not; they are only marginally about antifa and ''far-left'' is nothing but a passive mention. They are news report about what is happening right now with the protests and the comments of Trump and others about antifa and the ''terrorists'' label. Seriously, compare ''The New York Times'' to all others. There are only three paragraphs about the current events and Trump, then all the other paragraphs are about antifa and this is a source that can actually be used to support the ''far-left'' claim because it is specifically about antifa and what it is, not a marginal or passive mention in reports that are more concerned about the protests and other people comments. If we ought to put those qualifier, I agree with {{u|The Four Deuces}} that they should be academic, not any source found on Google after typing {{tq|"antifa" "far-left"}} because I am sorry but that is what you seem to have done; you have not actually read the sources, you simply saw they mentioned ''far-left'' and jumped on it. If you have actually read them all, I do not see how you cannot see that all but ''The New York Times'' are spending much more paragraphs reporting on what is happening than antifa and what it is as outlined by ''The New York Times''. Finally, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analysing is that it is mainly American news outlets that use ''far-left'' while internationally either ''left-wing'' is used (''The Independent'' and ''The Week'') or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on ''far-left'' merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use ''far-left'' because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 06:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Well, unless you want to take back what you said before, we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. The rest of what you say here doesn't have any clear relationship to WP policy as far as I can tell. I can't imagine that these sources, when they all agree on Antifa being far-left, are not reliable for that characterization. We need to follow RS here. [[User:Shinealittlelight|Shinealittlelight]] ([[User talk:Shinealittlelight|talk]]) 04:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::Well, unless you want to take back what you said before, we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. The rest of what you say here doesn't have any clear relationship to WP policy as far as I can tell. I can't imagine that these sources, when they all agree on Antifa being far-left, are not reliable for that characterization. We need to follow RS here. [[User:Shinealittlelight|Shinealittlelight]] ([[User talk:Shinealittlelight|talk]]) 04:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: What do you mean {{tq|unless [I] want to take back what [I] said before}}? You did not reply back to my main poiint which is that those linked articles, besides ''The New York Times'', are only marginally about antifa and a passive ''far-left'' mention is not enough to support us writing {{tq|Antifa is far-left}} as the very first sentence. In the main body? Sure. If I was reverted for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=961242107&oldid=961229184 this] because antifa was not the main topic, then I do not see how we can support {{tq|Antifa is far-left}} as our very first sentence when all but ''The New York Times'' report more on the protests and comments of others than about antifa or what it is. We would need ''What is antifa'' articles that specifically say ''far-left'' rather than any article in reliable news that may give only a passive mention and talk more about something else than antifa. Even then, I do not see why we should use news sources for this claim in the lead rather than academics or experts like Bray who do not say ''far-left'' (again, in the main body where we can give the appropriate context? Sure. As the very first phrase, when all but one given sources talk more about the protests? No). Nor any of those who support a mention in the lead have replied to objections such as {{u|SPECIFICO}} and others raised. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-protests-white-supremacists-antifa.html Here], ''The New York Times'' makes no mention of ''far-left'' and only call protesters ''left-wing'' which support the argument that antifa is ''anti-fascist'' and that it is its activists that have political positions, ranging from the left to the far-left (majority) to the centre-left and other (minority). The [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831 BBC] and [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-white-supremacists-removal/ CBS] do |
:::::::: What do you mean {{tq|unless [I] want to take back what [I] said before}}? You did not reply back to my main poiint which is that those linked articles, besides ''The New York Times'', are only marginally about antifa and a passive ''far-left'' mention is not enough to support us writing {{tq|Antifa is far-left}} as the very first sentence. In the main body? Sure. If I was reverted for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=961242107&oldid=961229184 this] because antifa was not the main topic, then I do not see how we can support {{tq|Antifa is far-left}} as our very first sentence when all but ''The New York Times'' report more on the protests and comments of others than about antifa or what it is. We would need ''What is antifa'' articles that specifically say ''far-left'' rather than any article in reliable news that may give only a passive mention and talk more about something else than antifa. Even then, I do not see why we should use news sources for this claim in the lead rather than academics or experts like Bray who do not say ''far-left'' (again, in the main body where we can give the appropriate context? Sure. As the very first phrase, when all but one given sources talk more about the protests? No). Nor any of those who support a mention in the lead have replied to objections such as {{u|SPECIFICO}} and others raised. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-protests-white-supremacists-antifa.html Here], ''The New York Times'' makes no mention of ''far-left'' and only call protesters ''left-wing'' which support the argument that antifa is ''anti-fascist'' and that it is its activists that have political positions, ranging from the left to the far-left (majority) to the centre-left and other (minority). The [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831 BBC] and [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-white-supremacists-removal/ CBS] do not use ''far-left'', only ''anti-fascist''; and the BBC talks of '''its members''' being ''left-wing''.--[[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 07:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
=== Sources === |
=== Sources === |
Revision as of 07:21, 10 June 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Summary of lead sentence sources on antifa political affiliation
I think it may be useful at this stage to take stock of what our lede sources state regarding the political affiliaton of antifa.
This should set the WP basis for further edits to the section in case discrepancies arise.
- Mic: "militant elements of the left"
- WaPo: "far-left activists"
- NBC: No statement on political leaning
- Kiro 7: No statement on political leaning
- Kansas City Star: "militant leftist activists"
- CNN: "lean toward the left -- often the far left"
- NYT: No statement on political leaning, but describes black bloc as anarchist subset among "broader left-wing protests".
- Wired: "Far-left extremists"
- NYT [NB-B]: "militancy on the left"
- Atlantic: "leftist activists"
- Time: [Interview] "antifascist resistance is based in the left" but can involve "response from a lot of different communities"
- BBC: "far-left protesters"
Of note: The Time article is an interview of a comic book author who has no specialty background in politics or history, is not notable, and is not explicitly affiliated with antifa. It's questionable what value this source has in an encyclopedic text.
As of yet we have no statistical or quantitative sources to warrant claims such as 'predominantly' or 'majority' left. All WP:RS that do make a claim commit to a general description of the group as either "leftist" or "far-left". If a quantitative claim is to be made, then a WP:RS should be found to support it.
Watchman21 (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- WaPo "Although often referenced as a monolith, “antifa” is not one organization, but a loosely linked collection of groups, networks and individual people who support aggressive opposition to activists on the far right."July 2019 or "loose collection of hard-line anti-fascist protesters," August 2019.
- NYT "on the left" July 2019 in an article called "What Is Antifa? Explaining the Movement to Confront the Far Right"[1]
- But I agree, there is no way ever to get stats on this. But it clearly has supporters who are not far-left, so that's out, and we say it has liberal supporters. Black bloc doesn't = Antifa. The Time author is Lily Rothman[2] Doug Weller talk 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- On the quantitative aspect, if we can find a source that shows a substantive minority (beyond individual case studies or first party anecdotal accounts) are not left-wing, we should be able to justify 'predominantly left-wing' in the lead description. Otherwise we should probably refer to the existing consensus. I'll see if I can find a suitable one over the next few days. Watchman21 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Having supporters that are not far-left does not mean they cannot be far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: there is no "they" except the supporters, it's not an organisation. If they aren't far left they can't be far-left. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. And many appear to be anarchists. I never thought of anarchists as leftists. No state versus big state, in simplistic terms. O3000 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- When the majority of the supporters are far-left we call them far-left even if a small minority are only left. O3000 anarchism is often considered a far-left ideology. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- But, who says the majority of supporters are far-left? These people don't seem to be great philosophers or pol-sci students. Horseshoe theory comes to mind. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is militant anarchism just standard left wing now? PackMecEng (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- But, who says the majority of supporters are far-left? These people don't seem to be great philosophers or pol-sci students. Horseshoe theory comes to mind. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- When the majority of the supporters are far-left we call them far-left even if a small minority are only left. O3000 anarchism is often considered a far-left ideology. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. And many appear to be anarchists. I never thought of anarchists as leftists. No state versus big state, in simplistic terms. O3000 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: there is no "they" except the supporters, it's not an organisation. If they aren't far left they can't be far-left. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
No, they are militant because that is how RS describes them as well as the tactics they employ. PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, you are saying that antifa contains far left elements because by definition anyone who is on the left and belongs to antifa is far left. TFD (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all. What I am saying is RS describe them as far-left and things like being militant and supporting anarchism are traits of the far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, you are saying that antifa contains far left elements because by definition anyone who is on the left and belongs to antifa is far left. TFD (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't object to "predominantly left-wing" but do object to "far left". My suspicion is that various editors inserted refs into the lede to justify "left" or "far left" rather than found a good selection of RSs and summarised their descriptions. Otherwise would NBC Bay Area, the Kansas City Star and KIRO7 local news really be your go-to sources on how to describe an emerging social movement? It is also striking that most of the sources cited there (I think CNN is the only exception) come from August-September 2017 when antifa emerged into mainstream attention, and reflect ill-informed news sources struggling to summarise what was to them a new phenomenon. That is why the person interviewed by Time, who has been an antifa activist since the 1990s, is actually a more reliable source for this particular use than a local radio station. (See my very long comment from 13 March 2020 in the Capitalisation RfC further up this talk page on why using sources that actually know about antifa are more appropriate than sources that would be generally seen as reliable but in this instance might not be well-informed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would avoid the term far left because unlike far right it does not have a clear meaning. Basically it means more left than I am. So to the average Fox News viewer, it means the New York Times. TFD (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- A quick update re. use of the term 'predominantly left-wing'. I've been unable to find:
- A quantitative RS to demonstrate that there are a substantive minority of Antifa members who are not left-leaning or left-wing.
- A case-study-type RS to demonstrate that there is even a single member of Antifa who identifies this way.
- Even anecdotal examples in popular blogs, commentaries or grass-roots social media posts that don't qualify as WP:RS.
- For further policy context, there are no exclusion criteria for left-wing ideology among the other axiological descriptions of Antifa in the article. Anarchism is not an exclusion criterion, as someone has already pointed out, given that ideologies such as anarcho-collectivism do exist.
- Every RS that commits to a political description of the movement refers to them uniformly as left-wing.
- I think we have conclusive criteria to refer to the prior consensus and describe them as just 'left-wing'. Any quantitative elaboration would fall foul of WP:NOR. I'll implement these changes shortly unless anyone can find a good source. Watchman21 (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- A quick update re. use of the term 'predominantly left-wing'. I've been unable to find:
- I would avoid the term far left because unlike far right it does not have a clear meaning. Basically it means more left than I am. So to the average Fox News viewer, it means the New York Times. TFD (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with this line of argument completely. Antifa is ideologically diverse and not attached to any one movement. If any ideology predominates, it is anarchism. Although some anarchists consider themselves left-wing and some sources consider anarchism in general to be left-wing, most anarchists reject the association with the left and see themselves as neither left nor right. Therefore any source which notes anarchists among antifa by definition shows that calling it left-wing without qualification is problematic. "predominantly left-wing" is a consensual description that encompasses these different points of view, whereas "left-wing" is far more contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Those sources you reject as problematic are WP:RS. To disqualify them you'll need a RS with higher epistemic standing, like a quantitative source from a peer-reviewed journal. I couldn't find one, but perhaps you might have better success.
- If you want to use anarchism as an exclusion criterion, you'll need epistemology rather than sociology. You need to show that the two are incompatible, and disprove the legitimacy of ideologies like anarcho-communism. Watchman21 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Question - Looking over the ref's above, it looks like most folks are talking about this guys as "far left" or "leftist". Why are we calling them "left wing"? Can someone point to previous discussions on this topic? NickCT (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would have thought 'leftist' and 'left-wing' are synonymous. 'Leftist' may be more of a casual term. Watchman21 (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Antifa far-left?, where I provided links to the five prior discussions to the last person who asked this question (as it pertains specifically to "far left"). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have to say none of those are particularly impressive or came to any kind of resolution. What I did notice is many uninvolved editors all saying the same thing and the same small group of dedicated individuals stonewalling. Does an RFC have to be held to solidify what the sources and majority of people say? PackMecEng (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- If a discussion doesn't result in a consensus then the status quo remains—that's common sense. Though for what it's worth I think the August 2018 discussion was quite productive (surprisingly, considering it began with a load of nonsense posted by an editor who got themselves indef'd for legal threats the following day) and fairly clear-cut in its support for "left" and rejection of "far-left". Which isn't, of course, to say that we should be bound by it today, only that a new consensus would have to be arrived at to change that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- The issue with that is there was never consensus for just about anything. So yeah defaults to status quo but status quo here is basically meaningless. I was more making the comment so people do not get mislead into thinking there was an actual consensus for excluding far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- If a discussion doesn't result in a consensus then the status quo remains—that's common sense. Though for what it's worth I think the August 2018 discussion was quite productive (surprisingly, considering it began with a load of nonsense posted by an editor who got themselves indef'd for legal threats the following day) and fairly clear-cut in its support for "left" and rejection of "far-left". Which isn't, of course, to say that we should be bound by it today, only that a new consensus would have to be arrived at to change that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have to say none of those are particularly impressive or came to any kind of resolution. What I did notice is many uninvolved editors all saying the same thing and the same small group of dedicated individuals stonewalling. Does an RFC have to be held to solidify what the sources and majority of people say? PackMecEng (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I've reviewed the scholarly literature on (U.S.) antifa and found very little support for describing antifa as "far-left". Neither Mark Bray's Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook nor the introduction to Bill V. Mullen and Christopher Vials' US Antifascism Reader use "far-left" or "far left" at any point, with the exception of a reference to an interview with Swedish antifascists in Bray (p244). Likewise, none of the five articles in Society's symposium "What Is Antifa?" (Volume 5 Issue 3) use either phrase. Stanislav Vysotsky's American Antifa, as the first monograph on U.S. antifa narrowly construed, ought to be an invaluable source for this article, but unfortunately isn't published until July. Vysotsky's 2015 article "The Anarchy Police" also never uses "far(-)left"; the article is clearly in some sense about the subject of this article, but never names its subject "antifa", so probably can't be used in this article. The only scholarly source I was able to find that describes antifa as "Far Left" is Adam Klein's "From Twitter to Charlottesville" in the International Journal of Communication. One can make of these findings what one wishes: I'm of the view that articles and books by academics published by major publishers or in established journals are better sources than news articles and opinion pieces, but all of these sources have their drawbacks (neither Bray's book nor Mullen and Vials' is exclusively about the subject of this article; the Society articles are brief interventions; Klein is apparently out on a limb in the matter at hand). This is also not intended as a commentary whether "left" or "predominantly left" is preferable, though I might weigh in on that at a later date. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng raised concerns about the existing consensus, which I think does have some merit. The page did have something of a consensus but one that wasn't definitive. I'm open to reviewing it (perhaps with an RFC, if that's what's needed) given that it's predicated on a questionable premise.
- One overlooked issue is that 'left' and 'far-left' are not mutually exclusive, the latter being a subset of the former. This means that sources describing antifa as 'leftist' cannot be used as evidence against the proposition that antifa are 'far-left'. Several quality sources describing the movement as 'far-left' may be all that's needed to justify a lede description to that effect. Watchman21 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Watchman21 and PackMecEng: - Support RfC
- Arms - re "I would have thought 'leftist' and 'left-wing' are synonymous." - I'm not sure about that. I think "leftist" is a more general term. If you told me someone was a "left-wing" politician, I'd assume they were center left or left. If you told me someone was "leftist", I'd assume they were anywhere from the center-left to the radical left. If you look for definitions of leftist sources will say anything from simply "left-wing" to "radical left". NickCT (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Wandering off-topic
|
---|
|
- To extract my on-topic points from the long digression above: We possibly should be degree-specific as to "leftiness", but must follow the sources on that, without engaging in WP:SYNTH to get at a "desired" answer that the sources don't actually agree on. I'm not sure I see a clear source agreement on the matter (only on the American antifa being left of center), and I don't agree that sources saying "leftist" or "left-wing" can be counted as supporting of "far-left", "left extremist", and other degree-qualifying descriptions. It seems fair to me to say that various sources consider the US antifa a far-left faction, while others don't. We could quote some of the better sources directly. I just hope in the long run we are not conflating American antifa, as a specific movement or sub-movement, with anti-fascism generally nor with other groups (characterized by rather different politics) who also go by "antifa". It is better encyclopedia writing for us to have a short paragraph on RS interpretations of how far left US antifa is, rather than just pick an interpretation that suits a present-majority editorial viewpoint and run with it as if it were the only RS view. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well this article is on American Antifa so I would suspect that we would use the left-right definitions from America. Though I will note the source list above shows a clear majority going with far-left or a varient of that. Are there any sources that specifically say they are not far-left? I note some use left wing by itself but I do not think I have seen any that dispute far-left specifically. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why would there be
any sources that specifically say they are not far-left
? Would there be any sources that specifically state they aren't warlocks? O3000 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC) - WaPo, CNN, and BBC do not call Antifa warlocks, so that's obviously beside the point. But WaPo, CNN, and BBC do all call Antifa "far-left". So we should certainly ask whether any sources say that they aren't "far left", since, if there aren't such sources, then we have a strong argument here that we should at the very least mention that they are sometimes described as "far left" in mainstream media. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Watchman21's bold initial post is misleading and even worse, unsourced. For instance, last year a Portland reporter for the BBC (in other words, someone close to the action) wrote "There is no one antifa organisation or political philosophy. They're a mixed bag of anarchists, socialists and communists."[5] I agree that it's unreasonable to insist on finding sources that say they "aren't far-left but are..." WaPo calls them leftists here.[6] Here CNN, in an article explaining Antifa, calls them "The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."[7] Doug Weller talk 13:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mark Bray, a credentialed academic expert on the subject—one of those rare birds which, reading the bulk of this discussion, one would think didn't exist—defines antifa thus: "It’s basically a politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right." One could take "pan-left" as a refutation of "far-left", i.e. as indicating that antifa includes people across the left (though of course I don't accept the premise that we have to find concrete refutation of "far-left" to not include it). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @User:Doug Weller. Thanks for your feedback. Do you not agree that 'far-left' is a subset of 'left'? If so, then the idea that the two are not mutually contradictory follows necessarily. 'Antifa are left-wing' cannot be a counterposition to 'antifa are far-left' for that reason. If you dispute that, then your issue is with logical truisms like entailment for which we don't usually cite sources. Watchman21 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @User:Arms & Hearts. I think that's thinking roughly along the right lines.
- I've just looked at your Bray source. 'Pan-left' here seems to be referring qualitatively to the political subgroups of the left (communism, socialism and anarchism) rather than a quantitative allusion to degrees of leftness, such as 'moderate-left' or 'far-left'. If 'pan-left' was referring to degrees of leftness, then the author would be contradicting himself by his use of the term 'radical' to describe the same group. ie. One can't be moderate-left and radical-left at the same time, unless one has a different understanding of radical to the textbook definition.
- I think you've (inadvertently) found a further source supporting the idea that antifa are far-left. But I'm sure there are opposing views out there. I'll do a literature review if I have time and see if I have better luck. Watchman21 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can certainly be on the left and not a socialist, communist, or anarchist.
- Pan-left would seem to suggest varying degrees of leftist ideology cooperating; not a specific degree of the left.
- I don’t think we should be labeling a movement with a greater degree of specificity. Indeed, pigeonholing folks should be avoided even with actual political parties..
- The anarchists in the woods with AK-47’s waiting for a race war are rightists.
- BTW, editing pings into a previous edit often doesn’t work. O3000 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't dispute point 1. Your point 3 has some merit. I originally wanted 'far-left' in the lead sentence, but I think the lede now looks better overall with 'left-wing' (any reader can infer how 'far-left' antifa are from the rest of the opening paragraph) but this is just a personal preference. Like your own remarks here, all of this is ultimately subject to policy.
- I'm not convinced by point 2, unless you can think of better arguments. Radicalism typically refers to the extremes, or even the fringes, of partisanship. If 'pan-left' refers to the degrees of leftist ideology (including moderates and nominal followers) then it would be a contradiction for the author to describe the movement as radical in the same phrase.
- I think point 4 is true, but not very relevant here. Showing that some anarchists are right-wing doesn't disprove the proposition that anarchists can be left-wing as well. I think Bray himself implies this in the source we're talking about.
- Thanks for point 5. I'll bear that in mind in future. Watchman21 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mark Bray, a credentialed academic expert on the subject—one of those rare birds which, reading the bulk of this discussion, one would think didn't exist—defines antifa thus: "It’s basically a politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right." One could take "pan-left" as a refutation of "far-left", i.e. as indicating that antifa includes people across the left (though of course I don't accept the premise that we have to find concrete refutation of "far-left" to not include it). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Watchman21's bold initial post is misleading and even worse, unsourced. For instance, last year a Portland reporter for the BBC (in other words, someone close to the action) wrote "There is no one antifa organisation or political philosophy. They're a mixed bag of anarchists, socialists and communists."[5] I agree that it's unreasonable to insist on finding sources that say they "aren't far-left but are..." WaPo calls them leftists here.[6] Here CNN, in an article explaining Antifa, calls them "The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."[7] Doug Weller talk 13:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why would there be
- Well this article is on American Antifa so I would suspect that we would use the left-right definitions from America. Though I will note the source list above shows a clear majority going with far-left or a varient of that. Are there any sources that specifically say they are not far-left? I note some use left wing by itself but I do not think I have seen any that dispute far-left specifically. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That Bray source isn't very clear, but I think the most reasonable interpretation is that by "pan-left radical" he means "across all radical left groups". In any case, I for one don't see why we need to pick one label. Why not just say that they've been variously described and list the most common descriptions (left, lefist, far-left, radical left, etc.). Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- That seems sound to me. However elaborations like that probably belong elsewhere than the WP:LEADSENTENCE. Watchman21 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
antifa is so very obviously Far-left that having an argument about it is astonishing in itself. How many “left-wing” people or organisations advocate violence? That’s right, none. Case closed. Please can the lede be *corrected* now. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 22:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Are there any academic sources about antifa's political position? Because if so, they should certainly be preferred over news sources. Furthermore, while the far-right is a defined topic with books and articles written about it, far-left seems to be more of an ambiguous term which basically means more left-wing than social democracy, so certainly left-wing, or even militant left-wing, would be more appropriate than far-left.--Davide King (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- We don't have any peer-review type sources to the contrary, so there's no policy basis to exclude the sources you keep deleting.
- Adding WP:RS doesn't require consensus. Deleting WP:RS (especially if deleting multiple sources in a controversial article) should be done after establishing some kind of talk page resolution, which you haven't done here. I prefer 'left-wing' from an aesthetic point of view, but if multiple RS corroborate the idea that antifa are 'far-left' then, in the absence of good evidence to the contrary, policy dictates the article text should represent the sources.
- Your own arguments here, concerning the ambiguity of the term 'far-left' seem to be your own OR. You've provided no source in support of them, or an adequate exposition from an epistemological point of view, so I don't think they can be applied here. Watchman21 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to have them included in the first place, this discussion is still going on and others have disputed your edit, so it is not just me and what should be done is reverting to the status quo ante and leaving just left-wing while we discuss it here. I'm not opposed to have the main body talking about its far-leftism, but I think
predominantly left-wing
is just fine and does not exclude far-left nor its more moderate, admittedly centre-left minority. Furthermore, all the refs you cited were related to Trump's comments and they're contradicted in the main body which also describe the movement simply a left-wing, including some liberals and social democrats. That's no original research, but what the article's academic sources actually say and a point also made by The Four Deuces.--Davide King (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)- You don't usually need consensus for adding RS. That's rarely (if at all) controversial in even the most disputed articles.
- You can try to dispute their status as RS, or question whether or not they are represented correctly in the article, but wholesale removal of RS, stating 'lack of consensus for inclusion', will just be reverted eventually because it isn't based in policy. I also recommend you actually read the RS you keep deleting. It's the authors describing antifa as far-left, not the authors reporting on Trump's views of antifa. Watchman21 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- That may be true, but again, you have been reverted, we are discussing it here; why not simply wait for the discussion to be over and a broad consensus to be reached? I never implied to mean that the authors were reporting on Trump's views of antifa but that may fall under recentism. Either way, only three of your given 12 sources in the OP say far-left, so how does that support your edit?--Davide King (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- We now have many more than 3 sources describing antifa as 'far-left'. Two more were found during the course of the discussion above, which happen to be good quality RS. Even at that point, I think the polemic was starting to favor the 'far-left' crowd.
- Where do you think they stand now, with the latest news cycle, with all the new RS supporting the 'far-left' camp?
- But my contention here is not 'far-left' versus 'left-wing'. It's about your deletion of source material without adequate justification.
- At no point, during the discussion above, was any requirement set for all RS to require consensus before we include them. That means there is no precedent or consensus in support of your argument here. One way or another, those sources are eventually going to find their way back into the article, and they happen to corroborate the 'far-left' description whether we like it or not. Watchman21 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- We still have 5 (in the OP) and perhaps more that simply say left-wing or describe antifa as a broad left-wing movement, including both the far-left and more moderate-left viewpoints. The ones added in your edit still fall under recentism. Doug Weller disproved the rest.--Davide King (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- That was discussed above as well. A source describing antifa as 'left-wing' cannot be used as evidence against the proposition that antifa are 'far-left', because the latter is a subset of the former. That's actually a key premise in support of the 'far-left' camp.
- I suppose you could try to argue that 'left-wing' can be inferred from context to mean 'moderate left', depending on the article, or that one is some kind of synecdoche (or metonym) for the other, but that would probably be pushing it. Watchman21 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- The same could be argued for the reverse; after all, both the far-left and centre-left are still left-wing, which seems to be the only agreement between sources (antifa is left, but how far left? Far-left or still simply left?). Either way, I reiterate that, unlike far-right, far-left is an ambiguous term and the only thing the literature seems to agree is that it is to the left of social democracy, or to the left of the left. You cannot easily discount this in the discussion, nor I think it is something that can be underlooked or that should be easily underestimated.--Davide King (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't quite work the other way, unless you want to contrive meaning from context or figures of speech to make 'left-wing' imply something more specific than it actually is. Your argument regarding the ambiguity of 'far-left' probably needs a source.
- Even then I think you'll need a consensus on where it fits in with policy. Watchman21 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Left-wing doesn't exclude far-left while far-left may exclude many sources that refer to antifa as something broader. I think The Four Deuces can better explain you the ambiguity of far-left.--Davide King (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's probably too inductive. If you're going to argue knowledge theory in the setting of Wikipedia Policy, you'll need something that's either a truism or axiom, or something deductive. Watchman21 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand what exactly you are implying, but why not simply say both? There seems to be no real overwhelmingly sourcing in favour of either (in the OP, they are more left-wing than far-left), so why not writing
predominantly left-wing and far-left
? If I had to choose only one, I would say left-wing, but I would be fine in mentioning both.--Davide King (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand what exactly you are implying, but why not simply say both? There seems to be no real overwhelmingly sourcing in favour of either (in the OP, they are more left-wing than far-left), so why not writing
- That's probably too inductive. If you're going to argue knowledge theory in the setting of Wikipedia Policy, you'll need something that's either a truism or axiom, or something deductive. Watchman21 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Left-wing doesn't exclude far-left while far-left may exclude many sources that refer to antifa as something broader. I think The Four Deuces can better explain you the ambiguity of far-left.--Davide King (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- The same could be argued for the reverse; after all, both the far-left and centre-left are still left-wing, which seems to be the only agreement between sources (antifa is left, but how far left? Far-left or still simply left?). Either way, I reiterate that, unlike far-right, far-left is an ambiguous term and the only thing the literature seems to agree is that it is to the left of social democracy, or to the left of the left. You cannot easily discount this in the discussion, nor I think it is something that can be underlooked or that should be easily underestimated.--Davide King (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- We still have 5 (in the OP) and perhaps more that simply say left-wing or describe antifa as a broad left-wing movement, including both the far-left and more moderate-left viewpoints. The ones added in your edit still fall under recentism. Doug Weller disproved the rest.--Davide King (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- That may be true, but again, you have been reverted, we are discussing it here; why not simply wait for the discussion to be over and a broad consensus to be reached? I never implied to mean that the authors were reporting on Trump's views of antifa but that may fall under recentism. Either way, only three of your given 12 sources in the OP say far-left, so how does that support your edit?--Davide King (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to have them included in the first place, this discussion is still going on and others have disputed your edit, so it is not just me and what should be done is reverting to the status quo ante and leaving just left-wing while we discuss it here. I'm not opposed to have the main body talking about its far-leftism, but I think
(edit conflict):::::It's not even true. Read WP:UNDUE for instance. It's generally necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. There's also a lot of trivial detail one could add to almost any article on the basis of an RS. Then there's WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY, and WP:AGE MATTERS - the latter mainly deals with academic sources, but it's true for most. I've seen and removed outdated stuff in many articles that had reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. We've gone over this above. If there is any question over whether or not a source qualifies as RS (for example, it trips WP:RSBREAKING) then you're obviously entitled to contend it. The issue is over deletion of sources, without a policy basis, citing 'no consensus'. Watchman21 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- As argued by Doug Weller, WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS would still apply.--Davide King (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- You'll need to read the sources, then read the policies, then explain why the sources fall foul of those policies. Watchman21 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please, stop acting like that or assuming I have not actually read them. We just have as many sources saying left-wing, so why not considering or counting them? Considering the controversial nature of the article and of what is happening, it would probably be better to wait and not rush. Again, you read WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS.--Davide King (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- To summarize where we stand, you haven't managed to defend any of your reasons for deleting this source material (other than the fact that they describe antifa as 'far-left'). When asked to explain how those sources are against policy, you refuse to carry any burden of proof.
- So you'll need to explain, then, why it is you're otherwise justified in reverting other people's work. Watchman21 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I literally told you it is because of WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS; and basically I completely agree with Arms & Hearts' comments below. You seem to ignore the whole discussion above and the other users who support simply left-wing, acting like it is only me opposing far-left. Also, if your issue is with predominantly, I have removed that and left simply left-wing. Finally, you may venture in original research and/or synthesis in claiming that pan-left actually supports far-left.--Davide King (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please, stop acting like that or assuming I have not actually read them. We just have as many sources saying left-wing, so why not considering or counting them? Considering the controversial nature of the article and of what is happening, it would probably be better to wait and not rush. Again, you read WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS.--Davide King (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- You'll need to read the sources, then read the policies, then explain why the sources fall foul of those policies. Watchman21 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- As argued by Doug Weller, WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS would still apply.--Davide King (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
So I just checked this article today and I noticed that “far-left” had been expunged from the lead, despite it being in the lead for as long as I can remember.
The fact that we are even having this conversation is laughable. There would be no opposition (and rightfully so) to labeling far-right groups as far-right, because we have multiple reliable sources reporting them as such. And as Watchman21 provided, there are multiple sources calling Antifa far-left. This has been part of the lead until now.
I’m going to call this out for what it is. Editors are just blatantly trying to whitewash this article now. Restore far-left to the lead. Larry Sanger is correct about his sentiments. At this point people aren’t even trying to hide their true intentions. In before I get multiple replies accusing me of being a Nazi or a far-right extremist. CatcherStorm talk 23:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- CatcherStormCan you move this comment up above my subsection to the main discourse since this is focused on a very specific item? Bastique ☎ call me! 00:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- CatcherStrom, it's simply not true that far-left was being expunged from the lead; going back to August 2019 and as of May 2020 it was still left-wing. We literally have a FAQ at the top of this page linking to no consensus in using far-left. Far-left also has a different use and literature than the far-right which is much more clearly defined while far-left is more ambiguous and the only thing the literature agree is that far-left is more left than social democracy, or left of the left.--Davide King (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- To put this tortuous thread in summary:
- Multiple WP:RELIABLE SOURCES now describe antifa as 'far-left'. Many more will likely arise with the present news cycle.
- Those sources are being deleted arbitrarily. No-one has so far substantiated a good reason why they are against policy.
- No quantitative sources, or other good evidence, have been found to the contrary.
- When I started this thread, it was before the flood of new news stories on antifa, stemming from current events.
- A consensus was needed at that time because the arguments for and against were much more ambiguous.
- What is happening now is that good sources are being deleted because their inclusion in the text would render a consensus unnecessary. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog, and is just more evidence in support for a 'far-left' description in the lede. Watchman21 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Watchman21: How have you reached the conclusion that "No quantitative sources, or other good evidence, have been found to the contrary", when you replied to my two comments above (17:14, 23 May 2020 and 14:21, 25 May 2020) where I did exactly that? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Your first comment isn't evidence against the idea that antifa are far-left. Or to put it epistemically, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. You need positive evidence that antifa are something other than far-left, which none of your sources really fulfill and one of your sources actually refutes.
- We've discussed your second comment (concerning the Bray source) above.
- So far the most cogent interpretation of 'pan-left' is that it's describing the different types of leftism (communism, socialism etc) rather than degrees of leftism (moderate, far-left). Bray actually describes antifa as radicals in a general way, implying that he actually supports the 'far-left' position.
- You've, inadvertently, been finding more evidence in favor of the 'far-left' description than against it. Watchman21 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- What you're missing is that some sources are better than others. To be specific, works by established experts on the subject are more valuable than explainers rushed out by CNN and the like. Perhaps I haven't made that point explicitly here (as I have further down), but that's the reason I've emphasised above the need to consider accounts in scholarly work over news media accounts. If a term appears fairly often in the latter but seldom in the former, that's a very good reason not to use the term, and instead to formulate alternative wording based on the better sources. Given that, in your view, sources that refrain from calling antifa "far-left" cannot be taken as indications that antifa is not far left, should we read your #3 above as saying that no sources have been found which actively reject the idea that antifa is far-left? Don't you think that's an absurd requirement? We don't require sources saying "the moon is not made of cheese" to say the moon is made of silica, alumina, etc. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Arms & Hearts, thank you for your comments. I completely agree and you explained it better and more concise than I ever could.--Davide King (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Your moon analogy suggests to me you haven't understood the topic.
- We've laid out from the beginning that, if a quantitative source to the contrary is found, then that would qualify as good evidence against the idea that antifa are far-left. None of your sources really qualify for that, which makes your moon analogy all the more strange.
- Platinum standard sources won't help you if they don't actually support the propositions you need.
- That support can be explicit ('antifa are not best described as far-left') or tacit ('antifa are predominantly moderate partisans'). That isn't in any way an unreasonable evidentiary standard. Otherwise your issue is with propositional logic, not me.
- Simple tallies on the frequency of usage of terms won't really help you either. All the sources have qualitative differences in context, objectives, narrative, linguistic style, and so on, that need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis if you want to infer linguistic usage. You'll also need to run the gauntlet of explaining why this kind of systematic review isn't OR. Watchman21 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Having to explain an analogy rather defeats the point of analogising in the first place, so perhaps better to forget that. Perhaps, taking a step back, the issue is that you believe that sources that do not describe antifa as "far left" are simply missing that information, that the absence of such claims isn't in itself meaningful, and that those sources aren't making qualitatively different claims from sources that do describe antifa as "far-left". In other words, you think that because "far-left" is a subset of "left" (which is probably too simplistic a picture, but that's mostly beside the point), that sources that use "far-left" are making the same argument as those that use "left", only to a greater degree of precision. In this context, what that would mean is that news organisations' introductory pieces for the general reader are for some reason going into greater depth on this issue than books by experts. This is very unlikely to be the case; what's much more likely is that news organisations' pieces prefer "far-left" out of some combination of sensationalism and poorer comprehension of the issues and terms. Arguments along the lines of "it's just logic, and if you disagree with me you're disagreeing with logic" miss the point – what's at issue isn't the reasoning but the presuppositions you're working with. I certainly agree though, for what it's worth, that "tallies on the frequency of usage of terms" are of no use (I don't think they're even possible); much better to identify the best sources we have and work from there. (This section is far too long and muddled, I've just spent almost as long looking for the comment I was trying to reply to as it's taken to write this. There was support for an RfC on this last week, then the discussion was overtaken by events. An RfC still seems like a sensible direction in which to head.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- After all that effort coming up with a rebuttal, you've probably realized by now, that, for your argument here to work, you need to assume that 'left' is figurative for something more specific than it actually is. That kind of defeats the point of the whole topic.
- Non-specific terms don't magically become more cogent and precise by virtue of the fact they're spoken by academics.
- If your academic sources are less linguistically precise than your news sources, then either your basic rule of thumb on source quality is wrong, or there are factors such as context, purpose, vernacular, and other idiosyncrasies within your sources that have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Watchman21 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's becoming apparent that this discussion isn't leading anywhere, and, frankly, you're veering into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory, so perhaps we can leave it here. I had hoped you'd respond to the parenthetical process point, however. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to talk this over on my talk page if you want to discuss it further. Watchman21 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's becoming apparent that this discussion isn't leading anywhere, and, frankly, you're veering into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory, so perhaps we can leave it here. I had hoped you'd respond to the parenthetical process point, however. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Having to explain an analogy rather defeats the point of analogising in the first place, so perhaps better to forget that. Perhaps, taking a step back, the issue is that you believe that sources that do not describe antifa as "far left" are simply missing that information, that the absence of such claims isn't in itself meaningful, and that those sources aren't making qualitatively different claims from sources that do describe antifa as "far-left". In other words, you think that because "far-left" is a subset of "left" (which is probably too simplistic a picture, but that's mostly beside the point), that sources that use "far-left" are making the same argument as those that use "left", only to a greater degree of precision. In this context, what that would mean is that news organisations' introductory pieces for the general reader are for some reason going into greater depth on this issue than books by experts. This is very unlikely to be the case; what's much more likely is that news organisations' pieces prefer "far-left" out of some combination of sensationalism and poorer comprehension of the issues and terms. Arguments along the lines of "it's just logic, and if you disagree with me you're disagreeing with logic" miss the point – what's at issue isn't the reasoning but the presuppositions you're working with. I certainly agree though, for what it's worth, that "tallies on the frequency of usage of terms" are of no use (I don't think they're even possible); much better to identify the best sources we have and work from there. (This section is far too long and muddled, I've just spent almost as long looking for the comment I was trying to reply to as it's taken to write this. There was support for an RfC on this last week, then the discussion was overtaken by events. An RfC still seems like a sensible direction in which to head.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- What you're missing is that some sources are better than others. To be specific, works by established experts on the subject are more valuable than explainers rushed out by CNN and the like. Perhaps I haven't made that point explicitly here (as I have further down), but that's the reason I've emphasised above the need to consider accounts in scholarly work over news media accounts. If a term appears fairly often in the latter but seldom in the former, that's a very good reason not to use the term, and instead to formulate alternative wording based on the better sources. Given that, in your view, sources that refrain from calling antifa "far-left" cannot be taken as indications that antifa is not far left, should we read your #3 above as saying that no sources have been found which actively reject the idea that antifa is far-left? Don't you think that's an absurd requirement? We don't require sources saying "the moon is not made of cheese" to say the moon is made of silica, alumina, etc. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Watchman21: How have you reached the conclusion that "No quantitative sources, or other good evidence, have been found to the contrary", when you replied to my two comments above (17:14, 23 May 2020 and 14:21, 25 May 2020) where I did exactly that? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- To put this tortuous thread in summary:
- @CatcherStorm: I see no reason to believe you're a nazi, but you do seem to have (1) a poor memory and (2) a preference for social media callout culture nonsense over assuming good faith, neither of which are conducive to collegial, collaborative work. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
accuracy of "militant" as a broad brush
- From my own experiences, "militant" describes only a portion of Antifa activists so this is why I'm commenting here. The use of militant to describe the movement, despite the multiplicity of sources used to justify it, is deceptive. Many of those that claim affiliation do not engage in militant-like activities and nor are all their activities militant (food distribution, mutual aid for example). But however factual this anecdotal evidence is, it is not allowed on Wikipedia. (PS, I know a notable figure that died in 2018 but there were no notices. Is he still dead? I still can't figure out how to get this edited... True story)
- But sources there are as someone in particular, probably in this discussion lumped together in a fine footnote.
- However, in closer inspection, many of those sources used to justify "militant" actually use the word to describe the activities of particular members, not the group as a whole. Additionally, CNN describes their positions as follows: "Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many people espousing those beliefs support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get out their messages." ( Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/tech/antifa-fake-twitter-account/index.html ) The use of "militant" in the lead is deceptive and should be removed entirely or changed to "sometimes militant". Bastique ☎ call me! 22:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This discussion is a joke. We currently have “predominantly left-wing”. Which could be interpreted as including some right wing elements. So obviously that’s a ridiculous use of words. antifa’s logo has two flags, one representing anarchism, one representing communism. So by their self-identification as well as multiple RS’s it is both accurate and fair to describe them as militant far-left.
PROPOSAL for the reasons above, the words “militant far-left” should be used in the first sentence of the lede. Boscaswell talk 22:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Boscaswell, have you even read what Bastique just wrote above? I think that raised was a point worth discussing. I also don't see how that would imply
including some right wing elements
, for we literaly writes how[i]ndividuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views[23] and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism.[24][31]
--Davide King (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I read that, Davide King But there are people who read the article who don’t actually read this discussion as well, and it’s those people that I’m thinking of. I’m not going to get bogged down in a silly argument where the nth degree is argued about until everyone is so fed up with it that the original ideas are long forgotten. It’s a brilliant way of shielding the real issue. That is precisely what has happened on this very thread. Boscaswell talk 02:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Boscaswell, I am sorry to break it on you but Wikipedia works by consensus and reliable sources. You may think that militant far-left is a fact but that may not be reflected by either consensus or reliable sources, especially academic ones which have more expertise about the movement; in other words, as succinctly put by Arms & Hearts,
works by established experts on the subject are more valuable than explainers rushed out by CNN and the like
. Your same argument that people who read the article do not actually read the discussion is valid for literally every other article and is not specifically tied to this; either way, I think the lead is pretty clear. As can be seen by Acalamari's comment below, not everyone agree with the militant wording in the first sentence and militant has been changed to militancy and added along with digital activism in this edit by Seddon.--Davide King (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Boscaswell, I am sorry to break it on you but Wikipedia works by consensus and reliable sources. You may think that militant far-left is a fact but that may not be reflected by either consensus or reliable sources, especially academic ones which have more expertise about the movement; in other words, as succinctly put by Arms & Hearts,
- Yes, I read that, Davide King But there are people who read the article who don’t actually read this discussion as well, and it’s those people that I’m thinking of. I’m not going to get bogged down in a silly argument where the nth degree is argued about until everyone is so fed up with it that the original ideas are long forgotten. It’s a brilliant way of shielding the real issue. That is precisely what has happened on this very thread. Boscaswell talk 02:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, those words should not be used in the lead sentence and wanting to use Bastique's argument to support your non_NPOV change is staggeringly absurd. Acalamari 07:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- There are enough RS now to justify 'far-left' in the lede, so not only do I support this, it's likely inevitable in the long term.
- For now though, the deleted RS in question need to be restored given that Davide King hasn't given any good policy reasons for why he's deleted them.
- The wording of the lead should be set to the state it was before the latest news cycle ('left-wing' - no quantitative source has been found to justify 'predominantly left-wing'). Then we can take stock of all the new sources re. 'far-left.' In the absence of good arguments to the contrary, I will be implementing these changes shortly. Watchman21 (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Watchman21, you do know that one is supposed to be against fascism, right? Fascism is bad. We settled that last century. There was a war and everything. Guy (help!) 11:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Watchman21, Arms & Hearts just gave you some interesting responses, so please stop acting like it is only me opposed to far-left. I reiterate that all the sources you added were from news sources and all after what is happening which may violate WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS; not only that but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and that does not overwhelmingly support far-left as you seem to imply. As argued by Arms & Hearts, some sources, specifically academic ones, are better than others. Finally, I already removed the predominantly wording and just left left-wing, even if I did not think that would have excluded far-left and I was open for it to read predominantly left-wing and far-left.--Davide King (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- You'll need to explain how the sources are in breach of WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS. Otherwise you're not really justified in reverting other users' edits on this topic. Watchman21 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- They're all related or contigent to Floyd's death and protests as well as Trump and others' call for terrorist designation, i.e. from 31 March. Also in relation to this, as per talk page implies that consensus has been reached but that is not the case. You may argue that
[t]here are enough RS now to justify 'far-left' in the lede
but other users disagree and we are still discussing this.--Davide King (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)- It's specific details on recent events in those articles (eg. how many protesters in a protest as it unfolds) that are subject to WP:RSBREAKING, not general propositions such as the status of antifa being far-left. What about AGEMATTERS or RSPRIMARY?
- Regarding your removal of 'against those whom they identify as'. The ADL source uses the same terminology, and describes how they target police, whom they consider as right-wing-by-proxy. I'll be reverting your changes unless you can raise good objections.Watchman21 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Watchman21 you might want to see the discussion below. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll send any further commentary there. Watchman21 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- But don't you think that identification may be based mainly on that? And why should we use such sources rather than academic ones, even if more sparse? Or even, why can't we find a wording that include both? As for the rest, thanks PackMecEng for linking to the discussion.--Davide King (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Watchman21: I'm rather concerned on your use of your 1RR quota to undo my change that was a perfectly fair edit and reflective of the original sources before we became a victim of circular referencing and nor taking the time to notify me of your reversion. Additional: Given my change wasn't a simple removal and was reflective of the sources my change seems aligned with both the concern of undue weight given to some of Antifa's tactics but recognises the presence of them, I've reinstated my change. Seddon talk 15:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- All I've seen are Bastique's comments above, re. use of the term 'militant. He seems to be aware his arguments rely on non-source inductions, implying the topic is likely to be controversial. I didn't see any feedback for it.
- Feel free to revert it, but I don't think it's going to stay removed in the long run given how many RS use the 'militant' description summatively. ie. It'll resolve itself without need for an edit dispute. Watchman21 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Now we just had "FBI report indicating "no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence", further indicating we need better sources than antifa's WP:RSBREAKING in relation to Floyd protests. That is why we need to be extra careful with this article.--Davide King (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's still not relevant here. All it does is question whether antifa were involved in DC (presuming it's accurate and corroborated by other sources). It has no bearing on the general proposition that antifa are far-left. Watchman21 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- That does not change the fact that those sources are coming out with the protests, that
news organisations' pieces prefer "far-left" out of some combination of sensationalism and poorer comprehension of the issues and terms
, i.e. could it be that more sources are using far-left because of the protests escalation rather than an actual analysis? A few given sources talk equally or more about the protests and what is happening than antifa. Even then, one source states[t]he term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform
so it does not support the far-left label alone. One source also reads:Antifa groups resist far-right movements such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They monitor and track the activities of local fascists and expose them to their neighbours and employers. They also support migrants and refugees and pressure venues to cancel white power events.
No mention of allegations or that those whom antifa is engaging with are not really far-right or racists.--Davide King (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)- If you want to argue along those lines, you'd need to show that the authors' opinions of antifa, accrued over years of life experience, have been influenced sufficiently by a breaking event to render a source wholly unreliable, or more so than the margin of error (sensationalism, click-bait etc) already priced in to the probity of news sources in general.
- That's either presumptive or an impossible burden of proof, and in either case likely to be shot down as OR.
- Also, none of these sources are 'breaking news' (ie. stories being reported as they happen, or within minutes).
- The ABC source doesn't contradict the proposition that 'antifa target those whom they consider far-right' but you need to direct your talking points on this topic to the correct section below. Watchman21 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- For one, why using those sources in the first place rather than ones focused only on antifa and that specifically discuss its political position? Surely sources that discuss antifa's political position are preferable to news sources that simply mention far-left once in the text; and we could just as easily find a decent number of sources using left-wing as shown in the opening post. Furthermore, we write both in the lead and Ideology sections that antifa subrscribes to
left-wing [not far-left] ideologies
and the only statement that references its political position is that of the Anti-Defamation League (Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks
) which seems to support simply left-wing, or not only far-left in practice.--Davide King (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)- If you can find those sources, feel free to include them. We've been looking for quantitative sources from the start of this thread. We've already covered your other talking points above, so I won't repeat them here. Watchman21 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need for me to find them, it is in the OP which already includes more sources in favour of left-wing than far-left, so why not using them? Why not simply state militant anti-fascist and discuss the political position in the main body? Why not including both left-wing and far-left? This is something you never answered. Nor did you answer to the fact the lead section needs to be a summary of the main body which seems to contradict the far-left claim.--Davide King (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Again we've already covered these points. At least three times, in fact, over the course of this extraordinarily long thread. It will end up even longer if we repeat dialectical points. Watchman21 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need for me to find them, it is in the OP which already includes more sources in favour of left-wing than far-left, so why not using them? Why not simply state militant anti-fascist and discuss the political position in the main body? Why not including both left-wing and far-left? This is something you never answered. Nor did you answer to the fact the lead section needs to be a summary of the main body which seems to contradict the far-left claim.--Davide King (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you can find those sources, feel free to include them. We've been looking for quantitative sources from the start of this thread. We've already covered your other talking points above, so I won't repeat them here. Watchman21 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- For one, why using those sources in the first place rather than ones focused only on antifa and that specifically discuss its political position? Surely sources that discuss antifa's political position are preferable to news sources that simply mention far-left once in the text; and we could just as easily find a decent number of sources using left-wing as shown in the opening post. Furthermore, we write both in the lead and Ideology sections that antifa subrscribes to
- That does not change the fact that those sources are coming out with the protests, that
- That's still not relevant here. All it does is question whether antifa were involved in DC (presuming it's accurate and corroborated by other sources). It has no bearing on the general proposition that antifa are far-left. Watchman21 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Watchman21 you might want to see the discussion below. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- They're all related or contigent to Floyd's death and protests as well as Trump and others' call for terrorist designation, i.e. from 31 March. Also in relation to this, as per talk page implies that consensus has been reached but that is not the case. You may argue that
- You'll need to explain how the sources are in breach of WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS. Otherwise you're not really justified in reverting other users' edits on this topic. Watchman21 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I wish you good luck with what you’re trying to do, Watchman21. Davide King’s user page indicates that he is an anarchist. I’ve had disagreements with Guy before now. In my experience, there is little point in arguing anything with him. He is an Admin, but as indicated in his post several posts up, there is no question as to where his sympathies lie in this instance, and that is with antifa. So there are two there who will I imagine use every trick in the Wikibook to make antifa appear to be an organisation that merely opposes fascism in a warm and cuddly manner. Never mind that the two flags in its logo represent anarchism and communism - those flags are just incidental and don’t mean anything, because some irResponsible Source says that they’re warm and cuddly. Boscaswell talk 23:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- There was no need to for any of that and I think this comment may violate some rules whose name or link I cannot remember now. Either way, I have not been accused of what you are implying, not even by Watchman21, with whom I was simply respectfully discussing. Anyway, all of this is moot as I precisely put None in the Infobox as a joke and anarchism in parenthesis to match that of Religion (None: atheism) because of anarchism's opposition to authority and dogma, so it does not mean much. I do not even know why you are here; you do not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. I guess an academic and expert source (Bray 2017) saying that
[t]he vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent
while nothing thattheir willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists
is just yet anotherirResponsible Source
, huh?--Davide King (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I just saw those comments by Nfitz and it basically sums up my points despite describing its views as generally centrist to centre-right
, so clearly opposition to far-left does not steam from rabid leftists who do not want antifa to be associated with far-left. So no, Watchman21, there clearly is no consensus in favour of far-left and I did not violate any rules when I first removed the refs and far-left claim nor I did anything unilaterally as you implied; indeed, it seems to have been you who did that by reverting my edit, disregarding this discussion which does not actually support your view. How does consensus initially being for not even left-wing to cautionary using left-wing (as argued by Doug Weller) which was confirmed in all previously discussion suddenly goes for far-left. Since far-left was re-added in this edit by MeUser42 with the rationale to match the sources, then I believe the refs should be removed which is exactly what I did when I first removed far-left to reinstate the cautionary left-wing. We also have one source saying: However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy.
So maybe we should remove any position on the political spectrum from the first sentence and simply have this statement which appears in the second big paragraph: Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism.
--Davide King (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, one last point before I go, look way up to the top people and see Why don't we call Antifa far-left? with links to 5 earlier discussions. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the "anti-facists" is supported by citations at all. The groups ideology is facsist. Just because they named themselves "anti-facists" doesn't mean that we should describe them as such 73.227.195.63 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
"against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right"
I would like to discuss this wording again as when I did last time, it did not got any response. I think we should make clear that antifa's actions are indeed directed against right-wing extremists
and not merely against anyone they think or believe to be. For example, that wording may be true for the German Antifa which seems to be subscribing to the social fascist theory and may consider fascist not only the far-right, but it doesn't seem to be true for this antifa which includes social democrats. Considering the hoaxes perpetrated against antifa and how the far-right and white supremacists pretend to be antifa, I think it would be helpful to clarify that wording. For instance, The Four Deuces, wrote: I don't find a problem with the source. The ADL article says, "Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life."[8] While that could be re-worded in a neutral tone, the essence is correct: antifa counter-demonstrate far right demonstrations and argue with the far right online. I note too that the ADL calls the objects of harassment "right-wing extremists," while this articles refers to them as those whom antifa identify as such. We should accept the ADL description.
--Davide King (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's true that in a way it's casting doubt on their judgment, but it's also clearly neutral per WP:NPOV. Won't this have some WP:BLP implications, since for example Tucker Carlson is mentioned in this article as a target of their direct action, and he's not a right-wing extremist? --Pudeo (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Pudeo, thanks for your comment. Of course there are going to be instances like these, where antifa activists, real or pretenders, involve direct action against people who are neither fascist nor racist, but those seem to be isolated; and while it should be considered, in that specific case it seems to be related to the
antifa group Smash Racism D.C.
and racist is included in the lead, not justright-wing extremist
. Considering the name of the group and Carlson's views on race, I don't think it would have those implications. I'm not arguing that anyone attacked by antifa is a right-wing extremist (antifa is not an organization and individuals have pretended to be part of it to cause negative reactions towards antifa, so we would probably never known whether those who attacked someone that sources describe as not being fascist, racist or otherwise an extremist were really antifa or a pretender, or something else) but we should make clear when sources refer to those targeted as correctly identified by antifa as such. Either way, I think we can have a better wording to reflect that their targets are most of the time indeed right-wing extremists or racists, without implying that there may be rare exceptions. In my comment back in November 2019, I highlighted how in the main body those targeted were indeed far-right or sources have described as being racist or extremist when discussing it, for example the ADL calling the objects of harassment indeed right-wing extremists.--Davide King (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)- Clearly it should be stated as 'whom ANTIFA consider fascist, extreme right wing etc etc.' Views on what is fascist are completely subjective - often in the west - a mundane middle ground policy, business or politician is labelled as fascist by ANTIFA aficionados - despite the label being illogical.Reaper7 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Except sources clearly discussed the targeted views and that often times it matches with that of antifa:
[...] February 2017 Berkeley protests against alt-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos
"far-right group Patriot Prayer's" and "far-right activist Joey Gibson"
[...] 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 "certainly used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists"
[...] Berkeley protest on August 27, 2017 [...] to confront alt-right demonstrators
[...] February 2019 [...] Stone Mountain, Georgia as a white supremacist, neo-confederate rally planned [...] was cancelled
Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists [not those whom antifa identify as such] both online and in real life
- --Davide King (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Except sources clearly discussed the targeted views and that often times it matches with that of antifa:
- Clearly it should be stated as 'whom ANTIFA consider fascist, extreme right wing etc etc.' Views on what is fascist are completely subjective - often in the west - a mundane middle ground policy, business or politician is labelled as fascist by ANTIFA aficionados - despite the label being illogical.Reaper7 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Pudeo, thanks for your comment. Of course there are going to be instances like these, where antifa activists, real or pretenders, involve direct action against people who are neither fascist nor racist, but those seem to be isolated; and while it should be considered, in that specific case it seems to be related to the
- I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. Doctors treat patients, but sometimes they mistreat them. Police uphold the law, but sometimes they break it. Note that Carlson is publisher of the The Daily Caller which publishes articles by by far right personalities.[9] TFD (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support Davide King's proposal. It seems to me to stray into MOS:SCAREQUOTES and WP:WEASEL territory to say "those whom they consider". As per TFD, we don't say "the police arrest those they consider to be criminals" (even though sometimes the police arrest non-criminals). We don't say Anti-communism is "a political movement and ideology opposed to people it considers to be communist". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- There was a past discussions that covered this here which made the point that several RS identify cases where they misidentify people. Which is why a clarifier is needed, as noted above it could also have BLP implications. Something to the effect of well they attacked so and so, clearly they must be one of X bad group. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, there is no mention of that in the main body and I think Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces' above comments stand still. Maybe we could simply add that sources agree with most, many, whatever antifa's identifications, but that there have been cases where they misidentified people; even in the latter cases, was it really antifa or was it a far-right in disguise to give the movement bad publicity, or neither of the two?
Something to the effect of well they attacked so and so, clearly they must be one of X bad group
seems to be your own assumation, but I agree with The Four Deuces' statementI don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate.
All actions listed in Notable actions include some far-right or something to that effect; the only exception may be Carlson, but that was related to racism, not specifically to fascism or right-wing extremism; and Carlson's view on race have been controversial. Also, as pointed out by The Four Deuces,Carlson is publisher of the The Daily Caller which publishes articles by by far right personalities.
--Davide King (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)- But sources do take note when they screw up, which appears to be often. For example attacking Bernie supporters, attacking a Jewish man, and 2 Mexican-American Marines. I think it is important to note that who they attack appears to be largely subjective and the consequences of those attacks have real impact on the innocent victims. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I still believe Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces' comments apply; accidents happen. Why do you claim
who they attack appears to be largely subjective
? Why would not those be the exception rather than the norm as you seem to be implying? You wrote thatsources do take note when they screw up, which appears to be often
but if that was true, especially the often part, surely that would be reflected in the main body? It is not though; and I can only assume good faith and say that those are considered undue. The non-organisational nature of the movement, the oftentimes use of alleged and the fact that the far-right and others have pretended to be antifa or promoted hoaxes about antifa makes it more difficult. However, many sources also confirm antifa's identifications; you can see that in how many incidents in Notable actions include far-right or similar qualifications used by sources rather than merely being identified as such by antifa. Anyway, I hope Bobfrombrockley, The Four Deuces and others can reply back too to get more input and feedback.--Davide King (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)- Yeah not really. I mean I gave RS supporting that part if you think it is undue for the body well okay, that is not really relevant to this discussion though. Until then I suppose we should stick with the long standing consensus version. I am not seeing any compelling arguments to change are you? PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah not really
what? I did not say I think it is undue but rather that, assuming good faith, the reason why it is not included is probably because it is considered undue. As you can see from the main body, we do not cite every incident involving antifa and this was already discussed many times for why several incidents were left out and so on. Well, I think Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces gave some compelling arguments which I believe warrant some discussion. There is also evidence of individuals pretending to be antifa and of hoaxes, some of which are discussed in the article, so I think that should be considered, but you do not seem to consider that at all and seem to believe most of the time antifa misidentifies people.--Davide King (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)- Great find a source that relates people pretending to be Antifa to the sources I gave. I do not think that is a thing for those, so nothing to consider. Also I have to ask are you going to ping them in every post? PackMecEng (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Davide King, sure, it's subjective. They should first check on the central register of fascists, to make sure the person they are targeting is a genuine Nazi. Guy (help!) 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah not really. I mean I gave RS supporting that part if you think it is undue for the body well okay, that is not really relevant to this discussion though. Until then I suppose we should stick with the long standing consensus version. I am not seeing any compelling arguments to change are you? PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I still believe Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces' comments apply; accidents happen. Why do you claim
- But sources do take note when they screw up, which appears to be often. For example attacking Bernie supporters, attacking a Jewish man, and 2 Mexican-American Marines. I think it is important to note that who they attack appears to be largely subjective and the consequences of those attacks have real impact on the innocent victims. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, there is no mention of that in the main body and I think Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces' above comments stand still. Maybe we could simply add that sources agree with most, many, whatever antifa's identifications, but that there have been cases where they misidentified people; even in the latter cases, was it really antifa or was it a far-right in disguise to give the movement bad publicity, or neither of the two?
So we have three examples of antifa actively attacking people they mistakenly thought were far right and one example where they protested someone who is a friend of the far right but probably not a member. But there are according to the Wikipedia article 200 antifa groups, each of which have numerous members and they each have attended many demonstrations. So really we are saying that since they are only 99.9% correct, we need a qualification. It seems like a red herring to me. Does anyone question that white supremacists, anti-Semites and racists are far right? Normally we report what reliable sources say without our own editorial comment. TFD (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- How about their numerous attacks on the press or left wing groups that disagree with them? RS seem to document it frequently enough to be something to worth a distinction. PackMecEng (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a policy against original research. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." The ADL does not reach the same conclusion as you, that antifa carries out numerous attacks on the press and left wing groups. You need a reliable source that says that. We don't put in the lead of Police officer that they frequently shoot innocent people because although it happens it is not a typical function they perform. TFD (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, The Four Deuces, I agree about that. None of the given sources use such wording nor do they dispute that antifa is engaging against fascists, racists and those on the far-right, so the wording should reflect this rather than somehow implying antifa just goes attacking anyone who disagree with them. AOL includes this:
"In our research, we determine someone to be a fascist, Alt Right, White Nationalist, etc. based on which groups they are a part of and endorse," said a group member. "Nazis, fascists, white nationalists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes are specific categories, even if they overlap or are subsets or each other. Our main focus is on groups and individuals which endorse, or work directly in alliance with, white supremacists and white separatists. We try to be very clear and precise with how we use these terms."
- And yes, PackMecEng, I do not see why I should not ping at least once users when I mention them in my comments so that they can get a notification and be able to reply or correct me if I wrote anything wrong or that they disagree with.--Davide King (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- TFD I gave sources above but sure here is a source for attacking police and the press.[10][11] Also please read and internalize WP:OTHERSTUFF. What happens in the lead of another, unrelated article does not matter here. If you want to take up that fight over there, well go right ahead. Davide the difference is you are just repeating that I agree with them and pinging them over and over. Not really making a statement or asking for clarification, more seems like calling for backup. But eh was just curious which it was. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, forgive me for English not being my first language and not being a trained debater; I am just not good at those things and I believe other users can explain my point better than I could, which they did; and also because Bobfrombrockley did not reply to yours and other objections, so I am curious to hear that. However, you claiming I am not really making a statement is misleading if not outright false as I literally wrote in the above comment
None of the given sources use such wording nor do they dispute that antifa is engaging against fascists, racists and those on the far-right, so the wording should reflect this rather than somehow implying antifa just goes attacking anyone who disagree with them.
and linking a quote.--Davide King (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)- Apologies, English is technically my second language as well. When I said not really making a statement I was more referring to not commenting on statements they made pass agreeing with them. If I misread you on that, my mistake. PackMecEng (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is okay and thanks for clarifying. I just think Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces can probably give you a more informed and better reply. I do not consider myself to be a good enough talker and debater on talk page, but I still try to do what I can help and hopefully give a contribute. I will try and write that of course antifa engages against people whom they identify as such, but I do not think there is no need to state that, or that it can be worded a bit differently without implying antifa engages and attacks against anyone who disagree with them (I am not necessarily saying that currently it implies that but that it may been seen or read as implying that). Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body, I am not sure that wording is supported by the main body as the great majority of actions listed in Notable actions had indeed to do with the far-right and racists; so until that is changed and reflected in the main body, I do not think or believe it is appropriate to have that wording in the lead. Finally, I believe that hoaxes, false reports of antifa's involvement, far-right pretenders and so on need to be considered and weighted in; do we have confirmation that antifa really did mislabel them, that antifa was indeed involved? If so, are they notable and/or weighted enough? Or are they undue and the exception to the rule? I do not think a wording change would imply antifa were 100% correct or that there were no errors.--Davide King (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- One source that is used to support the far-left claim also reads:
Antifa groups resist far-right movements such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They monitor and track the activities of local fascists and expose them to their neighbours and employers. They also support migrants and refugees and pressure venues to cancel white power events.
No mention of allegations or that those whom antifa is engaging with are not really far-right or racists.--Davide King (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC) - We only have
According to the Los Angeles Times, they have engaged in "mob violence, attacking a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis"
in the main body (again, those Trump supporters may not be white supremacists or Nazis for the Los Angeles Times, but they may be considered racists and right-wing enough for other sources), a little too little for the lead to support the current wording. Only a minority of sources seem to use a qualifier; the rest pointly state they are fighting fascists, racists and the far-right, period. Indeed, only the Anti-Defamation League statesAntifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as "Nazi" events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature
(this seems to be because, as reported in the same source,Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump
, yet many sources would consider them still racist or right-wing enough to fit the far-right mold; in other words, antifa is not attacking centrist or centre-left people just for not being left-wing enough; they are overwhelmingly engaging very right-wing people where the difference from right-wing and far-right or racist is much smaller) but also thatantifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life
without any perceived or other qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, English is technically my second language as well. When I said not really making a statement I was more referring to not commenting on statements they made pass agreeing with them. If I misread you on that, my mistake. PackMecEng (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, forgive me for English not being my first language and not being a trained debater; I am just not good at those things and I believe other users can explain my point better than I could, which they did; and also because Bobfrombrockley did not reply to yours and other objections, so I am curious to hear that. However, you claiming I am not really making a statement is misleading if not outright false as I literally wrote in the above comment
- TFD I gave sources above but sure here is a source for attacking police and the press.[10][11] Also please read and internalize WP:OTHERSTUFF. What happens in the lead of another, unrelated article does not matter here. If you want to take up that fight over there, well go right ahead. Davide the difference is you are just repeating that I agree with them and pinging them over and over. Not really making a statement or asking for clarification, more seems like calling for backup. But eh was just curious which it was. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
A couple of comments: 1) As PackMecEng notes, this was discussed one year ago, but with a rather different emphasis. The issue then was a lead that said "label". There was a consensus to change this to the more neutral "identify", but it was not an enthusiastic consensus. I think it is worth re-visiting. 2) Of course there are documented examples of mis-identification. If they are noteworthy instances (e.g. if there is , it would be fine to mention these examples in the relevant section of the article. (See WP:NOTEWORTHY, which says whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies
, i.e. is there significant RS coverage of the incidents, meaning a single source would not suggest noteworthiness.) Similarly, of course there are documented examples of media and others mis-identifying perpetrators of violence as "antifa", and so on. For this to go in the lead, I think we would need to see that the weight of reliable sources mentioning this as part of their general descriptions of the topic of the article. My take on the sources is that these incidents are untypical and exceptional, so including in the lead would give undue weight and violate our neutrality policy. It is true that, strictly speaking, What happens in the lead of another, unrelated article does not matter here
, but I think it helps to think through the logic of our policies to ask if an article about, say, Fossil Hunters would state in the lead that sometimes they find things that aren't fossils or that non-fossil hunters are on occasion mistaken for fossil hunters: such instances would obviously be atypical of fossil hunters and so might be in the body of the article if widely commented on but not in the lead. 3) I think it is good practice to ping people you mention as Davide King has done, and bad practice to describe other editors' reasonable comments as "fiddlesticks". Let's keep it civil and avoid the ad hom. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- The emphasis was on using that word in the lead to avoid WP:LABEL basically, they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it. You think they are undue and that is fine but at this point I have shown several RS pointing out their failings in that area, hard to pull the undue card at this point isn't it? Again WP:OTHERSTUFF does apply, what happens in unrelated articles has no bearing on what happens here. The examples given do not even apply to this situation so I am not sure why you would even want to use them? Finally fiddlesticks is similar to "well darn", fairly minor to warrant civility caution or calling it ad hominem. Don't do that. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Concurring with the above, the ADL source states:
[Antifa] can also target law enforcement with both verbal and physical assaults because they believe the police are providing cover for white supremacists. They will sometimes chant against fascism and against law enforcement in the same breath.
- It's probably pointless arguing WP:UNDUE if a key source exposits antifa targeting fascists-by-proxy. Watchman21 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The main body only has two sources mentioning antifa sometimes
(not often) misidentifying (the Los Angeles Times and the ADL), so your statement that they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it
is not supported by the main body. Neither of you replied to my argument that the given sources do not seem to support that wording, for they do not add a qualifier like we do (which seems to be a truism) and in the lead only the ADL mentions the misidentification (again, in the case the ADL is talking about they did not confuse a leftist or centrist for white supremacists but Trump supporters which other sources have described as a part of them being racist and right-wing populists which often times overlap with the far-right). Nor you replied to my argument that the wording may indeed imply that antifa is going against anyone who disagree with them, including centrist and other leftists, when that is not supported either by the main body right now. We have only the Los Angeles Times in the main body.
Why not simply remove that wording and adding although sometimes there have been instances were antifa was mistaken
(duh!), although I am not sure if this is lead worthy (the main body does seem to be enough to support the claim in the lead) and I agree with Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces arguments that any reasonable reader would [not] assume that they were 100% accurate
while it is far more likely, considering the controversial nature, that a reader may assume they attack anyone who they deem as fascist, racist, or on the far-right and are often mistaken, when this is not supported by the main body. If there are documented examples of mis-identification [...] [and] are noteworthy instances
, they should be added to the main body after a discussion and consensus; until then, no matter how you may imply they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it
, that is not supported by the main body right now and is undue, misleading and a truism.--Davide King (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Per The Four Deuces, I note too that the ADL calls the objects of harassment "right-wing extremists," while this articles refers to them as those whom antifa identify as such. We should accept the ADL description.
Since the phrasing is talking about [a]ctivists engag[ing] in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment
, we should indeed accept the ADL description which is specifically about this and not about whether antifa is good or bad at identifying them, which is discussed later and as such can be described later, either in the lead or in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is not going to be tenable. The ADL clearly describe systematic targeting of police by antifa. That cannot be disparaged as an isolated incident or a 'one-off' example of misidentification, because it's a direct allusion to the movement's modus operandi. The article also uses similar terminology to the status quo:
In Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists, antifa activists have aggressively confronted what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups.
Watchman21 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)- We make no mention of the police in the lead. The quote you cited still reads that
[i]n Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists
, notthose whom antifa identifies/d as being white supremacists or right-wing extremists
; the qualifer is used later only forauthoritarian movements and groups
but we do not say they harrassauthoritarian movements and groups
, we saypeople [identified] as fascist, racist, or on the far-right
; so clearly antifa is engaging againstwhite supremacists or right-wing extremists
, not merelywhat [antifa] believe[s] to be authoritarian movements and groups.
Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces can probably give you a better answer as I believe them to be more informed and I am curious to hear their response to some of the objections you two raised. I still believe we can work towards a better wording without implying thatthey are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it
which is not supported by the main body. Because that is what it may imply and we should be careful about it.--Davide King (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)- '
Authoritarian groups
' is a pragmatic allusion to the fascists and the far-right in the same statement. The existing lede is likely a re-ordering of that statement for brevity. It would be pointless explicating it any other way given how clearly antifa's mission statement is explained in the rest of the article. - If you contrive the term to mean something other than 'fascists' and 'white supremacists', then you're giving evidence in support of the proposition that antifa's attacks are less discriminate than their mission statement, and arguing (inadvertently) for the lede to remain as it is.
- What other authoritarian groups would they be targeting? The police? Watchman21 (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- For one, the ADL calls the object of harrassment—which is exactly what the lead phrasing is discussing—
right-wing extremists
while we refer to them as those whom antifa identify as such. Why should not we accept this ADL description? As this first noted by The Four Deuces, I hope that can be clarified. If correct identification by antifa is actually much higher than misidentifcation, I do not see why we should add a truism like that. Even for those two examples of misidentification, do we have sources specifically about the incident which may actually argues against misidentification? Trump supporters and Trump himself may have been described as being authoritarian, far-right, racist and right-wing populist, so I do not see how that is a misidentification by antifa; it is a misidentification only for the Nazi and white supremacist claim which is what the ADL and the Los Angeles Times seem to imply (the Los Angeles Times also usesometimes
which could be used to imply that antifa's identifications are more correct than wrong and so it makes no sense to have a qualifier in the lead that may imply the reverse is true). You are also ignoring all the other given sources for the claim which make no such qualifier. If we can use news sources to support the far-left claim as you did, I do not see why all the other news sources which make no use of such qualifier should be discarded in favour of the ADL.--Davide King (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC) - Or worse, keeping the sources which make no such qualifier to support the qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- This comment is a bit muddled. Most of it just ignores the dialectic we've covered, as if it never happened. So I won't repeat the points here. I'd be very happy to go over anything you don't understand on my talk page. Watchman21 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- That is why I hope Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces can reply back too and probably express better my same points; or maybe your rebuttals convinced them and so the discussion would be over but let us wait until then. Of the six references used to support the wording, only the ADL uses it. Even then, the ADL also still clearly uses, without any qualifier and refers to
right-wing extremists
as the subject of antifa's harassment which is the topic of the sentence. All those sources may support the[a]ctivists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment
wording but not thepeople whom they identify
qualifier because they do not dispute antifa's claims.--Davide King (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)- There are 3 mentions of
right-wing extremists
in the article. The second and third aren't relevant to your point. The first talks about the presence of antifa at events held by right-wing extremists and is part of the very same statement that supports the lede in its present form. You'll need something other than that to prove what you need to prove. Watchman21 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)- Are you referring to the ADL's article? No, it does not support that very statement because it does not support the
people whom they identify
qualifier; again, of the six sources given, only the ADL may be used to support that when it sayswhat they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups
(all six sources should contain a statement similar to the ADL to support that qualifier); and yet, the ADL also refers to right-wing extremists asright-wing extremists
without any qualifier. So to me it seems that the six sources support[a]ctivists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against fascists, racists and those on the far-right.
- In Ideology, there was the wording
and is united by opposition to perceived right-wing extremism and white supremacy
and I boldly removed the bolded part for the exact same reason I think we should removepeople whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right
from the lead, i.e. because given sources do not actually support the qualifier claim as I also argued in the edit summary which I report below for clarity:
- Are you referring to the ADL's article? No, it does not support that very statement because it does not support the
- There are 3 mentions of
- That is why I hope Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces can reply back too and probably express better my same points; or maybe your rebuttals convinced them and so the discussion would be over but let us wait until then. Of the six references used to support the wording, only the ADL uses it. Even then, the ADL also still clearly uses, without any qualifier and refers to
- This comment is a bit muddled. Most of it just ignores the dialectic we've covered, as if it never happened. So I won't repeat the points here. I'd be very happy to go over anything you don't understand on my talk page. Watchman21 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- For one, the ADL calls the object of harrassment—which is exactly what the lead phrasing is discussing—
- '
- We make no mention of the police in the lead. The quote you cited still reads that
“ | [N]either source provide support for "perceived" claim; the given quote in second ref reads "common cause in opposing right-wing extremists and white supremacists", period; the BBC says "Critics argue the media tends to excuse violence by Antifa militants just because they are fighting white supremacists and their odious ideology. [...] However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy." | ” |
- I do not see why we should have that qualifier when only the ADL uses a wording that may support it.--Davide King (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I agree with this edit and your rationale; and since you are editing right now, I would really appreciate if you could express your opinion about this discussion, so we can get more viewpoints. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not a lot of time, but I think it's a given that Antifa focusses on right-wing extremists and that they are anti-fascist. This isn't the same thing as some weird militia groups who think they are defending their constitutional rights when they clearly haven't a clue and where we can say what they "perceive as their constitutional rights". And sure, I know what some people think that fascism is left-wing but we certainly aren't going to say anything that would suggest that they aren't anti-fascist because fascism is left-wing, that would really be going down a rabbit hole. Oh hell, I just notices that Watchman is talking about "their mission statement", that sort of comment suggesting that there's some official body and unified group won't get us anywhere. But then I grew up in the middle of the civil rights movement and have a bit of knowledge about how anarchic movements can be (note I'm not talking about anarchism, just disorganisation). Anyway, it's a fact that the movement opposes fascists, Nazis, white supremacists. That bits of it may target someone who doesn't quite fit those labels isn't surprising but says little about the overall movement. If we say they "focus on" we aren't saying that they exclusively target, so I don't think we need to get too worried about the Tucker Carlson issue. Ok, that's all, I've a huge watchlist to get through and an online Pilates class coming up soon. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, thanks for your comments. I think that was exactly what an IP was referring to when it wrote here the qualifier
reads like something an alt right youtuber would write
, i.e. thatagainst those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right
is just a more neutral wording of a right-wing talking point that sees antifa as attacking anyone who disagree with them, basically saying antifa is not really going after fascists, racists and the far-right. This claim is not supported by sources; mistakes happens, but that does not mean antifa is notfocus[ing] on right-wing extremists and that they are [not really] anti-fascist
as you wrote, that is a given fact supported by sources. - Considering the controversy, I believe we need to be extra careful in not implying that antifa does not actually oppose
fascists, Nazis, white supremacists
(quoting you) as it claims to be. If this was not enough, I reiterate my belief that the given six sources do not actually support that qualifier wording (they do not say that the cited events and protests were against alleged far-right et all) and thusagainst fascists, racists and those on the far-right
is perfectly fine and actually supported by sources. If you believe this wording may imply that antifa is always correct (it does not), how does not the same thing also apply to the current wording that is even more damaging as it may be read as implying the whole point of antifa is a farce because they do not really target fascists, racists and those on the far-right, just those whom they identify as such? - As pointed out by Doug Weller,
[t]his isn't the same thing as some weird militia groups who think they are defending their constitutional rights when they clearly haven't a clue and where we can say what they "perceive as their constitutional rights"
and is why the far-left and the far-right are not the same thing just because they may employ similar tactics like using violence against each other.--Davide King (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)- I completely agree with Doug, Davide and TFD. It isn't complicated. The existence of one or two specific single-source examples of possible antifa activists making possible mistakes in their identification is not enough to skew the lead away from the norm towards exceptions. Nor is it grounds for violating WP neutrality principles and abandoning WP:ALLEGED. By all means include noteworthy mistaken identity examples in the body, but the lead should say what the weight of the sources say. If the weight of sources said antifa have a track record of regularly getting it wrong, it'd be easy to show that, which nobody has done. Five editors seem to have contributed to this discussion, with three taking this same line (that we should delete the "people whom they identify as") and two taking a different line (that we should keep and perhaps strengthen the scare-quoting by saying antifa are bad at identifying extreme right-wingers), so there is no consensus for change yet, which means we should probably stick with the week consensus from one year ago for "identified" unless other editors join. The police issue is a separate issue, and if any editor believes the weight of sources say that antifa activists target the police as well as the far right I'd suggest we open a new talk section for that as this talk page is hard enough to follow as it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that
[b]y all means include noteworthy mistaken identity examples in the body, but the lead should say what the weight of the sources say
. Bobfrombrockley, could you please verify that of the six given sources, only the ADL may be used to support that qualifier wording, when it sayswhat they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups
, as it seems to be to me? Yet, the ADL references several actions by antifa and clearly describe events as being held byright-wing extremists
andwhite supremacists
without any qualifier, so it is not so strong and seems to confirm the Los Angeles Times wording that antifa may misidentify onlysometimes
. Because if this is true, then I believe that would move the discussion much closer to removal, for the onus would be on those supporting the current wording in providing sources that explicity use the qualifier and for why they are better than, or to be preferred to, those who do not.--Davide King (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)- Of course it should read 'those they identify' as far right, fascist etc etc. What one considers far right or fascist is always subjective - especially in 2020 and especially with an predominantly unstructured semi anarchic group like ANTIFA.Reaper7 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works by verifiably and reliable sources; clearly there are sources who state plainly antifa is engaging against fascists, racists ad the far-right, not allegely or those identified as such. Indeed, both the ADL and the Los Angeles Times seem to imply misidentification is a minority, not a majority; and as you can see by the incidents we list in Notable actions, sources do not say those event were held by individuals alleged being fascists, racists or on the far-right; they say they were held by right-wing extremists and white supremacists, period.
- The ADL calls the object of antifa's harrassment right-wing extremists, not alleged right-wing extremists, or right-wing extremists according to antifa, or identified as such. If my claim that all the other five sources do not use the qualifier is true, it is original research and synthesis; and that qualifier should be indeed removed. Finally, I repeat that it is a truism; of course antifa identifies them and they may well be wrong; this does not seem to be the majority of cases and you also do not seem to consider, with all the hoaxes and false news about antifa's involvement, that many of those misidentification may well have be done by an individual who is not even part of antifa; and The Four Deuces and Bobfrombrockley's comment that we do not use the qualifier for anti-communists and I do not think we should in either case. The qualifier should be used only when a majority of sources explicity make it when describing antifa. This does not seem to be the case.--Davide King (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it should read 'those they identify' as far right, fascist etc etc. What one considers far right or fascist is always subjective - especially in 2020 and especially with an predominantly unstructured semi anarchic group like ANTIFA.Reaper7 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that
- I completely agree with Doug, Davide and TFD. It isn't complicated. The existence of one or two specific single-source examples of possible antifa activists making possible mistakes in their identification is not enough to skew the lead away from the norm towards exceptions. Nor is it grounds for violating WP neutrality principles and abandoning WP:ALLEGED. By all means include noteworthy mistaken identity examples in the body, but the lead should say what the weight of the sources say. If the weight of sources said antifa have a track record of regularly getting it wrong, it'd be easy to show that, which nobody has done. Five editors seem to have contributed to this discussion, with three taking this same line (that we should delete the "people whom they identify as") and two taking a different line (that we should keep and perhaps strengthen the scare-quoting by saying antifa are bad at identifying extreme right-wingers), so there is no consensus for change yet, which means we should probably stick with the week consensus from one year ago for "identified" unless other editors join. The police issue is a separate issue, and if any editor believes the weight of sources say that antifa activists target the police as well as the far right I'd suggest we open a new talk section for that as this talk page is hard enough to follow as it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, thanks for your comments. I think that was exactly what an IP was referring to when it wrote here the qualifier
Headline: "Armed white residents lined Idaho streets amid ‘antifa’ protest fears. The leftist incursion was an online myth."
[12] Doug Weller talk 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Headline: 'Instigator' with antifa flag still at large as Harrisburg police make protest arrests NedFausa (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see if the story gets any attention. Note that officials in Minneapolis said that protest violence was caused by outside agitators and the false claim was repeated by Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi.[13] See also the article in the Harrisburg ABC News affiliate, "False claims of antifa protesters plague small U.S. cities". So did the woman run away with the flag or did she leave it there? If so, where are the pictures? It's typical of political elites to find scapegoats.TFD (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Nation has got hold of an internal FBI document that says there is no evidence antifa were involved in violence at the protests.[14] The story has since been picked up by mainstream media. I doubt though that Trump and Pelosi will retract their misinformation. TFD (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Story in The Guardian today.[15] Doug Weller talk 14:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: Yes, but the Minnesota officials said the outsiders were right wing agitators similar to the ones who appeared to demonstrate menacingly the previous month to "open up" from the Coronavirus shutdown in Michigan and elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think they correctly pointed out that some far right posed as antifa on line, perhaps that some instigated violence, but not that 80% of the demonstrators came from the far right. TFD (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces, just as well we're WP:NOTNEWS. Picking this shit-show apart in real time is an unenviable task. Guy (help!) 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think they correctly pointed out that some far right posed as antifa on line, perhaps that some instigated violence, but not that 80% of the demonstrators came from the far right. TFD (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Focus on predominantly
The word appears 14 times in the above Summary of lead sentence sources on antifa political affiliation, but is dwarfed by the overlong discussion. Please, can someone help me understand the present consensus relating solely to this word? At the moment, it is included in the lead's first sentence: Antifa is a predominantly left-wing, anti-fascist political activist movement in the United States…
. However, it has been repeatedly removed and restored, all seemingly without consensus. One aspect of the debate involves whether to describe Antifa as "left-wing" or "far-left". I am not interested in that controversy, and wish to focus exclusively on predominantly. Watchman21 contends there are no quantitative sources to warrant using that adverb, especially since there is no evidence that a substantive minority of Antifa members are not left-wing. Bobfrombrockley disagrees, arguing that "although some anarchists consider themselves left-wing and some sources consider anarchism in general to be left-wing, most anarchists reject the association with the left and see themselves as neither left nor right." Thus predominantly left-wing is appropriate. Davide King also favors predominantly left-wing, which he believes "does not exclude far-left nor its more moderate, admittedly centre-left minority." Boscaswell, though, says "this discussion is a joke," since predominantly left-wing "could be interpreted as including some right wing elements." Boscaswell's comment may be facetious, but in my opinion it's dead-on. In any case, I see no clear consensus for using predominantly in the lead. I request that the word be removed until definitive agreement is reached. NedFausa (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a big deal to me on whether to include or exclude predominantly (I thought that was the status quo when it was changed to far-left without consensus yet); my main issue is with using only far-left. One proposal would be to simply remove any mention of left-wing and far-left (as it was the consensus in the first discussion) and simply say
anti-fascist
, considering that later in the lead we already say that[i]ndividuals involved in the movement tend to [...] subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism
so this may be enough and does not imply the whole movement or every single individual is left-wing or far-left.--Davide King (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)- why don’t we all agree that the lede should be amended to read: “antifa is an organisation dedicated to group activities such enjoying a nice cup of tea while knitting and chatting about anti-fascism.” and thereby carry on failing to accept that with the two flags of anarchism and communism at the forefront of their logo, that is what they are about. No more, no less than revolution, with any violence being put down to others getting in the way. Further, I reject the partiality of any edit or suggestion made by Davide King, whose user page makes clear his allegiance to anarchism. As such, I believe that he should stand aside completely from this article and talk page. There is a concerted effort being made by antifa apologists to have their militant and violent tendencies ignored and for them to be considered as warm and cuddly anti-fascists. To do so would be grossly wrong, as the two flags of their logo makes abundantly clear. Boscaswell talk 04:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Because antifa is not even a organisation! You accuse me of bias and anarchism (the third time!), which is a personal attack; and yet, you cannot even get basic facts straight. Maybe you are the who is biased, or do you think, to quote Bastiat, do you not also belong to the human race? Or do you believe that you are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind and thus do not have any bias?
To claim that a person's POV makes them incapable of serving the neutrality goal of Wikipedia is to make the false claim that some people are inherently neutral. Such a person does not exist. EG: centrism is an ideology.
Finally, you are spreading even false information because that claim on my userpage is intended as a joke and a pun toReligion: None (atheism)
since anarchism is the philosophy most opposed to dogma and it does not say I am an anarchist; and even if I were, you are the only user who is making such accusations which amount to personal attacks. That is why I am constantly pinging other users in discussions so that they can correct me, etc. and have the most viewpoints.--Davide King (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC) - I think this was also a personal attack against The Four Deuces, JzG and My very best wishes who had doubts about the use of militant. Clearly, they must be antifa; for it cannot possibly be that their rationale is based on an interpretation of our guidelines, right? If there is someone who should
stand aside completely from this article and talk page
(as you wrote), it is you, who has made personal attacks against me three times and now even unfounded attacks against all those other users too, who surely must be antifa apologists! Everyone but you is biased in favour on antifa.--Davide King (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC) - You are also basically saying that antifa is far-left because the flag's colours of black and red are used to represent anarchism and communism, therefore antifa is far-left (it is up to reliable sources to say that; and there is no real agreement between them other than left). To not go off-topic, I suggest you to look at the top of this page to check all previous discussions which had no consensus for using far-left. So this makes all your claims even more absurd.--Davide King (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Boscaswell, {{citation needed}}. Just because we don#'t say "Antifa are a bunch of radical far-left terrorists" doesn't mean we're trying to pretend they are something they are not.
- As always the problem is that Antifa is not one thing. It's a loose and heterogeneous affiliation of individuals, as far as I can tell. You can say the Proud Boys are far-right because it's a single group with a single leader, but you can't say that about antifa because it's neither of those things. Reports suggest that it includes libertarians, mainstream liberals, anarchists and more.
- Of course part of the problem here is that the "left" of US politics, the Democratic Party, is actually centre-right by global standards, so what appears far to the left on the US scale may well actually be mainstream or centrist globally. Guy (help!) 08:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Because antifa is not even a organisation! You accuse me of bias and anarchism (the third time!), which is a personal attack; and yet, you cannot even get basic facts straight. Maybe you are the who is biased, or do you think, to quote Bastiat, do you not also belong to the human race? Or do you believe that you are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind and thus do not have any bias?
- In response to the point that
predominantly left-wing could be interpreted as including some right wing elements
, I do not see how that would be possible when in the lead we also clearly writeindividuals subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies
. It seems to be a strawman. I have no issue removing predominantly though.--Davide King (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)- Davide King, we should go back to the sources I reckon. Guy (help!) 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- why don’t we all agree that the lede should be amended to read: “antifa is an organisation dedicated to group activities such enjoying a nice cup of tea while knitting and chatting about anti-fascism.” and thereby carry on failing to accept that with the two flags of anarchism and communism at the forefront of their logo, that is what they are about. No more, no less than revolution, with any violence being put down to others getting in the way. Further, I reject the partiality of any edit or suggestion made by Davide King, whose user page makes clear his allegiance to anarchism. As such, I believe that he should stand aside completely from this article and talk page. There is a concerted effort being made by antifa apologists to have their militant and violent tendencies ignored and for them to be considered as warm and cuddly anti-fascists. To do so would be grossly wrong, as the two flags of their logo makes abundantly clear. Boscaswell talk 04:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Incoming...
The Devil's Advocate has a piece in Breitbart ranting about this article and naming several editors. I did love the first comment when I read it: "Wiki is about as reliable as the mainstream media". Yes, petal, that's very much the point. Guy (help!) 09:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- The article also has evidence that you were canvassed to this article through Facebook, and removed "militant" per the request of the person in Facebook. Naughty. --Pudeo (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Pudeo, no it does not. It has an assertion, but not evidence. It was on my watchlist already having edited the article previously, and as you see above, I am not opposed to including the word, but I am not convinced it should be asserted as fact in Wiki-voice. Thanks for playing, though. Guy (help!) 13:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nice to see TDA can be relied upon to still be shitposting anonymously from the shadows, and that Breitbart (beacon of the liberal media) gives him a platform. He almost had a point on the Gamergate article, as it was filled with SPA pushing an agenda, but it wasn't one sided; just as this article isn't. Koncorde (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Pudeo, no it does not. It has an assertion, but not evidence. It was on my watchlist already having edited the article previously, and as you see above, I am not opposed to including the word, but I am not convinced it should be asserted as fact in Wiki-voice. Thanks for playing, though. Guy (help!) 13:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views[26] and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, and socialism.[27][34] Both the name antifa and the logo with two flags representing anarchism and communism are derived from the German Antifa movement.[35] 128.76.189.210 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Lead
How should the lead characterise Antifa, in Wikipedia's voice?
- Militancy
- Omit militant
- Often characterized as militant or some variant thereof
- Militant, without qualification
- Political position
- Leftist (or predominantly left-wing)
- Left-wing
- Far-left
- Often described as far-left
- Omit political lean
Sources in Discussion, below. Guy (help!) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 2.5 was added 19:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC) per request below
Opinions
- 1.2 and 2.2 per discussions above. The status quo ante was left-wing militant, but I find that militant requires a degree of cherry-picking. Guy (help!) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5), although 1.2. and 2.2 would also be reasonable. In addition, a comment. I think the actual problem in the lead is not exact wording, but this phrase: "Activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against people whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right". The lead suppose to be a summary of content on the page. Does the page say a lot about their "physical violence"? I do not see it at all. "Property damage"? Looks like one occasion, unless I am missing something. "Harassment"? Perhaps, one or two incidents, but I am not sure. More up to the point, this is an accusation of crime. What convictions of the members of the Antifa do we have described on this page? I do not see a single conviction on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- 1.3 and 2.3-ANTIFA's militancy is well documented. Antifa members have forcibly attempted to prevent conservative speaking engagements and other activities from taking place. They have engaged in repeated altercations with police and right-wing protesters. Many of its members openly identify as communist, which is enough to qualify the group as being far-left. Display name 99 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- 1.3 and 2.3 Per sources (see my comment in discussion section, as well as PacMecEng's sources below). Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit both (1.1, 2.5) The term militant is ambiguous and could refer to anything from someone who has strong enough views to argue on facebook to someone willing to murder for their cause. Also, the term left wing describes ideology, but antifa has only one objective, to confront fascism, which is not a specifically left-wing position. Nor is there any ideological conformity within antifa. It would problem be better merely to say that most antifa are left-wing. It's a single issue group, even if that issue has more resonance on the left. TFD (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit both - TFD reflects my views. I am not clear at all what militant means in this context - what activist group isn't militant? And I have no idea why we are discussing the political position of a movement - is anti-facism or anti-white supremacism a political position? It's its supporters who may have, probably do have, political positions, mainly left-of-center. Having members who are communists doesn't make the movement far-left, and although some people may not understand this, there are people who identify as communists who aren't far left. A poll carried out by the conservative Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that "36% of millennials polled say that they approve of communism, which is up significantly from 28% in 2018." 70% said they would vote socialist.[16] Are they all far-left, trying to overthrow the government? Doug Weller talk 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Alternative - I have no issue with either militant or left-wing being used with proper context, but the current layout is badly written. With a small amount of editing it would be easily resolved to better represent both the historic position, and recent broadening appeal / overlap with general protests / opposition to alt-right and far right. The lede is currently a bit of a laundry list rather than particularly well structured. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5). Both "militant" and all the variants on "(far-)left" fail to refer to anything specific or unambiguous enough to be a useful in the lede. As far as "militant": I don't object to the term being used in the body of the article with a greater degree of context, but decontextualised in the lede it's essentially a hyperbolic empty signifier and fails to reflect the nuanced picture we would ideally portray. "Far-left" is even worse: as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself, and as I've shown, it very rarely appears in serious scholarly appraisals of antifa by credentialed experts. "(Predominantly) left" is not as bad, but still misleading insofar as it fails to acknowledge the significant political differences within antifa. If we're looking to sum up antifa's politics, "anti-fascist" is accurate, unambiguous, and clearly supported by the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- 1.3 & 2.3 That is how most sources old and new refer to them.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] There is an argument that this these terms are recentism, the issue with that is these terms have been used for years to describe them by these RS. Modern usage is just confirming and refining past usage. Though I could see a case being made for 1.2 and 2.4, which I would accept as alternatives. Basically anything less is just a form of white washing. PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not all of the sources you cite say what you say they say. For example, ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary" and mentions "its militant followers' provocations", which is not the same as calling it "militant". CNN says "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left", which is not the same as calling it "far left", and says "Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across", i.e. some not all. PBS says "far-left-leaning movements" and doesn't use the word "militant". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Some of the sources are for support of militant and others for far-left. Noting that some say well it can very does not distract from the majority view that they are described as predominantly far-left. For example you cite the CNN "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left" when it is often far left that means mostly far left. Again because a minority are not far-left that does not mean the majority cannot be described as such. That kind of argument is not based on policy, RS, or logic for that matter. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, please see my analysis of sources below at Sources for why they are inappropriate for the first sentence. I have added this at Ideology. By all means, feel free to add more there and sources that
[o]ften characterize [antifa] as militant or some variant thereof
but the lead should simply stateAntifa is an anti-fascist
which is the only thing all sources seem to agree on. You also did not reply to any objections this SPECIFICO's comment. Again, the main thing of antifa is anti-fascism and we already write about the ideologies of antifa activists in the lead; in other words, many individuals may well hold far-left views but that does not make antifa far-left and it is contradicted by a significant amount of sources that do not use it or use something else like left-wing which is not the same thing as far-left (which seems to be used more often in American news outlets), hence we should write given facts.--Davide King (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC) - Here, The New York Times says
The Trump administration blamed what it called the radical left, naming antifa, a contraction of the word "anti-fascist" that has come to be associated with a diffuse movement of left-wing protesters who engage in more aggressive techniques like vandalism.
So which is which? The only agreement among sources isanti-fascist
which is exactly what we should report in the very first sentence.--Davide King (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC) - Notice how it says
left-wing protesters
? In other words, individuals within antifa are described as generally holding left-wing to far-left views, but that does not make antifa itself as left-wing, certainly not far-left, for their purpose is anti-fascism, not a specific ideology.--Davide King (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC) - The difference between antifa and the broader, wider anti-fascist movement is not that antifa is militant; it is that antifa
aim to achieve their objectives through the use of direct action rather than through policy reform.
--Davide King (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, please see my analysis of sources below at Sources for why they are inappropriate for the first sentence. I have added this at Ideology. By all means, feel free to add more there and sources that
- Some of the sources are for support of militant and others for far-left. Noting that some say well it can very does not distract from the majority view that they are described as predominantly far-left. For example you cite the CNN "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left" when it is often far left that means mostly far left. Again because a minority are not far-left that does not mean the majority cannot be described as such. That kind of argument is not based on policy, RS, or logic for that matter. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Bobfrombrockley, that was something I noted too when I actually read them, so accusing those who are for neither of
white washing
when one cannot even check given sources to support one's argument is not very good-faith like, although I assume good faith and believe it was a simple mistake. I did an analysis of all those sources. Please, let me know if I missed something or if I wrote anything wrong.--Davide King (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not all of the sources you cite say what you say they say. For example, ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary" and mentions "its militant followers' provocations", which is not the same as calling it "militant". CNN says "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left", which is not the same as calling it "far left", and says "Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across", i.e. some not all. PBS says "far-left-leaning movements" and doesn't use the word "militant". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- 1.3 & 2.3 PackMecEng's sources are persuasive. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5), per Arms & Hearts, Doug Weller and The Four Deuces' rationale. Just to clarify, in before I get falsely attacked for the fourth time of being an anarchist or antifa apologist, or for the second time of whitewashing (despite in the end being right to add this, at least per My very best wishes), I am not opposed to have militancy in the lead as it is now. I am also not opposed to add the political positions in the main body, perhaps in Ideology or as a subsection titled Political position in which we write something along these lines
News sources have variously described antifa as anti-fascist, far-left, leftist, left-wing, militant, militant left-wing and radical left
and whatever other political position, or none political position, while at the same time nothing sources such as this saying[as their name indicates], Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy
and that terms like far-leftvery rarely appears in serious scholarly appraisals of antifa by credentialed experts
and that"far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself
which is why it would not be used in the lead.
- To clarify, that was more of a paraphrasing; I am not advocating us to use literally this wording, just along those lines. The lead should summarises key facts and the only fact that seems to be a given, notwithstanding several IPs arguing that antifa are the real fascists (which seems to be more of an euphemism for authoritarian than for the real thing) without providing any source, is anti-fascist. Finally, I am especially opposed to far-left being in the lead for the reasons I am going to expose below.
- It is contradicted by
subscribing to a range of left-wing [which is correct or right per above point] ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism.[27][34]
A majority of adherents are anarchists, communists and other socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries,[40] although some social democrats and other leftists adhere to the antifa movement.[40]
The Anti-Defamation League states that "[m]ost antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks".[22]
andAntifa describes a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often [not always] the far left.
(the latter is wrongly used to support the far-left claim). - Besides, I agree that
"Far-left" is even worse: as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself
and that[m]ore than half of these are sourced to Trump himself
which was exactly my point for why I boldly removed that in the first place and which is why I believe sources given to support the far-left claim do not actually support it, certainly not being in the lead, much less the very first sentence and even before anti-fascist, which is the only thing we, all who agree with the consensus of fascism being far-right, may agree on.--Davide King (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)- The issue I have with that argument is that it is basically saying well a few RS say some people that identify as Antifa are only left not far-left. So even with the examples you list giving something would 2.1, 2.2, or 2.4 be more appropriate than no information at all? that is of course ignoring most modern sources describing the vast majority as far-left. Also if you are not opposed to militancy in the lead why vote to remove it? Wouldn't 1.2 or 1.3 be a better fit for what you are arguing for? PackMecEng (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- You did not get it. I am opposed to
militant
, whether far-left or left-wing (i.e.a militant, far-left, anti-fascist
ora militant, left-wing, anti-fascist
), becausedecontextualised in the lede [is] essentially a hyperbolic empty signifier and fails to reflect the nuanced picture we would ideally portray
(as argued by Arms & Hearts). I am not opposed to us writingprotest tactics such as digital activism and militancy
as it is currently done or discuss it further in the main body as proposed by other users. Many of the sources used to purposely show that antifa is far-left do not actually say why is far-left and seem to have jumped on far-left due the ongoing the protests, of which there is not even agreement on what part did antifa play, if any, rather than on factual basis; and thus academic sources would be far more preferable. Either way, I do not see why we have to sayfar-left, anti-fascist
orleft-wing, anti-fascist
as the very first sentence. As argued by Doug Weller, it is individuals who have a political position and this is reported in the lead; the only political position of the movement and which all sources actually agree on is anti-fascist. The fact that far-left is clearly contradicted in the main body and that the lead needs to be a summary of it does not seem to concern you; if there are clearly individuals who are not far-left, it makes no sense to use far-left like that and the only alternative that would not contradict the main body would be left-wing as both the far-left and the centre-left are left-wing; this may be further complicated if there is also a decent portion of libertarians, which may not fit on the political spectrum; and mainstream liberals, which may well be more centrist than left-wing as argued by JzG here, so clearly far-left is inadeguate as the very first sentence without any context.--Davide King (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)- Perhaps we could add another option for your version of militancy? Also the lead is for broad strokes, what the majority of Antifa is. Yes there are some that use only left wing, but that does not invalidate that most sources use far-left. The other political positions besides anti-fascist are anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few so we cannot just say anti-fascist and hope the reader understands. Where have libertarians been mentioned as members? Finally with Guy's post you mention, it also starts with
Just because we don't say "Antifa are a bunch of radical far-left terrorists" doesn't mean we're trying to pretend they are something they are not.
PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)- Militancy and militant are two different words and we are specifically discussing militant and whether it should be in the first sentence of the lead, are we not? What you do not seem to realise, or maybe is just my impression for your reply, is that
anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few
are not antifa's political positions; they are individual antifa activists' political positions. Considering the history of the wider socialist movement, how would you think could they all co-exist, if antifa is really promotinganarchism, communism, and Marxism
as you seem to imply (apologies if I misunderstood you)? - The only political position of antifa is anti-fascism, which is why you see socialists of all stripes coming together and agreeing on one thing. Antifa activists' political positions may well be those of
anarchism, communism, and Marxism
but they are not antifa's political positions; the main thing antifa promotes and engages is anti-fascism. This is supported by the academic sources we use and by the BBC's comment thatAntifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy
and the weight of sources should not simply be based on quantity but by their quality too. Academic and experts of the movement should be prioritised over news sources. Why all sources listed to support far-left are news? Is there really no academic source supporting far-left? - In this specific and controversial case, I do not think the mention of far-left in those news outlets means much, if they do not actually explain what they mean by it and why; they seem to use far-left the way it is often used, i.e. to refer to something more left than a given party; and yet, every time there is no agreement on what is the party that is compared to (the Democrats? The DSA?). Just because they use far-left in an article that mentions antifa, it does not mean it has enough weight to be used to support the claim; we should look at articles that specifically discuss antifa and its political position. Do we list the Democrats' political position as left-wing just because a certain amount of news outlets, in articles not even discussing the political party and its political position, use the word left-wing as a quick way to get to the point? I have read so many news outlets that have referred to centre-left and centre-right parties as left-wing or right-wing (like the centre does not exist), respectively; those are not useful to describe a party's political position. I believe this also what SPECIFICO was arguing when writing
[t]hese labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers
which is a pretty good summary of what I meant but which I probably did not explained very well. - Most of those sources you listed talk more about what is going those days with protests, of which antifa may or may not even been involved; and Trump and others' comments. Merely a quick mention of far-left simply is not enough; you would need sources that specifically discuss antifa and its political position, not merely those that mention antifa and use the far-left qualifier which tell us nothing about it as you wish it would. I am sure other users could just find a significant enough number sources that merely mention antifa but use the left-wing qualifier instead. By all means, add sources that specifically discuss antifa (like
What is antifa?
as is done forWhat Is Antifa, the Movement Trump Wants to Declare a Terror Group?
which is fine, notTrump Lays Blame For Clashes On 'Radical-Left Anarchists'
,As Trump vows crackdown on 'antifa,' growth of right-wing extremism frustrates Europeans
,Barr threatens to bust 'far-left extremist groups' in Floyd unrest
, orWhat we do and don't know about the extremists taking part in riots across the US
) and its political position (i.e. the article is only about antifa and its political position, not Floyd protests, Trump's comments, or other) and that use far-left. Finally, I agree that far-left may be appropriate if it werea centrally-managed organization or institution
but not for antifa, which is neither.--Davide King (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) - JzG did mention
[r]eports suggest that it includes libertarians, mainstream liberals, anarchists and more
and I do not understand what you meant by reporting that statement.--Davide King (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)- All the sources I gave support militant and far-left. I gave almost a dozen of them and could produce more if you would like. So on the one hand we have your personal feeling on what you think Antifa is, which btw is contrary to this very article, and on the other we have tons and tons of RS supporting what I said. I have to say, policy wise, you do not have a convincing argument. Which unfortunately is the case with most of the omit votes, a lot of personal feelings and fairly short on RS or policy backing up those assertions. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, they do not, for all but The New York Times are simply passive mentions in articles that are about antifa's role in protests and Trump and others' comments about antifa in accusing them of turning the protests into violence and labelling them as terrorists. So it has nothing to do with personal feelings; your sources do not seem to actually support your stronger implications.--Davide King (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- All the sources I gave support militant and far-left. I gave almost a dozen of them and could produce more if you would like. So on the one hand we have your personal feeling on what you think Antifa is, which btw is contrary to this very article, and on the other we have tons and tons of RS supporting what I said. I have to say, policy wise, you do not have a convincing argument. Which unfortunately is the case with most of the omit votes, a lot of personal feelings and fairly short on RS or policy backing up those assertions. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Militancy and militant are two different words and we are specifically discussing militant and whether it should be in the first sentence of the lead, are we not? What you do not seem to realise, or maybe is just my impression for your reply, is that
- Perhaps we could add another option for your version of militancy? Also the lead is for broad strokes, what the majority of Antifa is. Yes there are some that use only left wing, but that does not invalidate that most sources use far-left. The other political positions besides anti-fascist are anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few so we cannot just say anti-fascist and hope the reader understands. Where have libertarians been mentioned as members? Finally with Guy's post you mention, it also starts with
- You did not get it. I am opposed to
- The issue I have with that argument is that it is basically saying well a few RS say some people that identify as Antifa are only left not far-left. So even with the examples you list giving something would 2.1, 2.2, or 2.4 be more appropriate than no information at all? that is of course ignoring most modern sources describing the vast majority as far-left. Also if you are not opposed to militancy in the lead why vote to remove it? Wouldn't 1.2 or 1.3 be a better fit for what you are arguing for? PackMecEng (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit both - First off, the lead is incorrect to claim antifa "is a predominantly ... an anti-fascist political activist movement in the United State." The RS along side that sentence do not support that verbiage. The RS are merely discussing the anti-fascists in America but do not claim it is a movement "predominately" in the USA. For example, one RS writes, "antifa gained new prominence in the United States after the white supremacist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, in August 2017" but that RS does not claim that Antifa is predominately in USA.
- Second, being "anti-fascist" is not left-winged or right-winged. RS in the lead, ADL [29] writes, "though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks."
- So, that makes me think there needs to be a subheading for "Antifa Pre-2016 election" and another subheading for "Antifa Post-2016 election." Washington Post writes, "Antifa veterans [pre-2016 election] are wary of newcomers raring for a fight, however. "A lot of people are coming into antifa because of the thrill of violence, and that's not what we're about," said Mike Isaacson, an anarchist PhD student and adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Anti-fascists are community oriented, and we do make the effort to keep everyone as safe as possible." I think that what makes Antifa so difficult to write about is because it is not an official organization that has it's own platform to outline it's ideology, "Interviews with a dozen antifa activists show they come from a variety of backgrounds and are only loosely affiliated." [30] BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit both These labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers. Labels such as these might be appropriate for a centrally-managed organization or institution, but Antifa is no such thing, and the use of such labels suggest a level of organization and unified mission that is not documented by the sources. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- 1.3 & 2.2/2.3 This article is about the loose network Antifa that has certain defining charasteristics. Militancy, and left-wing to far-left membership are among those characteristics (per the sources collected by PackMecEng above). This article is not about general opposition to fascism (anti-fascism) that does not have those characteristics. This network is influenced by the German Antifaschistische Aktion that was established in 1932. The emblem used in this article is a direct copy of the German 1930s Antifa - what the red and the black flags symbolize is obvious. If these defining charasteristics are removed and you're arguing that they're only defined by "being anti-fascist", then this article is meaningless and could just as well be a redirect to anti-fascism. But reliable sources do offer us those charasteristics. --Pudeo (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit both There is clearly bias in the way this Rfc is framed. Smith0124 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Omit any militancy and left-wing would be fine. "Militancy" implies cohesive organization, which does not apply to something that isn't actually an organization. The general left-leaning politics of various antifa-related groups is undeniable however. ValarianB (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @ValarianB: Militancy is widely used by RS. Also I have yet to see one saying militancy implies cohesive organization? So drew you to those conclusions? PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- 1.2 & 2.5: 1.2 because not all of the tactics are militant; for example data gathering is not. 2.5 because it's not a defining characteristic, and is best discussed in the body where the movement's lean can be put in proper context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
The status quo ante was left-wing militant.
- Militancy
- Omit militant
- Often characterized as militant or some variant thereof
- Militant, without qualification
- Political position
- Leftist - e.g. Andy Ngo in the WSJ
- Left-wing - e.g. Reuters
- Far-left - e.g. Bill Barr, NPR, NYT, WaPo, Politico, and CNN.
- Often described as far-left - e.g. ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism." [31]
In response to this, given sources also do not seem to support the against people whom they identify as
wording; could you please verify this? Because to me it does not seem to support that and indeed it may appear as they are not really engaging fascist, racist, or on the far-right
as though antifa attacks anyone who disagree with them. Only the ADL source may be used to support that qualifier wording, when it says what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups
; yet the same source spoke of right-wing extremists
being the object of antifa's harassment (the topic of our phrase), not alleged right-wing extremists; and also references several actions by antifa and clearly describe events as being held by right-wing extremists
and white supremacists
without any qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure if I understand your comment correctly, but... Considering most notable events, such as Unite the Right rally, yes, the right-wing guys were undoubtely extremists who did committed the Charlottesville car attack. They did kill someone during the rally, using the classic terrorist tactics of Vehicle-ramming attack. The "counter-protesters" including members of Antifa? Not at all. That was just a demonstration [[32]. That is what I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I was saying that there is no need for us to state against people whom they identify as
because, as you noted, [c]onsidering most notable events, such as Unite the Right rally, yes, the right-wing guys were undoubtely extremists
and sources did not dispute antifa's identification of them as such, they said they were held by right-wing extremists and white superemacists
without any qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. If these sources are considered authoritative for how we use "left"/"militant" labels, we need to drop any scare-quoting wording about them "identifying" their targets as far right. EDitors arguing these sources justify "far left" and "militant" from these specific sources are not being consistent if they insisst on the "identify as" qualifer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes re "single conviction": It's not in our article, but in September 2019, 32-year-old David Campbell pleaded guilty to two counts of felony assault for his role in a 2018 Antifa protest in New York City. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail and is at this writing still incarcerated. I agree that we haven't adequately documented Antifa's physical violence, property damage, and harassment. More work needs to be done. The sources are out there. Editors merely have to incorporate them into the body of our article. NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I can also see this. So whatever RS on the subject say. However, do they openly proclaim the revolutionary terror as one of their tactics? If so, that need to be stated, with refs. If no, such cases can be regarded as crimes by individual members of the movement, which need to be included if notable and reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) NedFausa, we would need a better source than the New York Post for that.--Davide King (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. You are of course welcome to dispute that source when I use it later today in adding the incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions, and then we can open a new, separate discussion on this talk page and await consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is striking that only unreliable sources (Daily Mail and NYPost) calls this protestor "antifa".[33] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here are some previous discussions about it. I hope it is helpful.--Davide King (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, as one could expect, the current text is a result of previous discussions and consensus. If it does not include something, this is probably for a good reason. Hence the lead must summarize the current version of the page. It does not. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- To be sure, past consensus (or lack thereof) is helpful in considering present contributions. However, consensus changes over time, as subsequent events unfold and opinions mature. If no one else does so, I will add the Ngo incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions. We can then open a new, separate discussion and seek fresh consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, as one could expect, the current text is a result of previous discussions and consensus. If it does not include something, this is probably for a good reason. Hence the lead must summarize the current version of the page. It does not. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. You are of course welcome to dispute that source when I use it later today in adding the incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions, and then we can open a new, separate discussion on this talk page and await consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Is it possible to add None for political position? Or simply Anti-fascist (which could be worded as
militant anti-fascist
or simplyanti-fascist
in relation to the militant wording and depending on whether to include it or not)? For instance, one source, despite writing ofleft-wing militants
, also notesHowever, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy
and we may chooseIndividuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism
as the statement regarding its political position in the lead. This may be enough and does not imply the whole movement or every single individual is left-wing or far-left. However, this would be more of a compromise in case there is going to be no consensus for other positions; and I do not exclude us using left-wing, far-left, or other positions.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)- @JzG: It would be useful if you'd respond to this and either add "none" as option 2.5, or explain why you'd rather not do so, before this discussion progresses much further. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Arms & Hearts, added Guy (help!) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: It would be useful if you'd respond to this and either add "none" as option 2.5, or explain why you'd rather not do so, before this discussion progresses much further. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: It should be noted that 'far-left' is not primarily Bill Barr's characterization; I also find it in these sources in a two minute google search:
- NPR:
The president has said that members of the loosely defined far-left group Antifa...
- NYT:
...President Trump said on Sunday that the United States would designate antifa, the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, a terrorist organization.
- WaPo:
The day that President Trump declared he would label the far-left “antifa” movement a domestic terrorist organization last week
- Politico:
Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups...
- CNN:
Antifa describes a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left.
- Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight, so add them. Guy (help!) 19:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- More than half of these are sourced to Trump himself. And the last one is ambiguous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- JzG and Shinealittlelight, did you guys review these sources? I assume Shine did since they’re quoting parts of the article beyond the headline. But none of these, without the exception of the Politico one, are appropriate. And three of them are WP:PRIMARY. All three excerpts are quoting President Trump. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I reviewed them. I do not understand why you say that they are primary sources. These are news reports about Antifa, and they characterize Antifa as "far-left" (or "often [lean toward] the far-left" in CNN) in their own voice. Perhaps you will claim that NPR, NYT, and WaPo mean to attribute this characterization to Trump. But it's not reasonable to read the sources in this way. For one thing, Trump didn't call them "far-left". Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Shinealittlelight and Symmachus Auxiliarus, see my analysis and review below.--Davide King (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I reviewed them. I do not understand why you say that they are primary sources. These are news reports about Antifa, and they characterize Antifa as "far-left" (or "often [lean toward] the far-left" in CNN) in their own voice. Perhaps you will claim that NPR, NYT, and WaPo mean to attribute this characterization to Trump. But it's not reasonable to read the sources in this way. For one thing, Trump didn't call them "far-left". Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight, so add them. Guy (help!) 19:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- NPR:
- Comment. Contrary to what Arms & Hearts and Davide King say above, it is not plausible that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, and NPR are all engaged in the same
tabloid sensationalism
by using the term "far-left" to describe Antifa. These are paradigms of RS, and we should therefore follow their lead. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Except, now that I have actually read them, only The New York Times is good as it is about antifa and the headlines are actually accurate of what they are talking about and their main topic; only The New York Times's main topic is antifa and can be used to support the far-left claim. All the others are literally reporting on the protests and Trump and Barr and others' comments, as their headlines imply; so I find it absurd you even believe those sources, outside The New York Times, can be used to support the far-left claim. Forbes talks of radical left. If this was the best you could find, I am sorry to write I am disappointed.--Davide King (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- According to what policy is a characterization of Antifa RS only if it reflects the content of the headline? I have no idea where that comes from. Headlines are typically not RS, as they are written from a promotional perspective. To repeat: all of these sources are paradigm RS and call Antifa "far-left" in their own voice, as the closer for this RfC can confirm by looking at the sources themselves. Note well again that Trump did not call them "far-left" in his remarks; that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but that is a strawman and a mockery of what I actually wrote. Do you not realise that the main topic of all but The New York Times are the protests and Trump and others' comment? Yes,
that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others
but in articles that talks more about protests and report more about Trump and others' comments than they talk of antifa and its political position, with far-left being nothing more than a passive mention. We can just as easily find sources that use left-wing or another qualifier in articles that merely mention antifa. Antifa needs to be the main topic of the article; we cannot simply use an article that mentions antifa in one passage and use far-left (this is for every other qualifier, whether far-left or left-wing).--Davide King (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC) - Just a few sources that use left-wing rather than far-left. Besides Reuters, The Independent and The Week use left-wing rather than far-left; and only The Week is appropriate because, like The New York Times, the main topic is antifa and actually talks about antifa, what it is and its political positions, while The Independent is exactly like the other sources supposed to support the far-left claims, i.e. they report more on the protests and Trump and others' comments. Yet CBS News does not mention neither, it only talks of antifa as
a collection of loosely connected groups that organize against fascism
.--Davide King (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)- Glad we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. Good to have agreement on that. As for the rest, I don't understand what WP policy you're appealing to. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- A similar issue came up in discussions about far right groups. Per extraordinary claims we decided that such claims required academic sources, since news media are reliable for reporting news but their journalists are not necessarily experts in political science with published academic papers. Barry Goldwater for example was routinely referred to as far right or a right-wing extremist in mainstream media, but not in academic writing. That's because he was to the right of the mainstream Republican Party of the time but not in a global spectrum that runs from revolutionary anarchists on the far left to fascists on the far right. The important thing is that these terms only have meaning when context is understood. Otherwise they confuse readers. TFD (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, we do not agree. You wrote
[t]hese are news reports about Antifa
but they are not; they are only marginally about antifa and far-left is nothing but a passive mention. They are news report about what is happening right now with the protests and the comments of Trump and others about antifa and the terrorists label. Seriously, compare The New York Times to all others. There are only three paragraphs about the current events and Trump, then all the other paragraphs are about antifa and this is a source that can actually be used to support the far-left claim because it is specifically about antifa and what it is, not a marginal or passive mention in reports that are more concerned about the protests and other people comments. If we ought to put those qualifier, I agree with The Four Deuces that they should be academic, not any source found on Google after typing"antifa" "far-left"
because I am sorry but that is what you seem to have done; you have not actually read the sources, you simply saw they mentioned far-left and jumped on it. If you have actually read them all, I do not see how you cannot see that all but The New York Times are spending much more paragraphs reporting on what is happening than antifa and what it is as outlined by The New York Times. Finally, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analysing is that it is mainly American news outlets that use far-left while internationally either left-wing is used (The Independent and The Week) or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on far-left merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use far-left because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--Davide King (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)- Well, unless you want to take back what you said before, we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. The rest of what you say here doesn't have any clear relationship to WP policy as far as I can tell. I can't imagine that these sources, when they all agree on Antifa being far-left, are not reliable for that characterization. We need to follow RS here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean
unless [I] want to take back what [I] said before
? You did not reply back to my main poiint which is that those linked articles, besides The New York Times, are only marginally about antifa and a passive far-left mention is not enough to support us writingAntifa is far-left
as the very first sentence. In the main body? Sure. If I was reverted for this because antifa was not the main topic, then I do not see how we can supportAntifa is far-left
as our very first sentence when all but The New York Times report more on the protests and comments of others than about antifa or what it is. We would need What is antifa articles that specifically say far-left rather than any article in reliable news that may give only a passive mention and talk more about something else than antifa. Even then, I do not see why we should use news sources for this claim in the lead rather than academics or experts like Bray who do not say far-left (again, in the main body where we can give the appropriate context? Sure. As the very first phrase, when all but one given sources talk more about the protests? No). Nor any of those who support a mention in the lead have replied to objections such as SPECIFICO and others raised. Here, The New York Times makes no mention of far-left and only call protesters left-wing which support the argument that antifa is anti-fascist and that it is its activists that have political positions, ranging from the left to the far-left (majority) to the centre-left and other (minority). The BBC and CBS do not use far-left, only anti-fascist; and the BBC talks of its members being left-wing.--Davide King (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean
- Well, unless you want to take back what you said before, we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. The rest of what you say here doesn't have any clear relationship to WP policy as far as I can tell. I can't imagine that these sources, when they all agree on Antifa being far-left, are not reliable for that characterization. We need to follow RS here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Glad we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. Good to have agreement on that. As for the rest, I don't understand what WP policy you're appealing to. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but that is a strawman and a mockery of what I actually wrote. Do you not realise that the main topic of all but The New York Times are the protests and Trump and others' comment? Yes,
- According to what policy is a characterization of Antifa RS only if it reflects the content of the headline? I have no idea where that comes from. Headlines are typically not RS, as they are written from a promotional perspective. To repeat: all of these sources are paradigm RS and call Antifa "far-left" in their own voice, as the closer for this RfC can confirm by looking at the sources themselves. Note well again that Trump did not call them "far-left" in his remarks; that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sources
I found a survey of Antifa. I'm starting a list and invite others to add to it. It does have some concerns about antifa that are related to, yet clearly different from, the disputed passages in the lead. I'm interested in seeing other surveys prior to forming an opinion. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Overview of Antifa by the Anti-Defamation League [34].
In light of my belief that the sources used to support the far-left do not actually support that or cannot be used because they report more on protests and other people comments, including the terrorists label, than they talk about antifa and what it is (as is done in The New York Times and a few others which are the only sources that are appropriate, so certainly ot the supposed dozens of sources that merely passive mention far-left), let us make an actual analyses of those supposed sources, shall we? When I wrote that all but The New York Times are simply passive mentions in articles that are about antifa's role in protests and Trump and others' comments about antifa in accusing them of turning the protests into violence and labelling them as terrorists
I was referring only about the sources that appear here. Let me analyse all those given sources here.
- The New York Times. It is fine because the passive mention is about the protests and Trump while all the other paragraphs are about antifa and what it is.
- Fact Check. The main topic is the possible designation of antifa as terrorists and I had great difficulty in find far-left which is only mentioned once! Something closer to that only appears when it is reporting Barr's comment that
it appears the violence is planned, organized and driven by anarchic and left-extremist groups, far-left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics
(then it is not even antifa, if they are only usingAntifa-like tactics
; it does not say it wasplanned, organized and driven by [Antifa]
) and right after this he is reported as sayingthe truth is nobody really knows
while the other mention is Trump spoutingantifa and other radical left-wing groups
andthe Radical Left
which is not even saying it was antifa; Trump is saying the violence is caused bythe Radical Left
andother radical left-wing groups
; and he merely mentions antifa alongside them. Yet the very first sentence actually readsAs some nationwide protests have turned violent, President Donald Trump pointed to the anti-fascist movement antifa
so is it simply ananti-fascist movement antifa
or anumbrella term for far-left militant anti-fascism groups
? By the way, we do not use theumbrella term
terminology, so if we are to use to support this source for the far-left claim, then we would also have to useumbrella term
, otherwise it is original research or synthesis and cherry picking if we use it for the far-left claim but not for the other which contradicts the current wording (there was even a discussion about it). - The Washington Post. Again, the main topic is not really antifa and again far-left is another passive mention (I could find only one far-left mention), without explaining what it means and with no What is antifa explanation as is done for The New York Times.
- USA Today. Again, the main topic is not really antifa but rather the Portland protests. In other words, this is a source that by all means we can use to report for the Portland protests; we cannot use it for the far-left claim in the lead; and here is the BBC using left-wing and I am sure I could find other sources on the Portland protests that are ambiguous about the political position or do not use far-left.
- Los Angeles Times. Exactly the same thing as for USA Today.
- The Washington Post. Same thing for The New York Times. This is actually about What is antifa and it is fine. Academic sources would still be preferable and this may not be enough. It also quotes Bray at large, yet as far as I am aware Bray does not use far-left.
- Politico. And we go back to the main topic being the protests and Barr's comments rather than What is antifa. It is also not sure whether Politico believes they are far-left or if it is merely reporting how Barr described them (again, far-left is a passive mention and is not something discussing at large). Either way, the main topic is something else rather than What is antifa which is a single passive mention (
Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups that espouse anarchist views and argue that the social change they seek requires radical measures such as violence
). - The Washinton Post. Ditto, the main topic is Trump's designation of antifa as a terrorist organization, not What is antifa; and far-left is not even mentioned! So I was right when above I wrote that
Bray does not actually say far-left
. This can actually be used to support the claim that[the] right-wing [has] attempt[ed] to blame everything on antifa
and it is actually written by the expert Bray. (I could find no single mention of far-left, other than quoting Barr's comments) - ABC News. Finally another source that is actually about What is antifa. Yet, it reads
[w]hile antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism
which we and experts describe asleft-wing ideologies
so I do not see how this can be used to support the far-left label. Again, it quotes Bray, who does not actually say far-left. (see reported quote) - CNN. This is fine, but it actually says
The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often [not always] the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform
so how does this brief mention support the far-left claim? It seems to be that it is described asoften [not always] [leaning toward] the far left
merely because[it] do[es] not conform with the Democratic Party platform
; in other words, it is far-left (the source does not actually say this) merely because it is to the left of the Democratic Party, apparently assuming that the Democratic Party is left-wing rather than big tent centrist. - Haaretz. It is fine as it is about What is antifa, but I could not even found a far-left mention; it seems to support the militant claim but it may as well used to support the current wording of
digital activism and miltancy
when it saysIn this context, antifa activists view their actions as the only means of defense against a demonstrable threat from fascist activists. Militancy becomes a move designed to match the violence of far-right activists with a counter-veiling force. I noted after Charlottesville the danger of drawing an equivalency between the violence of the far-right and militancy of antifa activists, and it rings true today.
(no mention of far-left) - PBS. It is about What is antifa but the same argument I made for Fact Check applies here as it uses
umbrella term
so we cannot use this to support far-left without also using umbrella term, otherwise it is original research or synthesis which is what I was reverted for here.
In other words, all those sources may well be used to report on what is happening; they cannot be used to support the claim that antifa is far-left, certainly not as the very first word in the lead after Antifa is
. Finally, as I wrote above in Discussion, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analising is that it is mainly American news outlets that use far-left while internationally either left-wing is used (The Independent and The Week) or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on far-left merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use far-left because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--Davide King (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Andy Ngo incident and Tacoma detention centre attack
@NedFausa: See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7#I decided to remove the whole Portland section and move it here, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 13#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 14#Ngo Attack is Due. What's changed since those previous discussions resulted in no consensus to mention this incident in the article? And, separately, see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 9#Willem Van Spronsen and Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Willem van Spronsen attack on ICE detention center; same question applies. (Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS covers both.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @NedFausa: You've yet to respond to to this question as it pertains to the Tacoma incident. Feel free to create a new section to do so if you prefer. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Request new consensus to include June 2019 protest in Portland, Oregon
On June 6, 2020, Arms & Hearts removed content from subsection 5.1 Notable actions because "this has been discussed at least twice before and there's never been a consensus to include it; if we were going to include it we wouldn't use this flagrantly non-neutral language."
- At a June 2019 protest in Portland, Oregon, an antifa mob[1][2][3] assaulted conservative journalist Andy Ngo, whom Rolling Stone later described as a "provocateur"[4] and Vox called a "far-right sympathizer".[5] Ngo was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Oregon Health & Science University Hospital, where he was treated for what his discharge paperwork confirmed was a subarachnoid hemorrhage (in popular parlance, "brain bleed").[6]
References
- ^ Soave, Robby (June 29, 2019). "Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally". Reason. Retrieved June 6, 2020.
- ^ Iati, Marisa (July 20, 2019). "Two senators want antifa activists to be labeled 'domestic terrorists.' Here's what that means". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 29, 2019.
The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore.
- ^ Burns, Dasha; Brooks, Abigail; Ortiz, Erik (August 16, 2019). "Proud Boys rally in Portland is latest test for police". NBC News. Retrieved August 29, 2019.
Chaos also broke out during a rally in June, when masked antifa members physically attacked conservative blogger Andy Ngo in an incident shared on social media.
- ^ Dickson, EJ (19 August 2019). "Proud Boys Dwarfed by Anti-Fascist Protesters at Portland Rally". Rolling Stone. Retrieved June 6, 2020.
- ^ Beauchamp, Jack (July 3, 2019). "The assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo, explained". Vox. Retrieved June 6, 2020.
- ^ Bernstein, Joseph (July 18, 2019). "Andy Ngo Has The Newest New Media Career. It's Made Him A Victim And A Star". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved July 27, 2019.
I request a new discussion, separate from any other content to which Arms & Hearts objects, to reexamine the suitability of this content, with closer attention to WP:NPOV. NedFausa (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you'd respond to my question above: what's changed since the previous discussions, or, alternatively, why do you think the arguments made against including these incidents were flawed? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Arms & Hearts: Please specify which of the many arguments made in the past pertain in particular to your latest objections. It's unreasonable to expect editors to plow through years' worth of discursive banter to determine what applies here and now. NedFausa (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @NedFausa: I think it's not unreasonable to bring this up again, as consensus can change. But at the last discussion, I was persuaded that, although the Antifa attack on Ngo was widely reported, and although Antifa was identified as the attacker by (for example) WaPo and NBC News, the story is not DUE in this article because it is not the sort of story that would be mentioned in mainstream sources that were, for example, doing a profile on Antifa. There have been a few "profile" sort of articles recently about Antifa because of the news about classifying them as a terrorist group, and as far as I can tell none of those profiles have mentioned Antifa's attack on Ngo. Since we want our encyclopedia article about Ngo to be guided by these sorts of mainstream profiles, that means we probably shouldn't include it. And, from a more general commonsense perspective, I think that so far, Antifa's attack on this one journalist probably isn't going to end up being a big part of the overall story about Antifa. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Shinealittlelight: Please provide an example of a recent "profile" sort of article about Antifa. Since you put "profile" in scare quotes, I can't tell what you mean. NedFausa (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, I mean articles like this: [35]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight: The story to which you link quotes Ruth Ben-Ghiat, professor of history at New York University: "Throwing a milkshake is not equivalent to killing someone, but because the people in power are allied with the right, any provocation, any dissent against right-wing violence, backfires." Evidently readers of The New York Times, being assiduously well informed, may be counted on to recollect the most famous such incident without further prompting: the June 2019 protest in Portland when Antifa pelted Andy Ngo with milkshakes—the very event I am asking be included in Antifa (United States). In any case, since the Times story was published on May 31, 2020, I will use that as the start date and search for similar What Is Antifa? articles. Perhaps I can find one that mentions Andy Ngo by name, not just by erudite allusion. NedFausa (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, I mean articles like this: [35]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Shinealittlelight: Please provide an example of a recent "profile" sort of article about Antifa. Since you put "profile" in scare quotes, I can't tell what you mean. NedFausa (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @NedFausa: I think it's not unreasonable to bring this up again, as consensus can change. But at the last discussion, I was persuaded that, although the Antifa attack on Ngo was widely reported, and although Antifa was identified as the attacker by (for example) WaPo and NBC News, the story is not DUE in this article because it is not the sort of story that would be mentioned in mainstream sources that were, for example, doing a profile on Antifa. There have been a few "profile" sort of articles recently about Antifa because of the news about classifying them as a terrorist group, and as far as I can tell none of those profiles have mentioned Antifa's attack on Ngo. Since we want our encyclopedia article about Ngo to be guided by these sorts of mainstream profiles, that means we probably shouldn't include it. And, from a more general commonsense perspective, I think that so far, Antifa's attack on this one journalist probably isn't going to end up being a big part of the overall story about Antifa. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Arms & Hearts: Please specify which of the many arguments made in the past pertain in particular to your latest objections. It's unreasonable to expect editors to plow through years' worth of discursive banter to determine what applies here and now. NedFausa (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight is correct, the reason for exclusion was DUE. I note that Arms & Hearts is requesting that other editors explain why it is undue, and basically repeat the previous discussion. But it's up to them to show why it is due. And could they please remove the reference from Reason. Not only do editorials fail rs, but the fact that you have to go to alternative media for a source argues against the event being DUE. There are lots of issues that receive attention in alternative media that are ignored in the mainstream. That's the reason alternative media was created. TFD (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think Reason actually is reliable for attributed opinion, but I agree it isn't reliable for unattributed statements of fact. There was a massive amount of coverage of the assault of Ngo--it was covered by basically every major news outlet--so the problem isn't that it was not covered. The problem is that it wasn't clearly an important event in understanding the topic at hand, Antifa. Now to be fair there's plenty of other stuff in the current article that probably isn't any more important for understanding Antifa. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight: In its June 2, 2020 profile of Antifa, Business Insider writes:
In 2019, clashes between antifa members and far-right groups turned violent, leading to 13 arrests in August. In July, conservatives targeted the group after right-wing blogger Andy Ngo said he had been attacked by antifa members.
- In its June 1, 2020 profile of Ngo, Fox News recounts the 2019 beatdown at length:
If anyone knows about the violence Antifa is capable of carrying out, it's Ngo.
In June 2019, he became a victim of Antifa himself, as he reported on a demonstration organized by the "Proud Boys" and the "#HimToo Movement." Antifa showed up to stage a counterprotest and things turned ugly.
Prior to the event, Ngo voiced his concern over a tweet sent by Rose City Antifa, which is recognized as the oldest Antifa group in the U.S. and identified him as a supposed right-wing sympathizer.
During the demonstration, Ngo documented a group of Antifa members who appeared to be shadowing his movements. Then in an instant, he became the focus of a violent crowd.
Ngo was beaten and his GoPro was stolen. As a result of his injuries, he was hospitalized for 30 hours, as doctors monitored a brain hemorrhage. He said he continues to receive physical, emotional and cognitive therapy as a result of the attack but hasn't stopped documenting the group and is working on a book titled, Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.
- I don't think the June 2019 protest in Portland has faded into the past. Moreover, its historical significance to Antifa USA should not be judged on profiles published during the past 7 days, which raise the specter of Wikipedia:Recentism. NedFausa (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that we should look broadly at sources and not just at recent ones. That's not in dispute. But there's no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider, so it isn't currently RS. And while Fox News is generally a reliable source, I think it's pretty clear that it's not a strong source on this topic, especially if it is going to stand alone, since it's well known to have a conservative lean, and so it will be expected to be less than fully neutral on the topic of Antifa. I'd suggest trying to round up all the mainstream profiles of Antifa you can find, and see how many of them mention Ngo. If a strong majority of them did, I'd favor inclusion. By the way, if you're going to do the work of rounding this information up, it might be worth seeing what else should be cut from the article as undue. We should of course wield this criterion consistently. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- And the Fox piece is a profile of Ngo, not a profile of antifa. What's due in an article about him is not necessarily due in an article about them. The NYT piece doesn't say antifa attacked him; it says conservatives attacked them after he made allegations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that we should look broadly at sources and not just at recent ones. That's not in dispute. But there's no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider, so it isn't currently RS. And while Fox News is generally a reliable source, I think it's pretty clear that it's not a strong source on this topic, especially if it is going to stand alone, since it's well known to have a conservative lean, and so it will be expected to be less than fully neutral on the topic of Antifa. I'd suggest trying to round up all the mainstream profiles of Antifa you can find, and see how many of them mention Ngo. If a strong majority of them did, I'd favor inclusion. By the way, if you're going to do the work of rounding this information up, it might be worth seeing what else should be cut from the article as undue. We should of course wield this criterion consistently. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight: In its June 2, 2020 profile of Antifa, Business Insider writes:
Your opening sentence is already blatantly not neutral: "antifa mob" should be attributed, for starters, and then we can discuss whether it is DUE to give such prominence to a description from a libertarian magazine. (The answer is most likely NO.) Drmies (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies: You have offered a sound argument for deleting Reason as a source and for changing "mob" to another, less inflammatory word—I suggest "activists". However, you haven't offered a sound argument for excluding both contested sentences, supported by citations to WP:RS, from subsection 5.1 Notable actions. NedFausa (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, indeed I haven't offered a sound argument for excluding etc.: you have not erred in reading! Drmies (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- The significance of this to the antifa movement in the United States is not clearly explained in the removed paragraph. It is not enough to throw sources against the wall to argue for inclusion. We have to look at what these sources are saying and weight them accordingly. This was one incident, where one "provocateur" was injured and discharged. The specific details of this incident are not important merely because they can be sourced. The removed section failed to proportionately summarize this incident, and just as importantly, it failed to indicate to readers why this is significant. Tweaking the wording is not going to fix this problem. The cited sources are providing a lot of specific, important context. Ignoring that context would be misrepresenting sources. Including that content would be undue weight. Therefore, this is undue and can be safely removed from the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's BLP Andy Ngo explains the incident's historical significance, based on the attention it received from notable politicians.
* Texas Senator Ted Cruz called on federal authorities to investigate Ted Wheeler, Portland's mayor, who is also the city's police commissioner.[1][2]
* Democratic Party presidential candidate Andrew Yang wished Ngo a speedy recovery.[1]
* Former Vice President and Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and then-candidate Eric Swalwell also condemned the attack.[3]
References
- ^ a b Klar, Rebecca (July 1, 2019). "2020 Democrat Andrew Yang sends well-wishes to Andy Ngo: 'Journalists should be safe to report on a protest'". TheHill. Retrieved July 2, 2019.
- ^ March, Mary Tyler (June 30, 2019). "Cruz calls for 'legal action' against Portland mayor after clash between far-right, antifa protesters". TheHill. Retrieved July 2, 2019.
- ^ "Will other Dems join Biden in condemning antifa violence?". New York Post. 2019-07-07. Retrieved 2019-07-09.
- Additionally, Triad City Beat observed that "Ngo's profile rose exponentially" after he was "milkshaked and repeatedly punched in the face" by Antifa. Mr. Ngo went to Washington, where he posed for photo-ops with members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, including Rep. Mark Walker of North Carolina and Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas.
- On July 23, 2019, Senator Cruz wrote to Attorney General Barr and FBI Director Wray urging them "to open an organized crime investigation into Antifa." Cruz specifically mentioned the Portland beatdown, noting that Ngo "was attacked so severely that he was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage." On July 12, 2019, Ngo's attorney spoke at the White House social media summit, at which President Trump talked about Antifa's attack on Ngo.
- I get the impression that the only people who don't understand the historical significance of this attack, which drove public discussion about Antifa at the highest levels of the U.S. government, are Wikipedia editors. NedFausa (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, Triad City Beat observed that "Ngo's profile rose exponentially" after he was "milkshaked and repeatedly punched in the face" by Antifa. Mr. Ngo went to Washington, where he posed for photo-ops with members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, including Rep. Mark Walker of North Carolina and Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas.
Additionally, Triad City Beat observed that "Ngo's profile rose exponentially" after he was "milkshaked and repeatedly punched in the face"
(Antifa
does not seem to be in quote as you did not use quotation marks for that, but I may well be wrong) is perhaps why it should be at Andy Ngo but not here.--Davide King (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- The three sources establish that it is significant to Ngo's article, not that it is to antia's or to the articles about Cruz, Yang or Biden. Note that none of them actually mention antifa. Of course it's significant to any journalist's article if they are assaulted. But the ethnicity, gender, nationality, political affiliation, religion etc. of the assailant may not be significant to articles about whatever group they happen to belong to. TFD (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces, yup. The thing we know with most confidence about Ngo is that he is, bluntly, a troll. Guy (help!) 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- And since Andy Ngo is a troll, Antifa thugs were justified in savagely beating him and inflicting a confirmed subarachnoid hemorrhage. Do I have that right? It's like men who say a woman deserved to be raped because her skirt was too short. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- While provocation can be a mitigating factor in physical assault, it is unacceptable as a defense in rape cases. While people are more likely to assault those who provoke them, the way a woman dresses has no bearing on whether someone sexually assaults her. But the fact that provocation is no defense in rape does not mean it cannot be used in ordinary assault cases. You can test this. Walk up to strangers and insult them and see if you find yourself being assaulted more than usual, even by people who do not belong to antifa. TFD (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- On the occasion in question, Andy Ngo did not do or say anything provocative. His reputation preceded him. Antifa's goon squad brutalized him just for being Andy Ngo. I'm sure Wikipedia editors will agree this is one of the great advantages of the age we live in. Internet notoriety is a scarlet letter identifying and certifying a target for socially acceptable violence. NedFausa (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, I'm sticking with sources in the green box on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba. It's not perfect, but there's pretty broad consensus around the sources in the green box at RSN. I did some searches. There are passing mentions but nothing like the torrents of drivel in unreliable sources. I did find one story that said Ngo was left "shaken" accompanied by a picture of him covered in what were reportedly vegan coconut shakes., That doesn't suggest they took it very seriously.
- But let's see what you got. Nothing in any source scoring below 40 for reliability on the chart, nothing from any "reliable for opinion" biased sites, either site, from WP:RSP. No HuffPo, no Atlantic, no op-eds, no letters to the editor, just top quality sources - actual journalists not talking heads.
- I've had it up to here with article spun out of crappy sources, left and right. Guy (help!) 20:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, OK, this [36] seems to be substantive coverage that does not pretend Ngo was not assaulted, and at the same time points out that he is a known provocateur, and the case is morally ambiguous to say the least. We could write at least a sentence or two from that, especially since it provides colour about how Ngo and his ilk have created the conservative narrative of Antifa as a massive threat - "even accounting for that, the amount of coverage Fox News devotes to them is preposterous. A search for “antifa” on Fox News’ website from November 2016 to the present returns 668 results, while “homelessness” returns 587, and “OxyContin,” 140. “Permafrost” returns 69. A decentralized, leaderless activist group with no record of lethal violence in this country, antifa has been skillfully transmogrified by the conservative media into one of the gravest threats facing Americans in 2019" That's a great quote, it perfectly describes how the right wing obsession with Antifa is so far out of line with objective fact. Guy (help!) 20:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- First you say "I'm sticking with sources in the green box." Then you deign to look at the source I cited, Buzzfeed News, which is grouped in the green box beneath The Washington Post and above CNN. Having done so, you allow as to how, since it "seems to be" substantive coverage, "We could write at least a sentence or two from that." Which is what I did and what this thread is about. Two sentences. I agree that some people in this discussion are far out of line with objective fact. But it's not me. NedFausa (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, Yes Buzzfeed is one of those sources that raises questions. You have to check in detail because they have changed their investment in reporting, and they have a lot of poor quality content. You actually have to check the background before you can say with confidence whether this is one of their pieces of properly invested reporting (which are excellent) rather than something else. And I did, and I agree that this is a good source.
- So now it comes to what we say. Anything that portrays Ngo as an innocent victim or his concerns about Antifa as valid, is clearly contra-indicated by that source. Up there ↑ suggestions include Rolling Stone, Vox, Reason etc. You suggested Fox News, New York Post and The Hill. No thanks. Stick with solid, dispassionate and detailed reporting. Guy (help!) 11:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- First you say "I'm sticking with sources in the green box." Then you deign to look at the source I cited, Buzzfeed News, which is grouped in the green box beneath The Washington Post and above CNN. Having done so, you allow as to how, since it "seems to be" substantive coverage, "We could write at least a sentence or two from that." Which is what I did and what this thread is about. Two sentences. I agree that some people in this discussion are far out of line with objective fact. But it's not me. NedFausa (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- While provocation can be a mitigating factor in physical assault, it is unacceptable as a defense in rape cases. While people are more likely to assault those who provoke them, the way a woman dresses has no bearing on whether someone sexually assaults her. But the fact that provocation is no defense in rape does not mean it cannot be used in ordinary assault cases. You can test this. Walk up to strangers and insult them and see if you find yourself being assaulted more than usual, even by people who do not belong to antifa. TFD (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- And since Andy Ngo is a troll, Antifa thugs were justified in savagely beating him and inflicting a confirmed subarachnoid hemorrhage. Do I have that right? It's like men who say a woman deserved to be raped because her skirt was too short. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces, yup. The thing we know with most confidence about Ngo is that he is, bluntly, a troll. Guy (help!) 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2020
Add "self-proclaimed" before " anti-fascist political activist movement" in the opening line.
The citations and articles contents *do not* support this groups actions or ideology are anti-facists. 73.227.195.63 (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit extended-protected}}
template. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC) - IP, read this article and the parent article closely. The genesis of this movement was actually in combatting fascism in post-WW2 Italy and Germany. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)
- The sources don't support this. The etymology is combatting fascism in post-WW2, but that is not the origin of the movement as that would imply some sort of continuity. "By the early 2000s the antifa movement was mostly dormant"[1]
References
- ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/X56rQkDgd0qqB7R68t6t7C/seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-antifa.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
Austin arrests
I think the sentence about the people recently arrested in Austin under #Response from law enforcement and government officials needs to be removed. Not only is it poorly sourced to local news articles (apparently the arrests didn't even receive any attention in the state-level media) which fail to indicate any significance within the history of antifa, it's also clearly contrary to WP:BLPCRIME, because it concerns low-profile figures who haven't been convicted of a crime. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- While some sources say they were antifa, others say they belonged to an antifa-like organization. in fact they live streamed their actions on a facebook page belonging to "Defend Our Hoodz", which fights gentrification. So it is extremely unlikely they have any links to antifa. The only significance is that conspiracy theorists are seeing antifa everywhere although there is no evidence any of them were present at any of the demonstrations. The specter of antifa is haunting America. TFD (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I revised the disputed content to address WP:BLPCRIME concerns. NedFausa (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- This doesn't substantially address any of the concerns raised above. WP:BLPCRIME strongly suggests we avoid discussing low-profile individuals in relation to crimes for which they haven't been convicted; it doesn't suggest throwing in an "allegedly" to soften such claims. It's also still not clear that these events have been the subject of any attention in reliable sources published outside a ten-mile radius (or thereabouts) of where they occurred. From which we can conclude that these events do not constitute a significant event within the history of antifa, nor does mentioning them aid in understanding the topic. This can, of course, be re-evaluated if the arrests result in a conviction. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I revised the disputed content to include a reliable source published outside a ten-mile radius of Austin. As reported by CBS DFW, Texas Department of Public Safety director Col. Steve McCraw, a statewide law enforcement official, spoke at Dallas City Hall, which is 192 miles from the Capital Plaza Target store in Austin. NedFausa (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are taking the expression 10 mile radius too literally. One would expect a Dallas-Fort Worth station to report what is happening at the state capital. But the story has received no attention outside Texas and little attention inside. That's probably because the claim that the people arrested had any ties to antifa is dubious at best. TFD (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I revised the disputed content to include a reliable source published outside a ten-mile radius of Austin. As reported by CBS DFW, Texas Department of Public Safety director Col. Steve McCraw, a statewide law enforcement official, spoke at Dallas City Hall, which is 192 miles from the Capital Plaza Target store in Austin. NedFausa (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- This doesn't substantially address any of the concerns raised above. WP:BLPCRIME strongly suggests we avoid discussing low-profile individuals in relation to crimes for which they haven't been convicted; it doesn't suggest throwing in an "allegedly" to soften such claims. It's also still not clear that these events have been the subject of any attention in reliable sources published outside a ten-mile radius (or thereabouts) of where they occurred. From which we can conclude that these events do not constitute a significant event within the history of antifa, nor does mentioning them aid in understanding the topic. This can, of course, be re-evaluated if the arrests result in a conviction. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I revised the disputed content to address WP:BLPCRIME concerns. NedFausa (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- According to an article in the Epoch Times, the DA claims that the three are known members of a group formerly called the Austin Red Guards. It's questionable the group, if it still exists, is part of antifa as it is best known for attacking left-wing groups. TFD (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2020
Hello,
I’d like to suggest some much needed clarity to the definition of Antifa in the first paragraph of this entry. The last sentence of the opening paragraph currently states: “Antifa activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against fascists, racists and those on the far-right.”
The way this is written assumes that anyone who is the victim of Antifa’s militancy is a fascist, racist and far-right. If you’re a victim of Antifa, you must be one of these things, according to the logic of the entry, which of course is categorically false. The suggested edit removes this assumption as follows: “Antifa activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against groups or individuals they deem as fascists, racists and whose views they define as far-right.”
As a political movement, their views are important. Their views, however, should not by default define others.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the above change.
Have a wonderful day! Corey. 216.180.77.102 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done Discussed at #"against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right", and there is currently no consensus for the change you suggest. FDW777 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we know there are a few cases of mistaken identity, but that's already covered in the article. The sentence is correct though. Racists and the far-right are their targets. Guy (help!) 20:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Laura Ingraham
Does the sentence on Laura Ingraham's 2017 call for antifa to be identified as a terrorist organisation need to be in the Political commentators and members of Congress section? It seems to me that, while it might have been newsworthy three years ago, it's now more or less standard fare for a Fox News commentator. We're not going to list every commentator who supports such a move, so I think we ought to remove that sentence and rename the section accordingly (Ingraham is the only non-politician mentioned). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- If anything, the fact that she ade the comment three years ago when n others were doing so, makes it more worthy of being in the article, not less. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. On the other hand, the source cited doesn't seem to treat it as that remarkable, and notes that a petition calling for antifa to be designated a terrorist group (mentioned under Trump administration) had already received 300,000 signatures by the time Ingraham made her remarks, so she wasn't exactly ahead of the curve. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
POV paragraph on Andy Ngo
This revert [37] restores a POV version of the paragraph about the attack on Andy Ngo. The restored material goes on at length about what Ngo had done. But the things Ngo had done were not justifications for a physical attack. Additionally, the revert calls the previous version a "POV edit", even though it was sourced more evenly than the version it had reverted too. Note in particular that prior to the revert, a source with a left-wing POV (Rolling Stone) was balanced by a source with a libertarian POV 9Reason Magazine). See WP:RSP. The revert removes this balance in the sourcing. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- While I agree that the those may not have been
justifications for a physical attack
, I believe they are worth mentioning to give a better context (Vox clearly statesIn the dominant narrative, pushed by the conservative and mainstream media alike, the attack on Ngo is evidence of a serious left-wing violence problem in America. [...] Ngo is not an innocent victim but a far-right sympathizer who has doxxed antifa members in the past, potentially facilitating their harassment, and provokes them so that he can broadcast the result. The outpouring of sympathy for Ngo, in this account, is actually evidence that the mainstream media is falling for Ngo's grift — funneling money to his Patreon and legitimizing a right-wing smear campaign against a group that's working to protect people from the threat of violence from groups like the Proud Boys.
and are not original research or synthesis as it may have been this. Furthermore, we use alt-right, far-right, white supremacist or other qualifier when discussing those engaged by antifa which is what I believe should be done for Carlson too. For example, CNN reportsThey believe Carlson supports and promotes a white nationalist agenda on Fox News
, hence why they targeted him, but I digress. I hope Beyond My Ken can reply to your objections as well.--Davide King (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC) - Actually, there is no consensus for including the Ngo incident (which we are still discussing; you should have waited for a consensus), so you should have been reverted for that (you changed the paragraph from the 2020 lawsuit to the 2019 incident), although I agree you should have been reverted also for removing
right-wing "provocateur" [...] [and] "far-right sympathizer"
which is also what Andy Ngo reads and has read for a while. Furthermore, that paragraph was about the lawsuit which may be due (unlike the Ngo incident which we are still discussing, there has not been opened any discussion on whether the lawsuit is due or not, so you removed the lawsuit which seems to be supported as due and reinstated the 2019 incident which we are still discussing), but which weought to keep an eye on the situation – e.g. if the suit is thrown out very quickly it might not be significant enough to include, whereas if it continues to get coverage it probably ought to stay
, at least per Arms & Hearts.--Davide King (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC) - Adoring nanny, Ngo is a provocateur who views anti fascism as more of a problem than white supremacism or neo-Nazism. Once, he managed to provoke an assault. He uses that to support the pre-existing right-wing narrative of violent leftist extremism, when the evidence shows that the far right is an actual domestic terrorism threat in a way that anti-fascists are not. We're not going to pretend otherwise. Guy (help!) 10:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am confused by the reference to "Carlson". This is about Andy Ngo. The incident itself has more coverage than the lawsuit. How can the lawsuit be worth including but the incident not? Lastly, descibing Ngo as a "provocateur" is contrary to WP:WikiVoice. Note that neither Reason nor Vox uses that word to describe him. Vox does say he is close to being a "gonzo journalist", for whatever that's worth. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is recent consensus that Andy Ngo is a troll and provocateur who, on that basis alone, deserved to be brutally beaten by Antifa's goon squad and, again on that basis alone, should not be mentioned anywhere in Antifa (United States). We must adhere to consensus. We must toe the line. Resistance is futile. Lower your standards and surrender your principles. You will be assimilated. NedFausa (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CIV WP:AGF WP:NOTFORUM. Strawman arguments are not conducive to consensus. O3000 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Vox does use that term. It says: "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer who has worked with militant right-wing groups; he seems to delight in antagonizing antifa members and broadcasting the results."[38] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I would be comfortable using Vox for BLP labels. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rest easy! Vox is certified by Wikipedia as "liberal-leaning" and appears in the vaunted green box on Ad Fontes Media, Inc.'s Interactive Media Bias Chart® 5.0, as recommended on this very talk page specifically relating to Andy Ngo by administrator Guy, who advises: "It's not perfect, but there's pretty broad consensus around the sources in the green box at RSN." NedFausa (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, I still don't use Vox for controversial facts. I care about reliability and gravitas not political slant, and Vox is tabloidish. Guy (help!) 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fortunately, there is nothing controversial about Andy Ngo's reputation. As you declared on this talk page yesterday,
The thing we know with most confidence about Ngo is that he is, bluntly, a troll.
Yup. NedFausa (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fortunately, there is nothing controversial about Andy Ngo's reputation. As you declared on this talk page yesterday,
- NedFausa, I still don't use Vox for controversial facts. I care about reliability and gravitas not political slant, and Vox is tabloidish. Guy (help!) 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rest easy! Vox is certified by Wikipedia as "liberal-leaning" and appears in the vaunted green box on Ad Fontes Media, Inc.'s Interactive Media Bias Chart® 5.0, as recommended on this very talk page specifically relating to Andy Ngo by administrator Guy, who advises: "It's not perfect, but there's pretty broad consensus around the sources in the green box at RSN." NedFausa (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I would be comfortable using Vox for BLP labels. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is recent consensus that Andy Ngo is a troll and provocateur who, on that basis alone, deserved to be brutally beaten by Antifa's goon squad and, again on that basis alone, should not be mentioned anywhere in Antifa (United States). We must adhere to consensus. We must toe the line. Resistance is futile. Lower your standards and surrender your principles. You will be assimilated. NedFausa (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am confused by the reference to "Carlson". This is about Andy Ngo. The incident itself has more coverage than the lawsuit. How can the lawsuit be worth including but the incident not? Lastly, descibing Ngo as a "provocateur" is contrary to WP:WikiVoice. Note that neither Reason nor Vox uses that word to describe him. Vox does say he is close to being a "gonzo journalist", for whatever that's worth. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Add “sometimes” to assertion on their tactics
Just visited page and saw that first paragraph as some assertions that need modifiers.
First paragraph states: “Antifa activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against fascists, racists and those on the far-right.”
Could someone here add the qualifier “sometimes” before “...involving.”
and “those perceived to be” in front of “...[facists], [racists], or on the [far right].”
Thanks! DrMel (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @DrMel: Please see the discussion above re adding "those perceived to be". Your other request has been fulfilled. NedFausa (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
ICE attack
Recently Arms & Hearts removed the July 2019 attack on ICE citing per talk; doesn't seem as though anyone's interested in arguing in favour of this being mentioned
.[39] I could not find mention of it here on talk though I could certainly of missed it in the mess of the page. It was first added a couple days ago by NedFausa here.
In July 2019, 69-year-old Willem van Spronsen staged a predawn lone-wolf attack on the ICE's Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. After hurling incendiary devices in an attempt to set fire to a commercial-size propane tank at the facility and aiming his homemade unregistered "ghost" AR-15 style rifle at first responders, he was shot dead by police. [40] The Tacoma Police Department said Van Spronsen's possible motives included his association with antifa and was reviewing his manifesto[41] in which he wrote "I am antifa".[42] Calling him a "good friend and comrade", Seattle Antifascist Action proclaimed Van Spronsen "a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism".[43]
Should it stay or go? PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng: I took the liberty of restoring the final reference, which you omitted from the talk quote block. NedFausa (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cool beans, thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the historical significance of this incident is that it represents the only known instance of an individual giving his life for the cause of Antifa USA. In his manifesto, Van Spronsen self-identified as Antifa. Upon his death, he was proclaimed a martyr by his local comrades in Seattle Antifascist Action. This is a dramatic and noteworthy development that belongs in the article space. NedFausa (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- There's nothing in our article 2019 Tacoma attack that indicates that he was a member of "Seattle Antifascist Action", and his friends described him as "anti-fascist", not as "antifa". I'm an anti-fascist, but I am not antifa. This material is not well-enough connected to the antifa movement to be included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken: Thank you pointing out the omission of Willem van Spronsen's declaration "I am antifa" from 2019 Tacoma attack. I have added it to that page. NedFausa (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Since neither you nor I have read the "manifesto", this cannot be added to the article, because the people reporting "antifa" have a interest in characterizing it in that way. I have removed your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken: Thank you pointing out the omission of Willem van Spronsen's declaration "I am antifa" from 2019 Tacoma attack. I have added it to that page. NedFausa (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with BMK. There is zero evidence that this person had anything to do with antifa. This has been discussed before. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- O3000: On July 19, 2019, The Washington Post reported:
A man fatally shot by police Saturday after allegedly throwing "incendiary objects" at an immigration detention center in Washington state was an anarchist who claimed association with antifascists—known as antifa—according to new details released by police.
(Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- Yes, we know what the police claimed he claimed. If he claimed association with the Illuminati or Boy Scouts, would we put it in those articles? We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. When someone shows an actual association, we'll include it. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- On July 16, 2019, BuzzFeed News reported:
The man who died after being shot by Washington state police Saturday while tossing lit objects at vehicles and buildings outside an immigrant detention center self-identified as an anti-fascist, or "antifa," who was motivated by the recent immigration raids and deportations launched by the federal government.
(Emphasis added.) BuzzFeed News also quoted a Facebook post in which Seattle Antifascist Action called the activist "a good friend" who "gave his life to the struggle against fascism." NedFausa (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- Encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Whitewashing. NedFausa (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Reading other articles, he seems to have been a solo operator, not part of even casually organized anti-fascism, and more of an anarchist than anything else.There's no whitewashing here. He didn't identify as "antifa" he identified as "anti-fascist". Related, but not the same. The new outlets that called him "antifa" seemed to be relying on police sources, or are making the assuming that every anti-fascist is antifa. Not true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yellow journalism. Is anyone being investigated for this act? Have any authorities indicted anyone? Newspapers report everything. An encyclopedia takes the long term view. O3000 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- O3000:
Is anyone being investigated for this act?
Say what! Are you suggesting that the Tacoma police officers who shot and killed Van Spronsen after he pointed his AR-15 at them murdered him à la the killing of George Floyd, and should now be investigated and indicted? You guys are too much. NedFausa (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- NedFausa, in some countries, every single time law enforcement kill or injure a civilian - suspect or not - it is investigated. Those countries have a lower rate of police shootings. This could, of course, be a coincidence. In this case it is clearly outrageous that the shooting of a 70-year-old engaged in criminal damage but probably unarmed, shoud be investigated. Oh no, wait: "The four officers involved were placed on paid administrative leave as the investigation continues, the department said."
- Was he Antifa? Or Occupy? Or Alcoholics Anonymous? Or a lone wolf angry at privately run concentration camps on US soil? Or some combination of these? Was he radicalised by Facebook? That seems to be supported by the sources: he was actively involkved there, whereas Antifa don't have a central forum. It seems messy to me.
- The Floyd protests are a response to excessive, disproportionate use of force. One very common refrain is that police are issued with guns but not trained in de-escalation, and when all you have is a hammer... Guy (help!) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you had bothered to read The Washington Post story I cited, you'd know that
The four officers—who had 20 years, 4 years, one year and 9 months of experience on the Tacoma police force, respectively—have been put on paid administrative leave, according to department policy. … An investigation into the incident continued throughout Saturday, police said, and authorities closed roads near the center as they gathered evidence.
Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- NedFausa, Ned, read back over your comments. I was responding to
"Is anyone being investigated for this act?" Say what! Are you suggesting that the Tacoma police officers who shot and killed Van Spronsen after he pointed his AR-15 at them murdered him à la the killing of George Floyd, and should now be investigated and indicted? You guys are too much
. As has happened before on this page, your own sources contradict your rhetoric. Yes, the police are being investigated. I this case, given the propane tank, they would likely be cleared, but just imagine if they'd had de-escalation training, eh? How would it have turned out, I wonder? Guy (help!) 14:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, Ned, read back over your comments. I was responding to
- You are asking questions to which any intelligent reader would already know the answers. Willem van Spronsen had been involved with Occupy and AA years before he firebombed the ICE facility in Tacoma. In his manifesto explaining his mission on that occasion, he declared "I am antifa." He did not declare "I am Occupy." He did not declare "I am Alcoholics Anonymous." But of course his own words don't matter to Wikipedia editors determined to scrub his historic sacrifice on behalf of Antifa USA from this and any other article in order to minimize Antifa's connection to deadly violence. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you had bothered to read The Washington Post story I cited, you'd know that
- O3000:
- Whitewashing. NedFausa (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- On July 16, 2019, BuzzFeed News reported:
- Yes, we know what the police claimed he claimed. If he claimed association with the Illuminati or Boy Scouts, would we put it in those articles? We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. When someone shows an actual association, we'll include it. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- O3000: On July 19, 2019, The Washington Post reported:
- While I think there are good arguments for excluding this on the basis of the tenuous connection to the subject, I think it's also important to ask, even if the connection were indubitable—if Van Spronsen had been wearing an antifa membership card on a lanyard and screamed "viva antifa", and this was reported in reliable sources—whether this event constitutes a significant enough event in the history of antifa in the U.S. to merit a mention in this article. Less than a year on, nobody is talking about this (except us and probably Stormfront). Here are five "what is antifa" explainer pieces published by reliable sources the last ten days or so, none of which see fit to mention the Tacoma attack: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. The purpose of this article is to give a historical overview, not to list every event with which antifa may have been connected; the way we determine what's historically significant enough to be worth mentioning is by determining whether sustained coverage exists. The brief burst of attention this event received is not sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- There's nothing in our article 2019 Tacoma attack that indicates that he was a member of "Seattle Antifascist Action", and his friends described him as "anti-fascist", not as "antifa". I'm an anti-fascist, but I am not antifa. This material is not well-enough connected to the antifa movement to be included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- If this was discussed before, and the consensu was not to include it, the consensus does not seem to have changed. The back-and-forth is therefore extraneous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Was the consensus in favor of not including it, or was there merely no consensus either way? Those are two very different things. And why do you say If this was discussed before. Don't you know? NedFausa (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Buzzfeed and Seatle Times article make a pretty clear connection to Antifa, especially when they quote his own writings saying "I am antifa". Solo operator does not matter for Antifa, they are not a specific organization. Anyone who says they are Antifa, are Antifa. There does not seem to be a vetting process since, you know, they are semi autonomous etc. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, true, but there is some kind of group - a lone wolf attack is exactly that. I have no strong opinion either way here but this is not like incels, where to be one is to be one. Guy (help!) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Granted they do generally employ a mob mentality. What would it take to be considered part of Antifa beyond just saying you are part? The Buzzfeed article does note that a lead organizer with Seattle Antifascist Action seems to of considered him active in it. What is a incels? PackMecEng (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
What is a incels?
Oh man, that is a rabbit hole... suffice to say, the term stands for "involuntary celibates." These are folks who believe they have been wrongly denied sex, and incel communities usually devolve into hate speech (primarily against women). Several instances of gun violence and mass shootings have been perpetrated by self proclaimed incels. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- Yeah I was just reading up on it too. Well it all sounds terrible, just shockingly terrible. I think I am going to avoid the subject and try and pretend I do not know that they are a thing. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Granted they do generally employ a mob mentality. What would it take to be considered part of Antifa beyond just saying you are part? The Buzzfeed article does note that a lead organizer with Seattle Antifascist Action seems to of considered him active in it. What is a incels? PackMecEng (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, true, but there is some kind of group - a lone wolf attack is exactly that. I have no strong opinion either way here but this is not like incels, where to be one is to be one. Guy (help!) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Boogaloos
Why does Wikipedia have a 5000 words breakdown of this right wing group? Yet Antifa is only 500 words and vaguely touches that they're extremely violent and destructive. TonyKasino (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source that calls them "extremely violent and destructive"? What I've seen are sources that say that they do not shy away from physical violence if they consider it necessary - hardly the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- TonyKasino, this article is currently about three times the size of boogaloo movement. Guy (help!) 14:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
"Wishful thinking on Barr's part" is now grounds for removal of reliably sourced content
This must be one of those Wikipedia policies they forgot to teach me at the Edit-a-Thon: Wishful thinking on Barr's part. Fascinating. NedFausa (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- We are not an outlet for Trump News. The Trump administration, ever since they've been in office, has repeatedly lied, misrepresented the truth, and presented their opinions and wishful thinking as facts. This means that we cannot take what they say at face value for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Reliable sources may reprt accurately what various Trump Administration people say, but there's are no grounds anymore for including their words in an article until they have been shown to be accurate by a third party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hey POV editor BMK, you know the article is under 1RR right? PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, are you talking to me, PoC editor PackMecEng? You must have to the wrong person, because I'm "Dedicated to neutrality editor BMK." And, no, I didn;t know it was under 1RR. Did I break that? Then I'll fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, are you talking to me, PoC editor PackMecEng? You must have to the wrong person, because I'm "Dedicated to neutrality editor BMK." And, no, I didn;t know it was under 1RR. Did I break that? Then I'll fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken: So now you're expanding the prohibition from Attorney General Barr to the entire Trump Administration, presumably including the president himself. Unless a third party of which you approve shows what U.S. government officials say is accurate—not accurately reported, mind you, but factual according to your preferred source—we may not include that content. If we try, you will revert it, as you did with today's remarks by AG Barr. This just gets better and better. NedFausa (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. If the Trump Administration was evaluated as we do news sources to determine if they are reliable or not and can be used in the encyclopediaq, there is no doubt that they'd be cooling their heels with Daily Mail right now. They are most definitely not a reliable source for facts. 02:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hey POV editor BMK, you know the article is under 1RR right? PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Should stay removed: this is an unsubstantiated claim by a gov official and is undue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I had to revert myself because I was 90 minutes insides the 24 hour limit for a second revert, so anyone who feels as I do that it should not be in the article should do the right thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and do so quickly because Attorney General Barr's remarks represent a grave threat to the sanitized version of Antifa (United States) that involved editors now demand. NedFausa (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa and PackMecEng, please stop accusing other editors like that. Remember that bias goes both ways. I do not really have an opinion on this, but I found Beyond My Ken's comments persuasive. They also seem to blame more on
anarchic and far left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics
rather than antifa which they probably conflate with that. Note howantifa
is usually not alone (anarchic and far left extremist groups
,Antifa and other similar groups
,antifa and other similar extremist groups, as well as actors of a variety of different political persuasions
andanarchists like Antifa
), basically acting like antifa is some organisation when it is not and conflating antifa and antifa groups with anarchists and anarchist groups.--Davide King (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- Who did I accuse of what this time?! PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Did I dream when you called Beyond My Ken
POV editor
? It was unnecessary.--Davide King (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- Yeah kind of, it is our pet name for each other. Been calling each other that for a while. Kind of an in joke, which is why I did the winky face and left a message instead of going to 3RR. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Davide: Thanks for putting in a word for me, but I did not take offense at PME's remark. PackMecEng: Are you familiar with the "FBDB" (Friendly Banter, Don't Block" template? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, it should be used more. PackMecEng (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Davide: Thanks for putting in a word for me, but I did not take offense at PME's remark. PackMecEng: Are you familiar with the "FBDB" (Friendly Banter, Don't Block" template? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah kind of, it is our pet name for each other. Been calling each other that for a while. Kind of an in joke, which is why I did the winky face and left a message instead of going to 3RR. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Did I dream when you called Beyond My Ken
- Who did I accuse of what this time?! PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa and PackMecEng, please stop accusing other editors like that. Remember that bias goes both ways. I do not really have an opinion on this, but I found Beyond My Ken's comments persuasive. They also seem to blame more on
- Yes, and do so quickly because Attorney General Barr's remarks represent a grave threat to the sanitized version of Antifa (United States) that involved editors now demand. NedFausa (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I had to revert myself because I was 90 minutes insides the 24 hour limit for a second revert, so anyone who feels as I do that it should not be in the article should do the right thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't necessarily object to including Barr's words (without direct quoting, if that's preferred, and of course without giving the impression that his views are objective fact), for reasons I outlined a few days ago, but I don't see how we can include this statement if the only source is Fox News. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia,
FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG. … Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source.
NedFausa (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- NedFausa, that's an interview on Fox News Channel, which is very different from a story on Fox News. It's like the difference between NBC News and an interview with Maddow on MSNBC. Guy (help!) 14:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, Fox News Channel redirects to Fox News. And Wikipedia specifically mentions Special Report with Bret Baier in stating that
FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG.
Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- NedFausa, it's an interview. Those are primary sources, and Barr is the second least neutral source in America on anything related to Trump, after the president himself.
- I can't help feeling you'd get more traction here if you proposed changes on Talk first rather than making slightly WP:POINTy edits and then sniping at everyone who challenges them. 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, Fox News Channel redirects to Fox News. And Wikipedia specifically mentions Special Report with Bret Baier in stating that
- @NedFausa: There's an ongoing RfC on this matter. But the issue is (in my view) less one of reliability than one of noteworthiness: if Barr's remarks were significant or newsworthy, they'll be covered by other reliable sources, which thus far doesn't seem to be the case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, that's an interview on Fox News Channel, which is very different from a story on Fox News. It's like the difference between NBC News and an interview with Maddow on MSNBC. Guy (help!) 14:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia,
- Well, there is evidence of organisation, by far-right groups (e.g. completely defeating Antifa in Klamath Falls, OR, because Antifa never turned up). But anyone who's ever tried to organise leftists has long ago given up and gone for the less challenging option of herding cats. Guy (help!) 12:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's a matter of weight. We cannot present a partisan view without explanation of the degree of its acceptance. The phrasing implies that Barr is correct and his statement generally accepted by experts, which is questionable at best. TFD (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Group added to terrorist list after attack on neo-Nazis.
A Chicago group said to be inspired by a powerful religious figure and considering themselves to be "on a mission from God" has been added to the terrorist list after an attack on a Nazi rally in Illinois left two missing, presumed dead, and a trail of destruction with over a hundred law enforcement vehicles damaged and several state troopers with broken watches. [49] Guy (help!) 12:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Guy, what does that have to do with Antifa? And isn’t that a satirical website? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Symmachus Auxiliarus, fake news? I have it on good authority that the British National Party cited this publication in its campaign against Corbyn's "hug a jihadi" policy. And the relevance is obvious: they are anti-fascists. One of the leaders is quoted as saying "I hate Illinois Nazis". Guy (help!) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- This section, which is one administrator's idea of a joke and has nothing to do with improving Antifa (United States), should be removed per WP:NOTFORUM. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Remember the 75 year old man shoved by the Buffalo police who lay bleeding from his ear on the ground? The president of the US just suggested he was an antifa provocateur. The point is that we must be careful about labeling acts as associated with antifa. O3000 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that some Wikipedia admins and editors will go to any length—including posting utter nonsense—to distract from attempts by others to improve Antifa (United States) by including well sourced accounts of Antifa involvement in violent events and U.S. government officials' responses to Antifa involvement in those events. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Your continued refusal to WP:AGF is not useful. We do not agree that acceptable documentation of antifa involvement has been reliably sourced or that your proposed additions are improvements under WP policies and guidelines. We are allowed to disagree. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's a challenge to assume good faith on the part of editors who, for example, post this:
The Trump administration, ever since they've been in office, has repeatedly lied, misrepresented the truth, and presented their opinions and wishful thinking as facts. This means that we cannot take what they say at face value for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Reliable sources may reprt accurately what various Trump Administration people say, but there's are no grounds anymore for including their words in an article until they have been shown to be accurate by a third party.
Yup. NedFausa (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)- [50] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well... FDW777 (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you are going to have to work on your inability to assume good faith as your repeated comments about other editors is not an effective means of producing a consensus. WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, you are acting too aggressively in this discussion. I've already warned you against this sort of conduct when you engaged in it in the IPA topic area. Well, the same applies to the AP2 topic area as well. At some point, you are going to exhaust these repeated warnings and will just be sanctioned outright. For the umpteenth time, you need to start doing better by conducting yourself with greater moderation. El_C 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ned, what Beyond My Ken said isn’t inaccurate, and this has been illustrated by two editors citing the conspiracy theory Trump was just peddling today about Martin Gugino. The context of what they said is likewise true; we need reliable third party sourcing when the primary source makes unreliable statements. I’m not sure what exactly your point was in quoting that comment. On a completely unrelated note, I just noticed that a majority of your edits fall under WP:MEATBOT, as they’re clearly automated. But most of the recent ones are just removing the participle “down” from “slowed down”. Why exactly is that necessary? In some cases, it might be introducing variants that differ from sourcing or intended meaning. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, I’m not sure why you didn’t just simply reply here, as opposed to putting a notice on your user talk page, but regardless, thank you for the explanation. In response to that though, there is actually a difference, especially depending on the syntax. While “slowed” and “slowed down” are both simple past, “down” is used to show an action has been carried to completion. A better example of this is probably “boiled down” as opposed to just “boiled”. In the past tense, removing this can have the grammatical effect of introducing ambiguity, placing it in a state of indefinite duration. Some of these examples may even be removing a simple perfected state. It’s not a big deal, and I didn’t really know this until I learned Latin, as speaking Latin requires more precision than English. I’m not saying this simply to be pedantic, and I’m not going to check whether there were errors introduced by your changes; just be careful when editing at such a rapid pace. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's a challenge to assume good faith on the part of editors who, for example, post this:
- Your continued refusal to WP:AGF is not useful. We do not agree that acceptable documentation of antifa involvement has been reliably sourced or that your proposed additions are improvements under WP policies and guidelines. We are allowed to disagree. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that some Wikipedia admins and editors will go to any length—including posting utter nonsense—to distract from attempts by others to improve Antifa (United States) by including well sourced accounts of Antifa involvement in violent events and U.S. government officials' responses to Antifa involvement in those events. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Remember the 75 year old man shoved by the Buffalo police who lay bleeding from his ear on the ground? The president of the US just suggested he was an antifa provocateur. The point is that we must be careful about labeling acts as associated with antifa. O3000 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)