You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits. (TW) |
→August 2018: note on AE block |
||
Line 233: | Line 233: | ||
== August 2018 == |
== August 2018 == |
||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''60 hours'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/Drmies|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''60 hours'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/Drmies|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
||
*Ongoing disruption in articles covered under [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2]], most recently [[Immigration]]. Your use of Wikipedia as a forum may lead to an indefinite block, as may continued violations of our injunction to neutrality. Since in your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orval_Faubus&diff=prev&oldid=850312930 very first edit] you made a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South, out to be someone with "radical left-wing ideas", one may well ask what brings you here. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:57, 6 August 2018
Antifa discussions
Regarding EDIT WARRING from Antifa editors:
The Antifa activist look generally is a black bloc [1] [2] characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles [3] or black hoodies and sunglasses [4] with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.[5]
There are numerous examples of how Antifa members wear hoods, masks and bandannas to hide their identity:
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/internet-vigilantes-destroy-antifa/ <-------- The antifa member editors didn't like this source, but I have plenty more:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/ http://dailyheadlines.com/antifa-website-encourages-violence-against-americans/ https://capitalresearch.org/article/antifa-activist-faces-jail-time-for-nazi-punching/ https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/antifa?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=antifa
Your recent editing history at Antifa (United States) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just to add to the above: please explain at Talk:Antifa (United States) what changes you're proposing and why. Many of your edits seem like reasonable (if perhaps unnecessary) changes to wording, but others are more concerning. The edit I just reverted replaced two citations and a section header with a nonsensical sentence. There is no deadline, and errors like these can be avoided by working collaboratively and in the spirit of consensus. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're edit-warring at Southern strategy. Please stop, or you may be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard. Acroterion (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that working collaboratively and in the spirit of consensus is ideal. In response to the above:
- What do you mean that "I just reverted replaced two citations"? I never took out any citation.
- What was a "section header with a nonsensical sentence"?
- Why did someone take out my citation regarding hoods, bandanas and masks? This is common knowledge documented with photographic evidence.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/use-term-antifa/ ~SDSU-Prepper
- In the diff I linked above, you removed citations to Jacobin and Grammarist as well as the section header "Terminology". You replaced these with the incoherent sentence "Conflicts are as an umbrella term in English in 2017." Given that you made a change involving the phrase "conflicts are" elsewhere in the same edit, it looks like you pasted some text in the wrong place.
- If you're concerned about a change another editor has made, you should contact them directly or via the article talk page. That being said, photographs are very rarely reliable sources for Wikipedia articles – see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research (especially the section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (a photograph is a primary source). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- 1: SDSU-Prepper has NOT removed any citations.
- 2:"Conflicts are as an umbrella term in English in 2017." <------ not an edit made by SDSU-Prepper.
- 3: Why does Amrs & Hearts dispute that Antifa members wear dark clothing, hoods, caps and bandanas? SDSU-Prepper has photographic evidence.
Antifa look: The copy below is neutral and does not warrant erasure:
"The Antifa activist look may include black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles. [12] The shadowy activists may wear black hoods and sunglasses[13], though not always. Some carry makeshift shields or weapons as well, or flags.[14] The tactic is known as "black bloc" [15] a strategy that may hide their identity or show cohesion."
Do NOT undue the work:
- The paragraph has proper citations from reliable newsprint sources.
- There is no inflammatory copy.
- The words "may" and "some are used appropriately to indicate possibility or probability.
- CNN has provided the definition of "black bloc" and proper citation is noted.
SDSU-Prepper (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) SDSU-Prepper (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
EDIT: This sentence is ambiguous, requires citation: "Modern antifa politics can be traced to resistance to waves of xenophobia."
Here is the revision of highly charged content: "Modern Antifa politics may stem from the resistance movement and perceived xenophobia."
- Your proposed edit makes no sense and introduces its own ambiguity. What is "the resistance movement?" Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Response from SDSU-Prepper
- 1: "Can be traced" <---- this requires citation.
- 2: "to resistance to waves" <------ this makes no sense
New Proposed change: "The rise of Antifa politics may stem from a perceived uprising in xenophobia."
Resolution: No objections noted. Changes made.
Following sources
Wikipedia's criterion for how we should report a topic is how it is described in reliable mainstream published sources, not how you or I or any other Wikipedia editor personally thinks it should be covered. It is not right for an editor to remove sources from an article because he or she personally thinks that what they say is not what should be said. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Rest assured that I've not deleted any sources of other editors; however, I have been a victim. What prompted you to write? Are you an Antifa page editor? Would you be so kind as to help me understand why an editor would erase the paragraph below? It has proper citations and is neutral.
The Antifa activist look generally is a black bloc[6][7] characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles [8] or black hoodies and sunglasses [9]. with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.[10]
SDSU-Prepper (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Antifa Edit warring
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Antifa (United States). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- You can propose content without labeling other editors as "sympathizers." Please reconsider how you interact with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Apology. I wasn't singling out anyone in particular for being a sympathizer. It was a general statement If you felt I someone singled you out, please advise. It does appear that my attempts at neutrality on the topic of Antifa have engaged others in edit warring. Another editor felt the same so I chimed in with agreement.
- You're making unjustified broad-brush accusations that are unwarranted and inappropriate. Objections to your edits from several other editors center on the use of appropriate sources, basic grammar and composition, and avoidance of original research from photographs. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Response.
- SDSU-Prepper has not made any "broad-brush accusations.
- No one has questioned SDSU-Prepper's basic grammar and composition. SDSU-Prepper has a degree in journalism and understand media bias.
- Antifa has a uniform consisting of dark clothing. SDSU-Prepper ahs several news citations for imagery demonstrating Antifa is unified in wearing dark clothing, masks, bandanas, hoods and caps, yet someone removed:
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/internet-vigilantes-destroy-antifa/ (Someone removed this citation)
SDSU-PREPPER can source several other examples: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/05/berkeley-bracing-for-alt-right-rally-today-antifa-counter-protest/ https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/demonstrator-gestures-in-front-of-an-antifascist-action-news-photo/605837992 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/03/as-far-right-marchers-and-antifa-prepare-to-face-off-on-saturday-portland-braces-for-violence/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dad2836b0cbd http://www.sfexaminer.com/use-term-antifa/
- Western Journal is an openly partisan source, please stop proposing it. Stick to the others. Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Are there any objections to mercurynews.com, gettyimage.com, washingtonpost.com, sfexaminer.com? If not, the citations will appear.
Hello, I'm Gamaliel. Your recent edit to the page Southern strategy appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
RESPONSE: SDSU-PREPPER has added the words "alleged" this is not incorrect information. The Southern Strategy is only "well-documented" as a political theorem. The word "allegedly" is appropriate in context of a strategy that has no documentation in the Republican Platform. As well, debate still currently exists that it is a myth*, so it stands that it's proper to either insert the word "allegedly" or remove references to the "Republican party."
Southern Strategy is a theorem, scholars have debated it as myth:
Editorial https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/
Professors: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/southern-strategy/ https://tennesseestar.com/2018/06/14/carol-swain-commentary-facts-myths-and-rewritten-history-of-the-left-as-tweeted-by-princetons-kevin-kruse/
When a large number of experienced editors tell you that there is something wrong with your edits, it is wise to assume that there's something wrong with your edits. Your rather curt note to Gamaliel was inappropriate. The southern strategy is well-documented, and one opinion piece doesn't outweigh the scholarship - nor is an op/ed contribution a valid source in most cases. Please stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground - you need to persuade, not bluster. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
RESPONSE: The Southern Strategy is only "well-documented" as a political theorem. The word "allegedly" is appropriate in context of a strategy that has no documentation in the Republican Platform. As well, debate still currently exists that it is a myth*, so it stands that it's proper to either insert the word "allegedly" or remove references to the "Republican party."
- Case in point:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/southern-strategy/
- You don't appear to be listening: one op/ed doesn't outweigh every other citation, and "allegedly" is to be avoided except in specific circumstances: see MOS:ALLEGED. So far you have gotten no traction with your edits, and you just keep repeating the arguments other editors have rejected. You're moving into tendentious editing - see WP:TENDENTIOUS for more. It's not a good thing. Acroterion (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Response: allegedly Use of the word “alleged” is in this instance used to dispute who participated in the Southern Strategy, since there is scholarly debate and it is a correct use of the word; however the words "apparent," "ostensible," or "reputed" would be an amicable solution. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)SDSU-PrepperSDSU-Prepper (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're making a minority position into a defining statement, in violation of WP:NPOV, and you're edit-warring to do it. Stop floating from article to article to repeatedly insert variations on a theme. It's getting disruptive, and you have never come close to getting consensus for your edits. Stop tying to edit-war disputed material into articles. Acroterion (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- And this [1] doesn't belong on a userpage, it's a talkpage item, and you have no business warning people for reverting your edits when you're the one making multiple reverts: you are the one who may expect sanctions if you don't stop. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Please clarify the dispute.
1 Regarding word "allegedly," we are working through our dispute. Please select a word: apparent, ostensible or reputed or come up with another solution. The suggestion on the table is that or to remove the word "Republican Party" in the lead, since it a scholarly debate.
2 Provide a citation that I have a "minority position to a defining statement."
3 Explain the proper etiquette instead of reducing my changes to "disruptive"
Let's come to a productive solution. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC) SDSU-Prepper
If you dig through the talk page history of the article you will see I also questioned some of the article. I would suggest slowing down else people will request a topic ban regardless of how good the information may be. At this point I would suggest figuring out where the information fits in the body of the article and understand that even if much of the conventional telling doesn't make sense, the rules of Wikipedia still govern the process. I'm inclined to support the addition of new, reliable material that calls into question much of this narrative and the oft cited dog whittles that go with it. However, even if I think many of the arguments are crap, no changes will be made without following Wikipedia rules.
So with that said, I would suggest starting a new talk section and discuss how you want to add new sources into the body of the text. Leave the lead alone for now. When new editors change the lead first it just causes fights. Also, just in case, remember this is a political discussion so always be on your best behavior. The rules are less forgiving when discussing politics. Springee (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. ````
Immigration Edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, Thank you for proper citations to the footnotes on: "but finds for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate." However this content is still under debate, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
- "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates."
- "The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime."
CIS is not a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It is BIASED to negate a credible source: cis.org is a CREDIBLE SOURCE with an Alexa Rank in United States of 34,568
The additional content will read: "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies. "The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime." Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
NOTATION: Snooganssnoogans has not justified erasure of a valid citation.
````
Snooganssnoogans has not shared a valid reason for erasure and so the paragraph shall stand:
The academic literature provides mixed findings for the relationship between immigration and crime worldwide. Some studies find for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate.[17][18] "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies.[19] Other research shows that country of origin matters for speed and depth of immigrant assimilation, but that there is considerable assimilation overall for both first- and second-generation immigrants.[20][21]
````
Post War Politics
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 --NeilN talk to me 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding: "but finds for the United States that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate." This content is still under debate, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
Wikipedia should be neutral, subjective, balanced. The highly charged content above (impact of immigration on crime), should reflect other statistical data. How does a contributor nsert this content without risking edit warring?
In the interest of fair and balanced, this content should appear:
- "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates," according to the Center for Immigration Studies. "The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime." Center for Immigration Studies, November 18, 2009. CITATION: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime
Ulyssess S Grant
THIS SENTENCE IS AMBIGOUS: "Elected president in 1868, the youngest man in the office to that date, Grant stabilized the post-war national economy, created the Department of Justice, used the military to enforce laws in the former Confederacy and prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan."
Ulysses S. Grant did not "enforce laws in the former Confederacy" Conversely Grant lead the Union Army to victory over the Confederacy in the American Civil War.
REQUEST CHANGE: "Elected president in 1868, the youngest man in the office to that date, Grant stabilized the post-war national economy, created the Department of Justice, used the military to enforce laws to put an end to the Confederacy, and he prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan."
August 2018
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
- Ongoing disruption in articles covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, most recently Immigration. Your use of Wikipedia as a forum may lead to an indefinite block, as may continued violations of our injunction to neutrality. Since in your very first edit you made a racist segregationist, a good old white boy from the South, out to be someone with "radical left-wing ideas", one may well ask what brings you here. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc
- ^ https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html
- ^ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc
- ^ https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html
- ^ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a