Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:24, 15 November 2020

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antifa (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues. Q1: Why doesn't Misplaced Pages say that antifa is "far left"? A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern but please be aware that this issue has been discussed many times before. You are encouraged to review Misplaced Pages's policy on consensus-building and the following discussions before posting on this subject: Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 1#Far left is neither accurate nor the same as anarchist Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 2#Left vs far left Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 4#far left movement Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 5#Left Wing / Right Wing Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 6#Far-left, one more time Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Antifa far-left? Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20#Lead Q2: Why doesn't Misplaced Pages say that antifa has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States? A2: There is no legal statute in the United States which allows designating a domestic group as a terrorist organization. Only foreign groups may have that status. Statements from former United States Attorney General William P. Barr and former U.S. President Donald Trump do not equal a legal designation. Q3: Why is 'antifa' spelled in lowercase? A3: Many editors have argued that antifa is a common noun, based on available sources. There was no consensus to switch to 'Antifa' in this RfC.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism  Anarchism WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · history · talk · purge Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help? Did you know 07 Jan 2025 – Liceu bombing (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion Articles for deletion 08 Jan 2025 – Kevin Carson (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion (2 participants) Good article nominees 04 Dec 2024 – Los Solidarios (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion 28 Nov 2024 – Alt Llobregat insurrection (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); start discussion Peer reviews 26 Oct 2024 – Lucy Parsons (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Mujinga (t · c); see discussion Articles for creation 13 Dec 2024 – Draft:José de Molina (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MexicanSoda (t · c) Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (513) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened: August 13 to 19, 2017 August 20 to 26, 2017 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antifa (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Death connected to antifa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. ^ Farivar, Masood (September 1, 2020). "Antifa Protester Implicated in Killing of Trump Supporter in Oregon". Voice of America. Retrieved September 23, 2020.
2. ^ Bharath, Deepa (September 7, 2020). "As Nov. 3 election draws near, fears mount of escalating street violence". The Orange County Register. Retrieved September 23, 2020.
3. Bernstein, Maxine (September 4, 2020). "Michael Reinoehl appeared to target right-wing demonstrator before fatal shooting in Portland, police say". The Oregonian. Retrieved September 23, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correction on Antifa being linked to no deaths

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newsweek has correlated numerous murders directly to Antifa, and it should be noted that Antifa was primarily responsible for the construction of Chaz, where a teenager was gunned down in his car. 173.59.11.121 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

An op-ed written by Andy Ngo? Seriously?? FDW777 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How about non-Andy Ngo then, or are you going to strawman your way out of being a responsible archiver for this one too? 173.59.11.121 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You are the gift that keeps on giving. WP:DAILYMAIL. FDW777 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks kid, I try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.59.11.121 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. So maybe third time’s the charm? — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777:, no need to ridicule new users. We all had to start somewhere. There are people who insert radical disreputable sources from the left side too. Graywalls (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-far-left-violence-extremism-deadly-year-opnion-1477065
2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8696139/Antifa-protester-linked-shooting-death-Patriot-Prayer-supporter-claims-self-defense.html

The author of that link is Andy Ngo. https://en.wikipedia.org/Andy_Ngo

Andy Ngo " is an American conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur, best known for covering street protests in Portland, Oregon. He is editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website." Wiki describes him a right wing provocateur. But honestly he doesn't seem to be as bad as social media exaggerates but making claims and accusing Antifa needs huge evidence. Many don't think Antifa has anything to do with it and the evidence provided can be real or fake.Vamlos (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Change from left to far-left

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pretty self explanatory, not a single person identifying with thus group can be conserved left-wing. They are far left extremists Anonymous 124563295 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed. Also, not a group. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Much more than that is needed, a new RFC would be needed to overturn the consensus from Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20#Lead. FDW777 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. As for Reliable sources, the Ideology section of this article makes the case with sources that Antifa is Far-left politics. Here are relevant sourced quotes demonstrating this:

"has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left"

"Democratic Party leaders, including Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, have condemned antifa and political violence more broadly."

"The Anti-Defamation League states that "ost antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left"

"Mark Bray argues that "t's also important to remember that these are self-described revolutionaries. They're anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum"."

"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"."

All of these quotes together with the sources give ample justification to change the opening sentence of the article from "is an anti-fascist action and left-wing political movement" to "far-left political movement". Furthermore, the end of the opening sentence states, "both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform". Acting outside the established system is the very definition of far-left and far-right. Jared.h.wood (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You can agree as much as you like, it won't be changed unless the previous RFC is overturned, which means a new RFC. FDW777 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, notice how it says some scholars and news media, not most. I have yet to find a quote of Bray stating antifa is far-left. We have American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism by Stanislav Vysotsky, does it says it is far-left? The final ref does not outright says it is far-left, just that it leans left. Also note that far-left, unlike far-right, is an ill-defined term. What is far-left? Anything left of social democracy? Anything left than the mainstream communist party? For Republicans, establishment Democrats are far-left. I also disagree that "cting outside the established system is the very definition of far-left." I thought that was left-wing, which is for a change of system, like old liberals were on the left and opposed the aristocracy and the old-established order, so it is only far-left because since the 1970s the spectrum moved to the right and the United States really has no socialist or social-democratic party, but I digress. Either way, we would need another RfC to do that. Davide King (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, so? Knowledge and biased are not mutually exclusive. An avid fan is probably knowledgeable on their subject, but their characterization or opinion about the subject would at the minimum have implicit bias. He's categorized as a political activist here: and apparently far from neutral: Bray is not a reliable source on characterization of antifa.

"Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of mostly far-left activists."

"The object of the president’s ire is known as the “Antifa” — shorthand for “anti-fascist” — movement, a decentralised group of far-left activists who advocate using violence to combat white supremacists and neo-Nazis...."Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, what is your point exactly? Many of reliable sources we have at Perennial sources are centrist or are biased in some way; that does not affects their report or reliability, hence they are reliable sources. You say "Bray is not a reliable source on characterization of antifa." But he has been described as an "expert" of the movement by reliable sources as we report in the article. The BBC, among other sources, also used left-wing (rather than far-left), so there is no consistency or agreement among sources other than "lean left." Your given source also says "mostly far-left activists. They include anarchists, but also communists and a few social democrats. What sets them apart is their willingness to use violence - in self-defence, they say." Either way, if you favour far-left, that requires another RfC. See also this comment by Aquillion stating that "I'll add my objection to his - the bit you're adding seems fairly WP:UNDUE. It summarizes a mere single sentence in the article, which hardly seems enough to justify inclusion in the lead. And the cites for militant in particular are fairly poor - there is only one academic source; it is cited largely to passing mentions from news media. Even far-left, which has better citations, is not presented as a universal or even widespread descriptor in the sources (part of the reason the previous RFC failed to reach a consensus.)" Note that both given sources say "far-left activists." They are describing the activists views, not the movement, even if you think there is no difference.
— Davide King (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Only sources (mostly news related) that have been repeatedly asked pop up on the perennial. Fox News appears as reliable, but the current consensus is that they're not reliable on political matters. A book or journal doesn't mean it's more neutral. Books can extend through the entire spectrum between Breitbart and Indymedia.org Expertise does not mean neutral. You poll a panel of master mechanics and there still will be a drastic divide between domestic vs import, Chevy vs Ford even if they can each be considered expert on general automotive topics. "I haven't heard Bray say they're far left" is not a strong argument. Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought reliability was more important and that other sources could be used to balance that. Regarding the far-left thing, Sacco, Lisa N. (June 9, 2020). "Are Antifa Members Domestic Terrorists? Background on Antifa and Federal Classification of Their Actions InFocus IF10839" says that "ts tenets can echo the principles of anarchism, socialism, and communism. Members do not necessarily adhere to just the tenants of these philosophies, however. Among many other things, they may also support environmentalism, the rights of indigenous populations, and gay rights." No mention of left-wing or far-left. Davide King (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-nb2017003735/
2. https://www.post-gazette.com/ae/books/2017/11/05/Anti-fascism-for-beginners-Mark-Bray-Antifa-Hankdbook/stories/201711050030
3. Wendling, Mike (2020-09-30). "Who are Proud Boys and antifa?". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-10-02.
4. "Trump blames 'Antifa' for protests despite lack of evidence". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2020-10-02.

"Antifa actions have received both criticism and praise."

In the lead, we have "Antifa actions have received both criticism and praise." I think I have added/written that myself, but I believe it should be reworded, expanded a bit to clarify more, like "Antifa actions have received criticism from both the left and right" and then perhaps discuss that there are also more "sympathetic" accounts or "defence", especially when antifa is compared to right-wing extremism and white supremacy, see historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat's comment, rather than just say "praise". So how do you suggest to reword this? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase itself is meaningless. Literally every entity, person, organization, and idea in history "has received both criticism and praise". If we have notable specific and widespread examples of either, then mention them in the lead, (by examples, I don't mean who is criticising, but rather the sort of repeated sustained reasons why the movement is criticized), but I don't find it necessary merely to note that "Some undetermined number of people have said nice things, and some undetermined number of people have said bad things". It's so meaningless as to not bear even saying. --Jayron32 12:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, I disagree. We have a Public reactions section, surely that should be summarised in the lead? And the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Davide King (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We should mention notable examples of criticism and praise in the lead. Saying the sentences "They received both criticism and praise" as a phrase is pointless. It's like saying "So and so was born and lived on earth". It's a basic statement of existence and carries no useful information. --Jayron32 13:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, you must have missed my point because that is exactly my point! We should expand and clarify that. Davide King (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, in my first reply, I agreed with your main point, and then when you said "I disagree" you confused me. You shouldn't disagree with something when I reinforce your point. --Jayron32 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, yeah, my bad for causing confusion and misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying we should not have any of that in the lead, while you were referring only to the current wording, which I agree with you is meaningless, hence my opening of this discussion to improve and clarify that. Davide King (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, Arms & Hearts, bobfrombrockley, Crossroads, FDW777, Graywalls, Jayron32, any suggestion on how to reword it and clarify that into something meaningful? Davide King (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be improved with a very brief summary of what they've been criticized/praised for. FDW777 (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, I agree, but I do not know yet exactly as to phrase it, so I wish if any of you could come up with a proposed wording as Aquillion has done here. That is why I am asking and opened this thread. Davide King (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, makes sense. And by whom. Being criticized by fascists is kind of the point, after all. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

FDW777 and JzG, I boldly reworded it myself since no one else proposed how to word it. It now reads "Antifa actions have received criticism from both the left and right. Those on the left criticize antifa for its willingness to adopt violent direct actions and for being counterproductive or backfiring by embolding the right and their allies while those of the right characterize it as a domestic terrorist organization or use antifa as a catch-all term for all left-leaning or liberal protest actions. Some scholars argue that antifa is a legitimate response to the rise of the far-right and that antifa's violence such as milkshaking is not equivalent to right-wing violence. Scholars tend to reject the equivalence between antifa and white supremacism." Feel free to propose suggestion. One possible change may be from "characterize" to "mischaracterize". Davide King (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, not a huge fan of the bit about terrorism, since that claim is so very obviously specious. Also not a big fan of Politico as a source. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, hence my suggestion to say "mischaracterize", although this is already discussed in the next paragraph, that is why I used "characterize" in the first place. How would you rephrase it? And what are the issues with the Politico source? "Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source." Davide King (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, more biased than I'd like, certainly. As I say, not a huge fan, and I would be looking for a better source if one is available. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, is "Trump, social media, right-wing news stir up antifa scares" by the Associated Press better? Davide King (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, definitely, thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Antifa

Several federal arrests have been linked to Antifa, stop spreading misinformation Lostboy74 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Lostboy74, {{citation needed}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Biased article compared to similar ones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include the murder of Aaron Danielson

This article is an excellent PR page for Antifa, as it completely whitewashes all their crimes and ignores facts that the gatekeeping mod doesn't like. It states that no murder was attributable to Antifa since 1994, but we literally just had one recently. A self-proclaimed supporter of Antifa admitted to killing a conservative activist in Portland.

And before that one obsessive mod comes here and says "AnTiFa iS aN iDeOlOgY, nOt a GrOup", I would like to point out that incels are also based around an ideology instead of a group. Just because Antifa claims to be antifascist, does not mean that is all there is to their ideology. They have attacked people simply for being Trump voters, and they have caused rioting even when white nationalists are not present. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/politics/live-coverage-of-trumps-inauguration/black-bloc-style-tactics-seen-as-chaos-erupts-in-downtown-d-c/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choochootrain1 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

So far you're 2/2 for providing references that don't mention antifa. FDW777 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

    @FDW777 The Black Bloc adhere to the Antifa ideology, dude. Nice try though. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/antifa-fashion.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choochootrain1 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYN, and I suggest you read raven paradox. FDW777 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  It looks like you are not going to listen to reason, so I will just leave the ADL's page for antifa so that others can see. Here they are rightly called out for violent attacks against non-fascists, something Misplaced Pages is apparently unwilling to do. https://www.adl.org/antifa  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choochootrain1 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions violence in the first sentence. TFD (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair, there is ample WP:RS saying Aaron Danielson was believed to be killed by a self-proclaimed “antifa supporter” e.g. this BBC article and this New York Times article. I don’t think it’s WP:EXAMPLEFARM to reference it given the event’s notability. Not sure why it’s not in this article. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I’ve added it. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This was being discussed in a thread above. Which is one reason I hate it when people resurrect month-old threads, discussions get fragmented, and folks like DeCausa here miss out on it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No I read it. The reason not to include it seems out of date. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted. Also I don't think the phrasing used in the source, that antifa were prominent in BLM protests, is accurate since there are at most a few hundred antifa compared with 10s of millions of protesters. And they have received little if any media coverage. TFD (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The ADL page linked above (Who are Antifa?) actually refers to Danielson's killing. Quote: Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there has been one suspected antifa-related murder, which took place on August 29, 2020, in Portland, Oregon. The words "antifa-related murder" are hyperlinked to from last week, so this seems to be a very recent addition to the ADL page. --Andreas JN466 23:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, I do no hold a definitive position yet and I am willing to change my mind based on the strength of arguments and sources provided; however, note that the ADL also says suspected, not just antifa-related murder. So I agree with the view in the above thread that it is probably better to wait and see sources give stronger and more definitive wording, or perhaps when the investigation is over, especially if the investigation concludes that the killing of Reinohel was a murder or extrajudicial killing. Davide King (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Reinoehl will never have his day in court, and sources reflect that in their wording – what is established is that he was the "prime suspect", "charged with homicide", "appeared to have confessed" to the killing in a video interview, etc. – but they do seem to mention it now as a killing linked to antifa. Here is a primer on antifa published by CBS News a few days ago: . It says: In at least one instance, a person self-identifying as an antifa supporter has been linked to a deadly attack at a protest. Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was considered a prime suspect in the August 2020 killing of 39-year-old Aaron "Jay" Danielson, a right-wing activist who was shot during heated demonstrations in Portland. Reinoehl was later shot to death by federal authorities as they moved to arrest him. I think a mention along those lines would improve the article. Andreas JN466 09:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, I see your point. While I believe we should wait still, what wording do you propose to add and in which section? Could you give an example, using the talk quote template, of one or more sentences that you propose adding, with sources and a note on where do you suggest to put it? In the lead? In the Academics and scholars section, which already includes Levin and LaFree, so it may make sense to add their more recent comments there? Or where else do you suggest? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I think where DeCausa had it was the right place. As for the wording, I'd suggest something like this to start with: "The August 2020 killing of Aaron Danielson in Portland by Michael Reinoehl, a self-identified antifa supporter, marked the first time antifa was linked to a deadly attack. Reinoehl was himself was shot a few days later by U.S. Marshals; his killing is currently under investigation."

Sources for the first sentence:

• Vox article by Daniel Byman
• OC Register article quoting Brian Levin
• CBS News primer: "What is antifa?"

Other sources available:

• Voice of America article quoting Levin and LaFree (Sept. 1, i.e. two days before Reinoehl was charged with homicide)
• NPR quoting Brian Levin
• ADL: "Who are Antifa?"
• Guardian article

Source for the second sentence:

• New York Times investigation

A brief mention in the lead might be called for, given how prominent the case has become. I suspect it is slightly jarring for many readers that our lead currently ends with "... found no murder that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists or antifa" when the Danielson case, happening a few weeks ago just after the end of the study period, is so fresh in everyone's mind. This said, I wouldn't want to end the lead with something like "However, a deadly attack by a self-identified antifa supporter did take place in Portland in August 2020.", so we could put the sentence "A June 2020 study ..." and the mention of Danielson before the passage "There have been repeated calls ..."

Something like this might work ... I'm sure there'd be lots of edits at first around an insertion like that, with the wording changing rapidly, and eventually it would settle down. --Andreas JN466 11:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle it is to remove the "no murder" from the lead, and instead of putting the Danielson murder in the lead, to leave it just in the body. One murder among all people who are opposed to fascism is not a significant number of events, and does not rise to being a prominent point in the lead, but a sentence or few in the body is about right. --Jayron32 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, that makes sense. The lead currently says June 2020, so in my view it already makes it clear that the "no murder" thing applies only until that date, if that is the issue. So that readers may find it "jarring" is besides the point; the date makes it clear the study was before the murder; the murder is not mentioned in the body yet, so they should not be surprised if they do not find it in the lead either; and finally, it is obviously not our fault that there has not been yet a follow-up study. Indeed, that could more easily settle the dispute, if there had been one. As an example, LaFree stated "the case could potentially be included in the university's Global Terrorism Database as the first act of terror linked to antifa." Well, has it been added already? Davide King (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, thanks for your proposals. I think they are fine and legitimate. However, I believe it would be better to report Levin and LaFree's comments at Academics and scholars rather than elsewhere. I think The Four Deuces made a compelling argument here that in this case I use for why it would not make sense to list it there. "The only connection we have though is that Reinoehl said both he was 100% antifa and not a member. But he has no known association with antifa members or attendance at an antifa meeting or demonstration and was not with antifa members when he allegedly carried out his attack." I am also unsure whether self-identification is enough; again, from what I have read, sources have provided no verification of him being an actual member such as being part of a local antifa group and seem to base their "antifa supporter" wording on his self-identification more than anything. As noted by Graywalls, "is self-proclaimed antifa affiliation needs verification. Only thing we know for certain is media says he says he's 100% antifa." Davide King (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, as far as I am concerned, where the mention is made is up to the people who've worked on this article. Jayron32's suggestion works for me as well. The other comment you cite though about Reinoehl's self-identification, along with similar comments in the other section above, doesn't hold water for me; it seems like special pleading. It's not just superficial journalists tying this event to antifa: it's the very scholars we cite as experts in this article – LaFree, Levin, the ADL – who are making this linkage, along with Byman, another academic expert, and the New York Times, who surely can be held to have gone to quite extraordinary investigative lengths in their reporting on Reinoehl. I think it's time to face the facts: Danielson's killing is and will remain part of antifa's history, whether it's mentioned here or not – and it's bound to reflect better on Misplaced Pages, and do more good in terms of a return to society's lost middle ground, if it is reflected here sooner rather than later. That's my opinion. Regards, --Andreas JN466 14:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting that "being against fascism" is seen as "not the middle ground". Are you suggesting that being a centrist means "being okay with a little bit of fascism?" That doesn't seem to me to be a very moderate position. --Jayron32 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Does thinking that the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart was bad and a result of political extremism mean that one is a fascist? As I've said before multiple times on this talk page, we need to not conflate "antifa" and "anti-fascism" - there is a reason they have separate articles. An ideology whose followers engage in violent direct action, and who are "self-described revolutionaries" with "no allegiance to liberal democracy" is not in the political middle by any reasonable definition. Antifa can call themselves whatever, but negativity about antifa is not negativity about anti-fascism any more than negativity about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is negativity about democracy.

Back to Davide King's comment about Reinohl being "not a member", I don't see why that is relevant. Isn't it brought up over and over again that "antifa" as such has no membership anyway? That argument could be used to exclude any mention of political violence forever, even while the article continues to say that antifa has never been linked to violence even though newer sources on antifa itself (Levin, ADL, etc.) are starting to say otherwise. Ultimately I think it goes back to what those extremism experts are saying, and we need to follow their lead.

To be clear, I only thought we should wait on doing an RfC because it may go easier after the election. I do not actually think waiting is better in and of itself. I suggest that any proposed wording source itself especially to Levin and ADL, and maybe the Global Terrorism Database if the case does get added there. How Reinohl was killed can also be mentioned. Crossroads 17:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, the moderate position here, to my mind, is exemplified by The New York Times, Levin, LaFree, Byman, the ADL, CBS, NPR, etc., all of whom feel that Danielson's killing was tied or linked to antifa, that his killer was an antifa supporter or antifa activist, etc. This argument about whether Reinoehl was an antifa supporter or not is not happening in any mainstream sources. I am saying that by avoiding mention of the event, this article is not mainstream or centered in the "middle ground". --Andreas JN466 17:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, it has long been my conviction that biased reporting breeds and encourages an opposite bias. All those readers who notice the glaring absence of Danielson's killing in this article will thereby become more, not less, receptive to right-wing conspiracy theories. It's like a recruiting tool. It breeds further polarization. I think it's neutral reporting that encourages people to relax, leave the extremist wings on the right and left behind, and find their home in the middle. That is actually what I meant by a "return to the middle ground". --Andreas JN466 17:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's is very strange for you to vehemently argue with someone who agrees with you. When I said that the article should include some information on Danielson's murder, what I actually meant by that was that the article should include some information on Danielson's murder. I'm sorry if that was confusing to you. You don't need to convince me of something I already agreed with you on once. --Jayron32 17:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I thought we were in agreement, until you asked me whether I was "suggesting that being a centrist meant 'being okay with a little bit of fascism'." :)) --Andreas JN466 17:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, I have done this for now; please, let me know what you think. Also, I would not be opposed to add at Academics and scholars something liks this. In September 2020, when the investigation to the suspected killing of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl was still ongoing, Levin noted that if Reinoehl was implicated, it would mark the first case in recent history of an antifa supporter being charged with homicide; and LaFree said "the case could potentially be included in the university's Global Terrorism Database as the first act of terror linked to antifa." We may also summarises Levin's quote that it was "an outlier but also a bellwether. You have a perfect storm in this country with a polarized population, a presidential election, a global pandemic that is frustrating and devastating people, and disinformation and conspiracy theories spreading on social media. The biggest threat is still, far-right white supremacist groups. But you also see that Facebook has become fertile soil for the mushrooming of small groups and lone actors." Davide King (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that per weight we should consider what the ADL article "Who are Antifa?" says. I think we could have saved a lot of discussion by waiting a couple of weeks for reliable sources to mention the killing in an article about antifa rather than in passing about the killing. Not only is that policy but we cannot fairly explain it's significance. The ADL article, as quoted above says, "Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there has been one suspected antifa-related murder, which took place on August 29, 2020, in Portland, Oregon." So I recommend we use similar wording. While the suspected killer will never go on trial, I expect in due course we will have more information. TFD (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree that makes more sense. The "passing mention" is also why I opposed using far-left, in addition to the fact that far-left is not as clearly defined as far-right and "passive mentions" do not help clarifying that. It makes sense to use the ADL's wording, but how do you suggest to paraphrase that and where should we mention it? Davide King (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If and when there is enough statement to tie this guy to antifa, then we should include it at that time. Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But we have to reconsider the statement: "A June 2020 study of 893 terrorism incidents in the United States since 1994 found no murder that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists or antifa while 329 deaths were attributed to right-wing perpetrators." We could go with the ADL approach: "While there have been hundreds of murders by far right groups in the last few decades, in only one case was an allegation made against a possible antifa supporter. Whether or not he had any connection with antifa is still unknown." Or we could just take it out. Or we could change antifa to proved antifa members. TFD (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I have done this. Let me know what you think. Davide King (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Good edit, which I followed up with this. It more closely matches the source, and makes the same point more concisely. We can't really go wrong by adhering closely to the source on such a hot-button issue, and it forestalls complaints on the talk page. Crossroads 04:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That sub-section is entirely scandal and my preference would be to omit it. It's a comparison between broad group (right/far-right) vs specific narrow group (antifa, as opposed to left/far-left/anarchist etc) Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The civil rights organization subsection? We don't eliminate material solely because it may reflect badly (i.e. "scandal"). It's not tabloid gossip, it's by a highly qualified civil rights organizaion. At this point we have to state something about that matter, and it contextualizes it. And I see a consensus in favor of it now. Crossroads 16:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Note new CSIS report: --Andreas JN466 03:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, I have reflected this in the Academics and scholars section but I am still unsure on whether the killing itself should be also listed in the Notable actions section. As noted by Aquillion ("if they present it directly as an antifa activity, ie. something that antifa as a group committed to or endorsed) rather than just mentioning or quoting the identification in passing"), The Four Deuces (to paraphrase, since I can not find the actual illuminating quote, he was not killed at an antifa protest or as part of an antifa activity) and HandThatFeeds ("They were not committing any crime related to Antifa activity. If the argument is that any crime committed by a self-declared antifa member is notable & appropriate for inclusion here, I'd say I have a nice bridge to sell you."), do reliable sources treat it as an "antifa action" or "merely as something that one supporter is accused of"? Davide King (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King: In my view those mentions we have now are sufficient. Well done. --Andreas JN466 14:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Local occurrences

@Jayron32:, I am wondering why you removed my addition of incident by known antifa members. There's no Antifa article for Austin on Misplaced Pages, so this would be the proper place. Similar occurrences of Antifa's primary opponent is retained at Proud_Boys#New_York_University. It would be useful to have such examples for both sides to have a balanced picture of things of this nature. Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what information in a random other article has to do with this one. --Jayron32 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nonetheless, what makes the inclusion criteria different here? Crime committed by KNOWN antifa is of relevance here and my addition was solidly referenced. Graywalls (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC) @NedFausa and Davide King:, any thoughts?

Having a reference is not the only requirement. It also needs to have a consensus that the information is relevant to the article. A random property crime in a middling American city is hardly worth putting in this article. Also, if there is a problem with a different article, bring it up on the talk page of that article. At this talk page, we discuss the text of this article. Misplaced Pages is a big place, the fact that something does or does not exist in any other random article at Misplaced Pages means nothing for any other article. Discuss the relevance to this article. My objection is a parochial, relatively minor crime in a middling city is not particularly important to note in this article. You, obviously, disagree. Lets now both see where consensus lies by seeing what others have to say. --Jayron32 18:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I obviously don't agree with you that this was minor. "A 27-year-old woman was charged with riot and felony burglary of a building. A 22-year-old man was charged with criminal mischief and felony burglary of a building. A 23-year-old woman was charged with felony burglary of a building." of whom confirmed to be ANIFA MEMBERS by authorities. Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a non-notable incident only tangentially related to this article. They were not committing any crime related to Antifa activity. If the argument is that any crime committed by a self-declared antifa member is notable & appropriate for inclusion here, I'd say I have a nice bridge to sell you. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds:, You obviously did not look at the source at all. "In a news release Saturday afternoon, the Travis County district attorney’s office said the three people arrested are known members of a local anti-government group that is “a self-identified communist/socialist ANTIFA group.”" far from "self-proclaimed" you're claiming. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're arguing here. "Self-identified" and "Self-proclaimed" are the same thing. They are members of said group. Nothing has been stated that they acted on behalf of said group in participating in this crime, meaning there's no clear connection between this crime and antifa activities. Otherwise any crime committed by any antifa member would have to be included in this article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources specifically included the emphasis on them being antifa. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If a member of the Proud Boys knocked over a liquor store, not to support the Proud Boys but just because they needed the money, would that be worthy of including in their article? It doesn't matter if the reliable source points out that they're a member, it's still a trivial incident not directly related to the Proud Boys article. If, instead, the member had assaulted a minority as part of their Proud Boys membership, that would be worth including in the article.

Likewise, if an antifa member attacked a cop or looted a shop during an antifa protest, that would be worth including here. This? This ain't it. These are three people who were in a crowd which was looting a Target for no clear reason. Nothing in the articles say why the crowd was mobbing the Target, so there's nothing to cite this was an antifa action. Just saying "but they were antifa members" doesn't do it. As best I can determine from the provided source, there was a crowd that got unruly, some looting occurred and three of the people arrested had antifa ties. That's... not enough to make this something to include in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

seems to be the most complete report. --Andreas JN466 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 17#Austin arrests. The Red Guards (USA) are not part of antifa. They are an ostensibly left-wing group whose main activity is harassing left-wing groups, who suspect they are police informants. TFD (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems fairly straight forward they consider themselves Antifa. The fact that they might belong to other far-left groups does not change that. PackMecEng (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

How is it straightforward they consider themselves antifa? TFD (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

RELIABLE SOURCE identifies them as ANTIFA MEMBERS. @The Four Deuces:, Graywalls (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's still irrelevant if the activity was not in support of their group. Furthermore, antifa is not a group with a membership. It's a set of ideologies. The main point, however, is that a random crime committed by someone who follows an antifa-related ideology is not relevant to this article. The crime was not related to the ideology in any way, it was not done in support of antifa-related ideology, and it has no connection to antifa-related ideology in any way except that people who happen to hold that ideology committed it. That is a most tenuous connection and has no relation to the ideology itself. --Jayron32 11:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there are reliable sources that they are antifa. We just have claims by politicians. The ADL defines antifa as "a loose collection of groups, networks and individuals who believe in active, aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements." We seem to be broadening the definition so that soon Biden and Pelosi will be antifa. TFD (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Individuals", " law enforcement" and "Trump administration".

These phrases seem overly formal to me, almost robotic, and the latter vague. I suggest using the more concise and natural words "people" and "police", and specifying which actual people we mean by "Trump administration" (there are hundreds, the vast majority uninvolved in what they're now broadly attached to here). Of course, quotes are exempt from this proposal. Take it or leave it? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that in most cases we should do this. However, in a few cases the formal language may be preferable. For example, saying that antifa is made up of groups and individuals. In that example individual implies people who are not members of a group. Using the word people wouldn't read well. TFD (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Aye, fair enough. It's not a bad word, just overused lately where better and plainer will do. Like "random" for "unexpected" or "arbitrary". Or "conspiracy theory" for "lie". Or "terrorist" for...take your pick! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Journalist opinions not needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness

Regarding this removal, while we could find more / better sources, I think that that text is generally worth preserving in some form; the questions of of "how effective is Antifa?" and "is this a reasonable response?" are reasonably sourceable and has fairly high-quality voices on both sides, so we ought to at least note it exists. Some other sources that could be used for it include:

• (It’s a good time to offer an observation: on the terms it set itself, antifascist organizing in the United States has worked.)
• - skeptical, but it quotes Natasha Lennard directly (in a context that takes it seriously), indicating that her article had an impact on the left and is therefore worth a passing mention here.
• - already in the article, but it also cites the Natasha Lennard piece in a way that plainly takes it seriously.
• - not as directly about effectiveness, but broadly related to the topic.

Based on the last two we ought to at least include the Lennard piece, since it has significant secondary coverage, and based on the first two we ought to probably at least make it clear that the more general debate on the left over antifa's effectiveness has two sides. (Also, FWIW The Intercept is green on WP:RSP. I broadly agree that we shouldn't lean too heavily on opinionated stuff from WP:BIASED sources, but this is one from a high-quality source as far as those go, and it has substantial secondary coverage indicating its importance, so I don't see a reason to avoid having a brief mention at the end of a paragraph midway through the article; it seems at least as significant as most of the other quotes in the section, and the sources above - not to mention, again, the fact that the Intercept is a high-quality source for that particular perspective - show that it does represent a significant line of thought.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, thank you. That was exactly what I was trying to do and while I agree it can be improved, I believe it is worth preserving. I was sure I have read about its "effectiveness" in other green sources (I guess The Atlantic or The Nation you linked below), but I could not remember it, so I added what I found and I believe it was fine. Davide King (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, Lennard's comments have now been cited even in a book published by Routledge. Davide King (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If the argument was comparing disagreements between professor of political science #1, and professor #2 of same caliber, I would say it's fair game. However, it has no meaningful purpose to include what "some journalists argue" (or what Beyonce... or Kim Kardashian think) as those simply reflect their own position rather than the general public opinion. Graywalls (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, if that was the issue, I have removed that wording. I agree it was not probably a good choice. I hope it is fine, or at least better, now. Davide King (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Wording was the issue. I can't comment further until I have had the time to really go through the sources. Graywalls (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Beinart has significant scholarly creds. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=%22Peter+Beinart%22&btnG=

Natasha Lennard does not. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=%22Natasha+Lennard%22&btnG=

Her profile says "Natasha Lennard is a columnist for The Intercept. Her work has appeared in The Nation, Bookforum and the New York Times, among others. She teaches critical journalism at the New School for Social Research in New York." So, this would be as if quoting a sociologist's argument against a doctor's position on the effectiveness of medical procedures. Graywalls (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, Lennard is not responding specifically to Beinard, but to the argument, also echoed by Noam Chomsky and others, that antifa is "a gift to the far-right". This argument has been reported by reliable sources, including a Routledge book, so it seems to be relevant and due as also argued by Aquillion. We should present both views as both views have been reported and are due. As argued by Aquillion, "the questions of of 'how effective is Antifa?' and 'is this a reasonable response?' are reasonably sourceable and has fairly high-quality voices on both sides, so we ought to at least note it exists." Lennard's comments have been viewed relevant enough to be reported in secondary and other quality sources. So I do not understand what you are arguing, that we should remove it because "quoting a sociologist's argument against a doctor's position on the effectiveness of medical procedures"? Even though that is a strawman and a misunderstanding that Lennard is responding specifically to Beinart, whom you deem a higher authority, which may be true, but this does not address the fact that she is not responding specifically to him but to the "gift to the far-right" argument and that this has been reported by secondary and reliable sources that discuss antifa's effectiveness. Davide King (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

So the 12,000 or so bytes are added again. It isn't whether something should be cut or not, but whether they should have been inserted in the first place. @Davide King:, you didn't want existing contents getting gutted without discussion. In return, considerable addition gets discussed and WP:ONUS established similarly. I haven't seen any discussion in a while and I haven't felt that a consensus took place to add what was just added. What does everyone else think? Graywalls (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote here, you did not even try to follow Misplaced Pages:Preserve and you have been the only user to revert me so far, so perhaps other users may prefer we follow PRESERVE and improve, reword, or substitute the additions rather than outright removing them. Even I do not agree with some of my additions, which may give too much weight to Beinart, but Crossroads may disagree and I tried to balance it. I would have hoped that PRESERVE would have fixed that, either by adding secondary sources or substituting Beinart and others with better scholarly sources. Davide King (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "The alt-right is in decline. Has antifascist activism worked?". the Guardian. 19 March 2018. Retrieved 2020-10-24.
2. Holland, Joshua (21 March 2018). "Antifa Has Richard Spencer on the Run. Does That Vindicate Its Tactics?". ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2020-10-24 – via www.thenation.com.
3. Beauchamp, Zack (8 June 2020). "Antifa, explained". Vox. Retrieved 2020-10-24.
4. Hess, Amanda (15 August 2017). "America Is Struggling to Sort Out Where 'Violence' Begins and Ends (Published 2017)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-10-24 – via NYTimes.com.

Bike lock assault by Eric Clanton

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

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

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

Rolling Stones reported:

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

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

The Washington Post reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP1E states

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

(...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needs revision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where you referring to this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoaxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic source to anchor some discussion

There has been some back-and-forth about what specific events should be included. Because Antifa is decentralized, all events are by nature quite local, so it's hard to tease out what is significant. In particular, this has been heated regarding violent events. I think a few folks have suggested that identifying what events are mentioned in academic summaries might be a useful barometer. If so, perhaps this source would be useful: . It comes from the Center for Strategic and International Studies and its lead author is Seth G. Jones, so I think the background is quite respectable. Are these authors and this institution suitable? Is this useful? Jlevi (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This seems to be an excellent-quality source. Crossroads 02:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what it adds. It has two short paragraphs about antifa in a piece largely about other topics, which mostly includes material already in this article, with a total of three footnotes. There is nothing to indicate any of the authors have any specific expertise on this subject; indeed the two paragraphs could've been written by someone who simply read this Misplaced Pages article. I'mnot even sure "academic" is the right word: it's published by a thinktank and its authors are not academics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't add much. But it's hard to say without knowing what claims it might be used to support. I've suggested using academic sources to determine what belongs in the lede in the past, but would also stress that "academic sources" isn't a monolith and that some are clearly better than others; this would rank quite low on that scale. (It has led me to discover, though, that we have an article called 2016 Sacramento riot which ascribes a central role to antifa, but that event isn't mentioned in this article – this feels like something to rectify one way or the other.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, your comment makes sense, both regarding academic sources (they are not all equal) and the 2016 Sacramento riot. The event should probably be mentioned, if 'antifa' indeed played a central role. The TWP considered the action a success because "six Antifas have been hospitalized in critical condition, with many more being treated for lesser injuries" while they "only suffered one significant casualty". Weird how only those attacked by 'antifa' are routinely asked to be added, even when in the case of Reinhoel (which we mention) it has not be conclusively found any link to antifa, but things like those are not even discussed. Davide King (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Another possobile academic source: https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/counterterrorism/perspective-why-branding-antifa-a-terror-group-is-a-diversion/ Similar areas of expertise to the previous suggestion. Not sure if it adds anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that adds to our current article, except to further support things like (quotes from your article): "there is no equivalency between Antifa and those against whom they protest", "Antifa is not, however, a terrorist group. At the most basic level, it is not even an organized group but rather a set of ideas and behaviors coalescing into a social movement." "there is also no formal structure that links these groups to each other or to other individuals who participate in violent counter-protests." etc. The author, Anne Speckhard, is probably reliable enough as an expert on terrorism. But I'm not sure what the article adds except to add even more references to what we already have. --Jayron32 11:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the assertions that Seth Jones and the CSIS rank low on the scale of quality of academic sources. A while ago there was a discussion over how the article should handle the CSIS's terrorism database. The underlying consensus of the discussion was that the CSIS is a high-quality source whose statements relating to Antifa belong in the article. Hence the inclusion of a paragraph devoted to the CSIS's terrorism database, and hence the inclusion of a citation regarding the CSIS's terrorism database in the lead. The second paragraph of the Center for Strategic and International Studies article in particular provides a convincing case that the CSIS is a reliable, high-quality, highly respected think tank, especially in matters relating to terrorism.

I noticed three things that the CSIS study mentions that aren't well-covered in the Misplaced Pages article:

• It asserts that "Antifa groups" often "use improvised explosive devices and other homemade weapons"
• It mentions the 2016 Sacramento Riot
• It mentions the 2019 Tacoma attack and describes its perpetrator as "a self-proclaimed Antifa"

I believe the first and third bullet points merit inclusion in the article. If User:Davide King or someone else can back up with reliable sources that the Antifa affiliation was relevant to the 2016 Sacramento Riot and that that affiliation received substantial coverage from reliable sources, I can also support including that incident in the article. (I'm having trouble demonstrating that myself, but I'm not going to rule it out just because I personally have been unable to demonstrate that it merits inclusion.)

In relation to the first bullet point, this is the sort of generalization that the Misplaced Pages article should include. The word "explosive" does not appear once in the Misplaced Pages article, and the description of usage of weapons is minimal. Given that we have a high-quality source generalizing Antifa actions in such a direct manner, I believe the article should mention it within the body. (We can also mention the "vandalism" part, but I believe the mention of "property damage" in the lead covers this sufficiently.)

As for the 2019 Tacoma attack, I believe it should be included on the grounds that the CSIS viewed it as relevant enough to mention in an article about terrorism and within a set of paragraphs specifically about Antifa terrorism. I should also note that this is not the only source to highlight the perpetrator's identification with Antifa; for example, this NPR article called the attack "the nation's only deadly antifa attack recorded in the past four years" and went as far as to say that "antifa groups see a martyr" in the perpetrator. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hadger, thanks for your comments. I hope other users can weight in. Regarding the Tacoma attack, I am still not sure it should be added at Notable actions, which is what I am assuming you are proposing. It should be mentioned, and indeed it already is, but I am still not sure if it should be mentioned there because I found The Four Deuces' comment that it is not clear whether he was engaging in an antifa action (they are free to correct me if I did not summarise or paraphrase their argument well, or if they changed their mind in light of new evidences or reports) or simply an action based on his opposition to ICE; I would not that he was described as "a self-proclaimed Antifa", i.e. with a qualifier and not as a fact; and same thing for Reinohel. They should be mentioned because they are mentioned in analysis and studies about antifa but I am not sure whether we should describe the act itself as part of a notable action when it seems it was more of a lonewolf attack. The 2016 Sacramento riot makes more sense since it seems to be it was indeed an antifa group action. Of course, I am willing to change my mind based on reliable sources and consensus. Davide King (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. My view is that it's not our job to draw an arbitrary line between lone wolf attacks and group action; that would be original research. Instead, we should follow the approach taken by reliable sources. The CSIS viewed this attack as significant enough to warrant mention in a discussion of Antifa's contribution to left-wing terrorism. On that basis, I believe it is notable enough for inclusion in the "Notable actions" section. The NPR source also decides for us whether the perpetrator "was engaged in an antifa action", as it calls the attack an "antifa attack." As for "self-proclaimed Antifa", I agree that any mention of this incident in the article should refer to the perpetrator in a similar manner. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• I definitely don't agree that the Center for Strategic and International Studies is a good source; it's a think tank, which means that (by default) its purpose is to advance the goals, perspective and politics of its funders rather than to report things accurately and with suitable fact-checking. While RSP hasn't considered this think tank in particular in depth, it's repeatedly determined that think tanks in general are not suitable for controversial claims in political articles, precisely because of the issues I mentioned combined with the fact that people keep trying to use them for strident claims; see eg. . The only comment I could find mentioning this one specifically was in this discussion where it is specifically noted as unreliable on Middle Eastern topics due to being funded by Saudi Arabia and UAE; while obviously this isn't directly connected it doesn't particularly imply that it has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy an WP:RS would require. ---Aquillion (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The source probably doesn't meet rs as a partisan think tank and in any case it just mentions antifa in passing. Also, the source diverts from mainstream scholarship by conflating Anarchist terrorism and Left-wing terrorism. They differ in a number of ways. The first type for example seeks to overthrow government without replacing it and proponents are more likely to act alone and not not claim responsibility. Human casualties tend to be higher. That is fine of course when one is comparing right-wing terrorism with other types of terrorism but becomes problematic when discussing antifa. TFD (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

this photograph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of my additions, especially regarding effectiveness

Regarding this revert, there was some agreement to expand on that section and Graywalls also removed other additions of mine. My view is that those should be better worded, summarised and paraphrased (my edit summary was "expand section about Effectiveness; creates one about Means and ends; all of this can be better summarised and paraphrased, but it is a start."), not outright removed. Perhaps many users may fiund the criticism and comments by Conor Friedersdorf and Peter Beinart as undue but I added it as balance. Why not even trying in doing that (i.e. better summarise them) and just revert it outright? No one reverted them until Graywalls did, so I was hoping they were fine and just need adjustment; again, I wished someone would have actually copy edited them by better paraphrasing and summarising them, not reverting even less controversial additions. Davide King (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding things just for the sake of balance doesn't exactly make it pertinent. Per the discussion on your talk page, you were seeking discussion prior to removal and I have in turn requested the same from you prior to addition. I don't believe it is fair that justification is needed for removal but not the other way around and this is fully supported by WP:ONUS. The effectiveness section has become more of "some people say..." instead of reliable research that conducts effectiveness. It looks more like a "reception section" full of journalist commentaries, anecdotes but no formal scientific study. Graywalls (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I merely added quotes, which I would have hoped someone would summarise and better paraphrase, from the sources about effectiveness and added a few more from Bray (Bray added that "t's important to understand that antifa politics, and antifa’s methods, are designed to stop white supremacists, fascists, and neo-Nazis as easily as possible." For Bray, "he vast majority of their activities are nonviolent. They function in some ways like private investigators; they track neo-Nazi organizing across multiple social-media platforms." About doxing, Bray says that it is about "telling people that they have a Nazi living down the street, or telling employers that they're employing white supremacists", adding that "after Charlottesville, a lot of the repercussions that these khaki-wearing, tiki-torch white supremacists faced were their employers firing them and their families repudiating what they do.") and Vysotsky (author of American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism) and a distinction between means and ends that distinguishes antifa from far-right, supremacist groups.

I would note that Crossroads did not revert my edits and did a minor copy editing. I agree "t looks more like a 'reception section' full of journalist commentaries, anecdotes but no formal scientific study" but it can and should be improved. I wish other users did that for me because I believe they would have done a better job but I tried anyway. I actually advocate more scholarly sources and academic commentators such as Mudde (among others listed above by bobfrombrockley) but I already imagine how they are going to be criticised as being somehow 'pro-antifa' for not comforming to the popular but misleading view. Either way, we should probably follow bobfrombrockley's suggestion that "which ones are noteworthy? Surely those cited regularly by reliable sources and/or have some specific expertise in antifa which makes them authorative (rather than vague generic expertise in society-related fields." Davide King (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't always agree with your editorial decision in what to include, and how much emphasis is placed on contents. Perhaps it maybe relevant that you singularly represent 33.1% authorship on the article and next one down, a distant second is Arms&Hearts at 8.6% and the your proportion of added text is about the same on this extremely controversial article. Keeping in mind that a lot of quotes are cherry picked by you. Compared to other articles absurd amount of lengthy direct quotes. WP:DUE says article should represent general representation and not lend strong weight to particular source. This includes Bray. You objected to my removal of existing contents. So we came to a mutual understanding that going forward, you and I will take the steps to discuss before adding/removing substantial amount of contents. Did we not? This edit was one of the largest addition this article has seen, yet it was not discussed. So I believe the removal of the most recent undiscussed addition was reasonable. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of ownership, that is nonsense as many times I simply added what was discussed here. In addition, I followed BRD. I was simply trying to implement what was discussed at the Effectiveness thread above. I also disagree with you stating I "cherry picked" them; those were quotes that were discussing antifa's effectiveness; if I missed anything, you were free to fix that. I also find curious that you are accusing me of "dding things just for the sake of balance" when that is exactly what you did by comparing this article to the Proud Boys or your insistence in supporting any little crime committed by any, related or not, 'antifa' individuals, which seems to be at odds with your reading that sources have not showed any conclusive verification of Reinohel's ties to antifa. At least that is my impression but I could be wrong.

I do not disagree with "the removal of the most recent undiscussed addition was reasonable." I simply believe at least one attempt could have been made at copy editing the quotes and better paraphrase them, even adding or substituting some sources with scholarly ones before reverting all of it (I just do not understand why you did not even tried to do that when a tag was put, not by me, to expand the section, which is what I tried to do). I actually thought my edits would have been reverted the same day and I was surprised to find not only that they were not but they have been there for a few days and Crossroads did not revert it. So I simply thought that the issue was mainly about better wording it, how to summarises that, add more scholarly sources, etc. as I suggested in my edit summary. I believe myself gave too much weight to non-experts like Beinart and Friedersdorf but I tried anyway and I was actually trying to be accommodating to users like you who seem to believe, whether you are right or wrong, this article is too positive or not negative enough about antifa, is not my reading correct? Again, this is my reading of your comments on this talk page but I could be wrong and you are free to clarify this.

Either way, it was just one attempt based on sources mentioned by Aquillion. I did not cherry picked sources either; I used those gently provided by Aquillion. Finally, your comment about Bray has been already refuted here by Arms & Hearts. It is curious you correctly propose "formal scientific study" when Bray himself is a scholar and expert of the movement extensively quoted by reliable sources but apparently he is not good enough for you. The solution was to summarise, paraphrasing and copy editing quotes into encyclopedic content and style, eventually removing those who were undue or whatever. At least that is what I would have tried to do before reverting. Davide King (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You might have followed BRD, but we have a sort of an understanding wrt to pre-discussing my removal, and your addition. The previous discussion on Bray is a separate matter. There's hardly any dissent on things like the temperature at which water melts, but philosophies and humanities are hardly like that even among well cited experts. By undue coverage isn't just about one expert. So we're on the same page that Bray is not neutral. Now, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." from WP:UNDUE. Do you believe that Bray's views represent the majority view point in expertise disciplines? (such as political science, organized crime, philosophy) I'm leaving out journalist comments form relevance, because those are usually about as relevant as what Selena Gomez think of an issue that is not relevant to her expertise. Graywalls (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As a way forward, maybe Davide King could propose an abridged version of the text in question? Being sure, of course, that trimming is done proportionately from both points of view. To be honest I did think it was a bit long, but didn't feel so strongly that I was going to bother changing it. Over the longer term, let's all look for things to trim from the article as a whole in the form of redundancy or excessive detail of specific events that readers are unlikely to find interesting. Crossroads 04:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I actually wished you and other users would have done that (i.e. an abridged and improved version of the text in question) by copy editing my additions, better paraphrasing them, even changing some sources to give more weight to scholarly ones, but it was simply reverted and that was my main disagreement. Davide King (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, I only wished that you would have tried to copy edit it (including removing parts you felt were undue and adding parts that where more due; or even substituting opinion pieces with scholarly sources) before reverting it (you did not reply on this if you tried to do it, so I simply assume you did not try and simply reverted it, even if you thought copy editing would not make it worth it). Not everything must be discussed to add something but it must be discussed whether something should be added or removed. So I tried to add this, you removed it and now we are discussing; if you are saying that I should have discussed my additions first, that is fair but I did not edit war and there were no new comments about the effectiveness thread, so I just went for it and you were free to revert it.

I am also not sure about your question on whether "Bray's views represent the majority view point in expertise disciplines? (such as political science, organized crime, philosophy)." Reliable sources consider him an expert and have extensively quoted or interviewed him, so I would argue that he certainly holds more weight than, say, Beinart. An expert on left-wing movements, or in this case antifa, holds more weight than someone who is an expert in political science or philosophy, so I do not get your point.

As for Bray not being neutral, I redirect you to Arms & Hearts' comment that this is "based on a misunderstanding of how academic research works. The purpose of published research is to argue a case; the fact that Bray has reached a certain conclusion, based on his research, on this subject in no way casts any doubt on the validity of his conclusions. Serious scholarly sources do not feign neutrality, they make arguments based on evidence." Davide King (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it is clearly an aspect of Antifa that has received substantial coverage in high-quality sources (including secondary coverage in news sources and stuff by experts, not just opinion pieces.) Compare / contrast the fairly massive amount of text we devote to a single contributor piece by Beinart in the Atlantic and I think it's hard to argue that this is WP:UNDUE comparatively (Beinart is only a tangentially-connected expert - "political science" is a huge field, and we devote far less text to people with much more specific expertise or whose opinions received more secondary coverage.) But more generally I think that the appropriate way to handle these things like this is to avoid the giant "here's what a bunch of talking heads think" sections we end up with and instead summarize the broad lines of thoughts, listing the people who hold each broad view rather than quoting each at length. Part of my concern is that such sections can become bloated as people drop in snappy but ultimately not very important individual quotes in order to argue by proxy - Beinart is the most obvious example (he is relevant enough to mention him as one of the people who holds those positions, but I'm not understanding why he his quoted at such length.) Some of the additions, of course, could fall under the same category and could be trimmed down, but I think the basic goal of having a broad summary of each of the topics people discuss is more useful than the current vague "here's what a bunch of random academics have said, all lumped together with a bunch of quotes editors thought were snappy enough to include." In case it isn't obvious, I do feel we have to make fairly drastic cuts to Beinart in particular - when I went over the article to weigh how much different opinions were given, I noticed that he's given fairly shocking amounts of focus (I believe he has more quotes and text on the page cited to him at the moment than anyone else, despite, again, not being that noteworthy and having only tangential expertise compared to some of the sources we give less weight to. Also, as a contributor piece, I'd classify his Atlantic piece as as an opinion piece - we shouldn't be citing it for statements of fact when other people are available. Right now it is cited eleven times, including a fairly large paragraph that devotes multiple extensive quotes to his opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, I agree and I suggest that you try to expand on that. I think you would word it much better than I did, also fixing any undue weight you highlighted and which I agree with. I only wished that an attempt would have been made at copyediting it (including removing undue opinions and adding better, more scholarly sources) rather than reverting it at once. Davide King (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Beinart should not be cut at all. Currently, without the expansion of the "effectiveness" section, he is quoted only three times, none of which are all that long; the other cites seem redundant. He is an expert in a relevant field - political science. It is not the case that someone's sole research focus has to be antifa for them be a reliable source or to be due. At articles on Donald Trump are we only allowed to cite scholars who solely study Trumpism? Obviously not. And I will note that removal of Beinart results in shifting the article towards a particular POV. Crossroads 20:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, WP:LINKSINACHAIN and the entire supplemental guide in which it belongs to is worth reading through. Primary and secondary sources are often misunderstood. Just because something is in NYT or LA times doesn't instantly mean "secondary". If you're writing about veganism and extremely weigh towards the use of academics and books focused on veganism but fail to fairly include the prevailing scholarly view by the general health/dietician circle, that would also be UNDUE. Columnist commentaries simply have no place; and excess reliance on biased sources would still cause the inclusion to become undue. Graywalls (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls unilaterally reverted me again, without even trying to keep some copy editing I may have done or some additions that are worth preserving. Speaking of preserving, I suggest we follow Misplaced Pages:Preserve. Crossroads again did not revert me, even though they had the chance to do so; therefore, unless other users also think those edits should be unilaterally reverted, I believe we should try to follow PRESERVE. Davide King (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You unilaterally added the contents again for which consensus apears murky. What your presenting appears to present that addition should be easier than removal. You assert PRESERVE (which is understandable for long standing contents) to cling onto the recent additions while I believe they haven't satisfied WP:ONUS, well because it's newly added. From reading the discussion, it doesn't look like what and how much to add was unanimously agreed. You didn't post the exact text to be added here to discuss as you are wanting me to do to remove existing cotnents. As per our discussion you were insistent on discussion before I remove existing contents, but you would reciprocate and go thorugh the same threshold before new additions, given that this is an article with controversy. The procedures to go through for addition should not be easier for addition than it is for removal. What ONUS says is that achieving consensus falls on those adding. You assert that Crossroads did NOT revert you, but they did not add back your edit either. Graywalls (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:, I'd be glad to discuss removal of long standing contents prior to removal, but reciprocally, please propose your specific major additions here and paste what you are wanting to add so that we can discuss it. Then, perhaps it would be better to let someone else read the consensus and do the adding. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The objection seems to be more about process, but what is the objection to the content itself and as a whole? I've read it over both times and it seems mostly fine. Some redundancy could be trimmed (I had forgotten to fix that this time the "kinetic beauty" stuff about punching Richard Spencer was in there twice). Other problems can be fixed through editing or by focusing in on them. In the article as a whole, other redundancy of points made, or excessive detail, can also be fixed. But I think we should focus more on the content policies (WP:DUE, etc.). Note too that both additions and removals can be done boldly without pre-permission at first, per WP:BRD. Crossroads 17:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The contents in a nut shell are still variants of scholar A thinks.... scholar B thinks.... journalist A said... journalsit B blogged that just go on, rather than adequately summarize and my opinion is that their most recent addition is an expansion of political soapbox like talking about new diet pills. Since it's being disputed, we should discuss it first. The "pre-permission" thing was an informal agreement betweenDavide King (talk · contribs) and I after they complained about my removal without discussion. The encyclopedic merit of the most recent addition is questionable. @Aquillion and Bobfrombrockley: Graywalls (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote here, I believe a solution would have been to follow WP:PRESERVE and "go with the flow", i.e. tag and trying to improve the additions together and directly, improve wording to better summarise and paraphrase them, substitute one source for another. Was this really not even worthy trying? Could not at least an attempt be made, give it a week or so, and then if nothing good came out of it, remove it and return to discuss it? I note that this time I removed overly long quotes from the text flow, I tried to better distribute them and I did do it in several edits rather than in one big one, yet you reverted it all? Is there really was nothing to save? Is Bray's discussion of doxing not relevant? Is the analysis of sociologist Stanislav Vysotsky, who has actually written a book about antifa, not relevant? You rightly lament that my edits are still variants of scholar A thinks, etc. and say that we should adequately summarise them. Then maybe it is about time we use Bray's Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook and Vysotsky's Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook as main sources and backbones of the article. Surely those are exactly the type of sources we need to summarise the main topic and establish weight and relevancy. Davide King (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think using quotes of major points made by the authors is fine. Trying to summarize and reword them will lead to endless wrangling over which wording is less distorted in meaning, etc. It's a controversial topic and we have to make it easier on each other and on readers. Crossroads 05:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I think you are free to re-add my edits and we try to follow preserve for some time to see if it can be further improved, if you agree. Davide King (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

While I strongly opppose... bobfrombrockley, any input? anyone else? Graywalls (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC) And also, Wikieditor19920, as you've recently made edits, do you have any feelings about the contents under dispute? (about 12,000 bytes of addition by Davide King that I've reverted)? Graywalls (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Weasel words

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

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

Please improve NPOV?

Reading the first sentences, I’m concerned that the definition is sounding very biased, especially as the label has been used more and more broadly to denigrate Or dehumanize anyone protesting against violence.

I believe calling someone Antifa is used as an insult more often than as a self-identifier.

Could we move up the line “The states that the label antifa should be limited to "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries" and not be misapplied to include all anti-fascist counter-protesters.

Also, I do not believe In the current opening lines, that it is suitable or factual to say that people labelled as Antifa are in fact against work on policy, and prefer conflict. The label is being used on people even more than being claimed by people. I am anti-facism and believe changes in policy are a critical piece of progress. I do not identify as “Antifa” because I do not want to be in conflict with others.

My two cents. I’d make the changes myself but from an iPad I cannot edit pages without making a mess. And I’m not unbiased on this.

Thank you to whomever reads this and replies. I’m not on often, but am grateful for your work and consideration. Your work is more critical this year than it has ever been, so thank you for all the work you do, even in these extreme times.

DrMel (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I do not believe In the current opening lines, that it is suitable or factual to say that people labelled as Antifa are in fact against work on policy, and prefer conflict.

I'm sorry, I just can't parse what you're asking us to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Specific suggestion: in the lead change "that aim to achieve their objectives through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform." to "that aim to achieve their objectives through direct action, including violence, rather than through policy reform."

This simplifies the statement and emphasizes the direct action attribute of antifa. Stating that they use both non-violent and violent methods is true, but the non-violent mention is not necessary and distracts from delivering the main points that distinguish antifa from other movements; which are, that antifa activists use direct action and in some cases are aggressive to the point of violence.

This suggestion is a genuine good faith attempt to improve the NPOV of one focused statement in the article. Jared.h.wood (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to Davide King, FDW777, Crossroads to discuss. Jared.h.wood (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jared.h.wood: So your suggestion is to remove the consensus wording, that's reliably sourced, to emphasize violence... because you feel this a defining characteristic of the group, and more importantly, that having a mention of non-violent action there "distracts" from this point being made? This is despite you acknowledging that it's accurate, and knowing that it's consistently reported by the majority of our sources? I'm sorry, but how is this NPOV? That seems instead like editorializing, and selective use of source material, to make a point. I'll assume good faith, but I fail to see how this is even remotely in line with policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that being a new editor, you might think NPOV means something other than it does on Misplaced Pages, and therein lies some explanation as to why I was so baffled by your edit request. As a policy, WP:NPOV means reporting what reliable sources say, in a neutrally worded and encyclopedic way, without selectively interpreting the source material, or phrasing it in a way that either provides a false balance for fringe views, or mischaracterizes what the majority of sources say. Your edit request was proposing something that seemed, to me, to actually violate NPOV. At least as the term is used on Misplaced Pages. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, I agree and I believe you gave a reasonal and convincing argument. Bray says the "vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent" but is it their willing to use violent direct action (he actually does not use 'violent' or 'direct action', he says "their 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.") and in general I see no issue with the current wording. Indeed, one may argue, citing Bray, that nonviolence is not emphasised enough and that we should add a qualifier such as 'sometimes violent' since Bray, an expert of the movement routinely quoted and cited by reliable sources, says that the vast majority of antifa organasing is "nonviolent." Davide King (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Rather than mass reverting, it would be helpful if you would look at my changes piece by piece. There are segments of the lead that can be cut to make it more concise. It is significantly repetitive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your notion that this was a "mass reverting" when this was a long-standing lead, so I suggest that you make an edit request instead. I already stated you removed any mention of nonviolence and your use of weasley wording to imply that they are not really anti-fascists but only "describe itself as anti-fascist." You also removed any mention of scholars, among others, in rejecting a false equivalence between antifa and the far-right such as white supremacists et al. which is reported in body and that was simply a summary of it. Davide King (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You also removed mention of their anti-racist activism and that it is "an array of autonomous", i.e. leaderless, groups and individuals, which is extensively discussed in the body and is a summary of it. You also changed "A highly decentralized movement, antifa political activists are anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists" to "Antifa activists often form counter protests against those they identify as belonging to the far right." The long-standing wording is more clarifying in describing those whom they oppose and is also in line with the body with mentions several white-supremacists groups and protests that were indeed initiated by white supremacists or far-right extremists. While antifa may not have a 100% accuracy rate, Notable actions include many events that were indeed organised by the far-right. Davide King (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@David Kinge: These reverts undid every single change I made to the lead. Yours was a mass revert. You seemingly clearly didn't even closely read the lead, which you assert is "long standing," or my edits, because the current iteration regurgitates the same information in different words in every other sentence. You are not the enforcer at this article and there is no protection requiring "edit requests." There are also not sources confirming that their only presence is in response to right-wing protests. This assertion is made up out of whole cloth. Sources confirm that they are also involved in protesting police, government facilities, and various other types of events. The same applies for the group's involvement in violence. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Then so were Graywalls' reverts of my edits, yet they were right to do so, even though I believe we could have followed Misplaced Pages:Preserve. On the other hand, you are editing a long-standing lead and several of your changes were problematic, so it would be better to discusses each change separately with an edit request. I also suggest that you actually respond to the issues I raised (such as sources in body do not using a qualifier for 'anti-fascist' or sources in body opposing the false equivalence between antifa and right-wing terrorism) and that you back down from accusing me I am "the enforcer at this article", when I merely followed BRD and that your edits do not have consensus yet. You write "ources confirm that they are also involved in protesting police, government facilities, and various other types of events. The same applies for the group's involvement in violence." Then please, provide sources. The body does not currently make enough mention of that and Bray and others clearly disagree that 'violence' is their main tactic. In short, your edits are not supported by the body and in some cases are even in contradiction to what majority of reliable and scholarly sources say. Davide King (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I also do not understand what you mean when you wrote "ou seemingly clearly didn't even closely read the lead, which you assert is 'long standing,'" when that is true, as shown by Graywall's reversal of my edits, with the lead staying the same, apart from one sentence I added as summary from my additions to the body. Most of the current wording has been part of a long-standing version and consensus. It can always be improved but I do not think your edits were an improvement and in some cases they made it worse. Davide King (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: You suggest "several" of my claims were "problematic," without specifying which, and offer that as a justification for a mass reversion. I don't care what another editor did earlier -- that is disruptive and in violation of WP:PRESERVE. This is not a consensus-required article, and "long-standing" means nothing when bad, in-concise writing is repeatedly restored through edit-warring by editors who don't abide WP:PRESERVE and quickly dismiss others' contributions.

The distinction you describe above between "direct action" and "violence" is headache-inducing hairsplitting. There is no difference. The sources use them interchangeably. "Direct action" clearly means physical violence. You are simply advocating for the term that the group prefers to use over that which objective sources more frequently use. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have explained why several of your edits were problematic. Sources in body do not support the 'anti-fascist' qualifier you added and 'anti-fascist' has been there for a long time, you are arguing against a long-standing consensus is saying "anti-fascist" rather than your proposed "describe itself as anti-fascist." The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and your changes to the lead are not reflected in the body; as an example, there is currently no example of a police or government facilities protests. Similarly, "A highly decentralized movement, antifa political activists are anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists" has been there for a while, so the onus is on you to gain consensus for your proposed changes. I also explained why "seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists" is more clarifying and a better summary of given source which use this wording, rather than your proposal of "against those they identify as belonging to the far right." This was also already discussed many times in the Archives. That you think "direct action" and "violence" are the same thing seems to be your personal view. Bray does not seem to say this at Direct action we discuss both violent and non-violent direct action, so I believe your conflation of the two is false. We are obviously going to disagree, so it would be better and useful if more users could weight it and see if you can get consensus for your proposed changes. Davide King (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, I believe that ironically DrMel, who are free to correct me if wrong, are actually saying the lead emphasises too much that antifa is 'violent' or that it seeks 'conflict.' In other words, my understanding of their comment is that they would disagree with your proposal "the non-violent mention is not necessary" or distracting; they disagree that "the main points that distinguish antifa from other movements; which are, that antifa activists use direct action and in some cases are aggressive to the point of violence", stating that it is not true "Antifa are in fact against work on policy, and prefer conflict." Davide King (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Antifa (United States). (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Combine the following sentences in the first paragraph:

It is composed of a number of autonomous groups and individuals that use violence, which they describe as direct action, to achieve political goals. A highly decentralized movement, antifa political activists describe themselves as anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists.

Change to:

A highly decentralized movement composed of autonomous groups and individuals, antifa political activists describe themselves as anti-racists who engage in direct action and protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists.

References

1. ^ LaFree, Gary (2018). "Is Antifa a Terrorist Group?". Society. 55 (3): 248–252. doi:10.1007/s12115-018-0246-x. ISSN 1936-4725. S2CID 149530376. In general, antifa falls on the less structured side of this continuum. It is not a highly organized entity. It has not persisted over time. There is little evidence of a chain of command or a stable leadership structure. To this point in time antifa seems to be more of a movement than a group.
2. ^ Klein, Adam (2019). "From Twitter to Charlottesville: Analyzing the Fighting Words Between the Alt-Right and Antifa". International Journal of Communication. 13: 22. ISSN 1932-8036. This present climate of partisan tribalism has given rise to new actors and factions representing the far ends of the political spectrum. On the far left, Antifa represents a fast-growing crusade designed to confront all forms of fascism, principally the aforementioned groups but also, at times, law enforcement. Antifa has no single spokesperson but rather presents its movement as a collective of nameless vigilantes, typically outfitted in concealing masks and black combat gear, ready for battle.
3. ^ Cammeron, Brenna (August 14, 2017). "Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise". BBC News. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
4. ^ Beinart, Peter (August 16, 2017). "What Trump Gets Wrong About Antifa". The Atlantic. Retrieved August 16, 2017.
5. Cite error: The named reference Rothman 2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. ^ Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas (July 2, 2019). "What Is Antifa? Explaining the Movement to Confront the Far Right". The New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
7. ^ Gordon, Tim (October 1, 2020). "Here's what antifa is and its connection to Portland". KGW. NBC. Archived from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
8. ^ Clarke, Colin; Kenney, Michael (23 June 2020). "What Antifa Is, What It Isn't, and Why It Matters". War on the Rocks. Retrieved June 26, 2020. Antifa, a highly decentralized movement of anti-racists who seek to combat neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and far-right extremists whom Antifa's followers consider 'fascist' .

Rationale: The first sentence is clearly worded to parallel a common definition of a terrorist group as a "group that uses violence to achieve political goals", thereby framing Antifa as a terrorist movement. This is not supported by the cited sources and violates Misplaced Pages's core WP:NPOV policy. The sentence is also vague and redundant, as the rest of the paragraph already describes the group's aims and activities, both violent and nonviolent.

This proposed edit incorporates the useful information from the first sentence into the following sentence, while fixing the neutrality, accuracy, and vagueness issues. I moved the refs to the second sentence, apart from one magazine interview of a single author which I omitted as not sufficiently reliable. 143.244.37.83 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that change was problematic. This was changed Wikieditor1990 but I reverted it because it included too many changes for a lead that has been part of a long-standing consensus, although it can still be improved and indeed recently we made several changes such as a trimming and rewording proposed by Aquillion. Wikieditor1990 also removed any reference to non-violence that is extensively covered in the body and added weasel words such as "that describe itself as anti-fascist", when sources, especially scholarly ones, do not generally dispute that they are anti-fascists, even if they may disagree with their tactics, etc. Davide King (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

On August 20, 2020, Patriot Prayer member Aaron Danielson was murdered by Antifa activist Michael Forest Reinoehl following a Patriot Prayer rally in Portland, Oregon. Reinoehl was later killed by police as they were attempting to arrest him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasobserver (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Rothman, Lily (February 25, 2019). "What the Artist Behind a Comics-Style History of Anti-Fascist Resistance Thinks You Should Know About Antifa". Time. Retrieved July 22, 2019.
2. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/3/michael-reinoehl-portland-antifa-shooter-killed-po/
3. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909515885/protester-suspected-in-portland-shooting-death-killed-by-law-enforcement

Veritasobserver, this is already mentioned at Analysis and studies. Graywalls, do you have any more reliable sources that verify that? You wrote "is self-proclaimed antifa affiliation needs verification. Only thing we know for certain is he says media says he says he's 100% antifa. I'm not satisifed about inclusion until something beyond he says, she says shows connection." Davide King (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@143.244.37.83: If you're going to raise "vagueness issues," I suggest being more specific about your criticisms. Your idea that the edits are meant to suggest "terrorism" are wrong as a matter of assuming good faith and wrong as a matter of what the available sources suggest. The Atlantic, for one, explicitly describes the "direct action" to achieve goals as violence. @Davide Kinge: repeatedly asserts content as "long standing" as a reason to continue mass-reverting any changes to it, depriving the word "long-standing" of any meaning and without substantively defending the changes or closely reviewing what they are reverting. Congressional research reports and other sources do not unequivocally describe them as "anti-fascists." Some do, but this is clearly a self-described-territory moniker in many instances. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your statement that the Congressional Research does not unequivocally describe them as "anti-fascists" is false as the report does not cast the doubt you think it does and writes how "antifascism goes back to the origins of fascism in interwar Italy and Germany." The report also describes the ARA as an one of "American antiracist group"; no self-declared or any other qualifier is added. Same thing for antifa, "shorthand for 'antifascist.'" Davide King (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: No, that's exactly what the report says. Some Americans describe themselves and their ideological outlooks as “antifa,” shorthand for “antifascist.” You are not paying attention to detail in reading sources or making reversions and "correcting" others, and that's a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a non-issue. The current lead says "anti-fascist action" which links to Post-World War II anti-fascism rather than anti-fascism, not "anti-fascism", which is linked when we write "ndividuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, and anti-state views. "Anti-fascist action" is already a self-description and is the exact term used to refer to antifa groups, so there is no need for your wording proposal. Davide King (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: You are repeatedly referencing one aspect of numerous changes I made to the lead, the antifa qualifier, which is in fact supported in several sources, and then claiming consensus. You clearly reacted to one change and decided to react all of my reverts. Again, this combative approach to editing violates WP:PRESERVE.

These changes removed and merged numerous sentences that were repetitive. The references to "protest tactics" and "direct action" can be merged. The controversies can be mentioned with the preceding sentence "there have been controversies" or something to that effect. The "autonomous groups" line can be merged with the first or second sentence. You need to actually read and contest my changes individually before making mass reverts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Those were bold edits that I reverted, so we should follow BRD. Ironically, I used PRESERVE to keep the other edits I did, but Graywalls reverted me both times. Either way, why can you not even wait for other users to weight in and gain consensus for your proposed changes? Davide King (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Stop complaining about another editor reverting you as a justification for your own wholesale, mass reverts of others. Tit-for-tat is not a justification, especially for you to use it in creating other disputes with editors by making mass reverts, restoring verbose, repetitive paragraphs. This is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I'll ask again, and please spare me the juvenile response about what another editor did to you and respond substantively: Why are you opposing trimming the first paragraph, even to convey the same information in fewer words? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:, I haven't bothered to look into it, but if all we have is his own statement, we should leave it out. If a reliable source ties him to being Antifa in their own voice rather than "subject says" he's antifa.. then let's include it. Otherwise no. On the same token, I also think "multi racial family" antifa camping hoax ought to be removed, because the allegation that they were trolled/harassed etc is all based on they were accused of being antifa "family says..." "family says..." "family says...". Graywalls (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure that is a good analogy. All three sources say "multiracial" as a fact, with one saying "Authorities say a multiracial family", so I do not see any "family says". Did I miss anything? Davide King (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ANTIFA members are Unwashed, Hostile and Violent Left Wing Extremists

This article needs to be updated to state the obvious. ANTIFA members are nothing more than thugs who cause violence, sucker punch people, take peoples possessions and burn them, harass children and old women and anyone else who does not agree with them. They are to be avoided at all costs and usually need showers and flea collars.

2600:6C56:6408:71:5F5:352D:69EB:F6E7 (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Me

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class anarchism articles
• WikiProject Anarchism articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests