Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Anti-fascism historical quotes

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/04/anti-fascism/#return-note-15600-1 This website has some interesting quotes about anti-fascism that I think are DUE for at least a brief mention in the History section, considering the quotes largely come from prominent people on the far left and there's a central theme throughout the quotes, which is that when fascism comes to America, it will be called 'anti-fascism.'Mbsyl (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

there's a central theme throughout the quotes, which is that when fascism comes to America, it will be called 'anti-fascism.' No shit, seeing as it's a collection of quotations that make that argument. It's clearly not, however, a reliable source, nor does it contain the word "antifa", so even if it were a RS it wouldn't be used in this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Arms & Hearts here. I don't see anything usable. If you'd like to make a specific argument for some quote or another, go right ahead, but I confess I am skeptical. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL regarding your profanity. The website links to various newspapers, many of which are RS. "In March 1939 “LIFE” magazine ascribed the saying to Huey Long: The late Huey P. Long, who knew all the tricks of the dissembling demagog, was once asked: “Do you think we will ever have Fascism in America?” Said the Kingfish: “Sure, only we’ll call it anti-Fascism.” https://books.google.com/books?id=lU0EAAAAMBAJ&q=%22Sure+only%22#v=snippet&q=%22Sure%20only%22&f=false As to not using the word 'antifa' being relevant, please check the History section of the wiki article where there is much talk of anti-fascism before the term 'antifa' was around. Mbsyl (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Though I am a big fan of Broderick Crawford, I fail to see how a Huey Long quip improves anything in the article. Perhaps others disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that movie. I will check it out. Huey seems like an interesting guy. My thinking as to its relevance of this article is that these are largely prominent far left voices who said roughly the same thing, and they basically predicted the rise of an anti-fascist movement, which has come true. And they also predicted that the anti-fascist movement would be fascist, which some would argue is coming true. I think that is pretty interesting and worth a mention in the History sectionMbsyl (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's synthesizing based on a personal viewpoint. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And there are those that claim being anti-racist is racist, or anti-religious is a religion, or the next swamp will be created by someone draining the swamp. In any case, WP:CRYSTALBALL. O3000 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, it is an interesting quote, and Huey Long was an interesting guy--even if his ultimate legacy and personal propriety are debated to this day. That being said, this definitely belongs in a list of quotable quotes. I don't see that it belongs in an encyclopedia article about antifa. Then again, people tell me I am wrong all the time. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that what I wrote should be added to the article User:EvergreenFir but that it is interesting for those reasons and therefore deserves a mention. Huey Long is a major historical figure, Life Magazine is RS, and the quote is interesting at the very least because it predicts an anti-fascist movement in America roughly 50 years before it happened.Mbsyl (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Predictions are a dime a dozen. The way that stock analysts and economists, and psychics make there reputations is by predicting ten thousand things and then claiming, see I was right, on one they got right. You cannot look at some quotes and claim that something ages later had some connection. There is no way that this is appropriate in an encyclopedia article about a specific movement. Save it for an article like Nostradamus. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mbsyl for pointing out that there are a few (three my by count: [1], [2], [3]) sources cited in the history section that don't mention antifa. (It's not clear to me that the article contains "much talk of anti-fascism before the term 'antifa' was around", i.e. before 1932 [see Antifaschistische Aktion], however.) I think we ought to find sources that make the connection to antifa explicit, or remove or rewrite the material, otherwise there's a risk of WP:SYNTH (though thankfully without any of the WP:NPOV problems that sometimes go along with it). That would be a matter for a new talk page section, however. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

We are not here to muse philosophically - or to predict the future. O3000 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It's original research and has not place in this article unless a connection is drawn in a reliable secondary source. Huey Long by the way was right wing. Norman Thomas was a Democratic Socialist. Neither of them were far left. TFD (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Huey Long was on the hard left. He taxed net assets to redistribute to the poor. He thought the New Deal didn't go far enough left. So yeah, he was on the left. He was also a democrat. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'hard left' is, although I agree he was left wing. But it doesn't matter, he had nothing to do with Antifa. --Doug Weller talk 19:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd like to say that Huey Long is an excellent example of how Left/Right is not always a nuanced enough way to evaluate our leaders, saying nothing about the historical drift of political parties and their positions. But yeah -- nothing to do with antifa! Cheers all! Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Violent protest

MaximumIdeas, this edit was already reverted, but I was about to do the same. Reliable sources describe Antifa engaging in "violent protests". There's a whole research literature dedicated to analyzing "violent protests", and our own entry on protests actually includes lots of examples of both violent and non-violent tactics. The idea that protest must be non-violent is sort of contradicted by the existence of the phrase "non-violent protest". Nblund ^talk 22:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it because the change clearly "blackwashes" the language, removing the motivation for the actions, and making it appear that it's senseless and wanton aggression, which simply isn't true. I will continue to revert changes of this nature. We are not the PR firm for the Proud Boys, Ted Cruz, or the Orange Skull.--Jorm (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the "varied... including" language is important, since (while that aspect has gotten the most attention) the sources for that part mostly indicate that they do other stuff as well and that they're not uniformly violent. Removing those bits makes it sound like that list is all they do. (I resisted the urge to reword to "Amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements as...") Also, while reviewing the sources for this, I noticed that we're not really covering the NPR source properly (and I think there are many saying similar things), which discusses conservative efforts to use Antifa to establish a parallel between left-wing and right-wing violence in-depth and notes that they are not comparable. Perhaps we should have a section on how they've been used rhetorically, or perhaps we should repurpose the reception section in that direction (it currently contains a bunch of disconnected reactions, but lacks broad secondary coverage of how Antifa is discussed and what that discussion means in the larger context of American politics.) The hoaxes section vaguely touches on it, but only tangentially - the two could possibly be merged into a larger discussion of Antifa as a political football. --Aquillion (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Jorm, so if it a left-wing group, you say balance is "blackwashing". If it is right-wing, you say balance is "whitewashing." Thank you for sharing your views.

I do appreciate Nblund, that you give a neutral reason. But I think if you introspect it doesn't hold up. Should we use "protest" for violent right-wing groups, too? MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Problematic area. Much as I would like to think all protest is in the philosophy or Ghandi and MLK; they were also famous as they tried, and were quite successful, at changing the nature of some protest. But, that doesn’t mean that violence has not been, and doesn’t continue to be, a part of protest. Again, this is part of the discussion of Antifa vs. antifa, and even what Antifa is and promotes. And yes, right-wing protests are also protests. O3000 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

O3000 I think that sounds fair, but that if we were to try to add that any right-wing violent group (Jorm references Proud Boys, for example), "engage in varied protest tactics including political violence" it would be immediately reverted (justifiably so, I think; but at any rate we should be consistent.) MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we all stop with this nonsense false parallel? Anti-fascists ascribing to direct action as a means of protest are not the flip of specific, organized white supremacist & fascist groups like the Proud Boys. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We cite six sources on the sentence in question. All six mention Antifa violence. None of them uses the term "protest tactics". Here's a proposal that seems to me more neutrally worded and also more coherent with the previous sentence:

The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action,[12] with conflicts occurring both online and in real life.[13] These direct actions include engaging in property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18]

Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, the only difference is that you and others are more sympathetic to one than the other; but sympathy should not be the metric. Instead, we should be consistent about whether violence is a "protest" or not. Either it is or it isn't. What any violent group is against -- whether it's "communism", or "multiculturalism", or "fascism" -- is not relevant in how positively their actions should be described. MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, sympathy is not the issue here. One group promotes misogyny, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, pro-White neo-Nazi ideologies and seeks their spread through violence. The other is against fascism and neo-Nazis and willing to use violence. Superficial overlap of protest tactics does not make for a "2 sides of the same coin" statement. Focus on antifa without trying to compare it to fundamentally different groups. We are fully able to discuss one without comparison to the other. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir: No, that is your descriptors which reflect your sympathies. Someone to the right of center would describe antifa in as equally harsh terms as you describe the proud boys -- something like "anti-America, anti-white, anti-freedom, anti-speech". The fact that you see the them as categorically different, even though they both use the same tactics, only shows where your sympathies lie. But an encyclopeia should be neutral, not based on sympathies. (Edit to clarify: I believe you are 100% in good faith. But I would encourage introspection as to whether personal beliefs are influencing the wording for wiki pages where the same tactics are used to protest different things.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I took those descriptors from the RS on their respective articles. And I think that illustrates the problem here. You think they should be viewed as equivalence. RS don't treat them that way because they're not. What you're promoting is false balance. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I agree that would fix the issue. I appreciate your input. MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You can be right of center and anti-fascist and think groups such as the Proud Boys are un-American . Doug Weller talk 15:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and you can also be left of center and anti-fascist and think affiliations such as Antifa are un-American. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Groups like The Proud Boys aren't described as engaging in protest as frequently because protest is really less central to their identity. They describe themselves as a fraternal organization, and they are really only marginally committed to politics. That said: Plenty of sources do describe right wing organizations as protesting, and our entry on Unite the Right uses the word "protests" and "protesters" to describe the far right groups.

As for Antifa: CNN, The BBC, The New York Times, the ADL, Fox News, etc. all describe antifa protests and antifa protesters. If you want to raise an issue about another page you should raise it on the appropriate talk page. Nblund ^talk 15:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Antifa in particular is a protest against a thing, a group, a particular political ideology and what it represents. Proud Boys are a thing, a group, a particular ideology, and represents neo-fascism. Proud Boys can hardly walk into a city and claim to be "protesting" as they are not actually, which is why they generally call them a "rally" or similar terminology. You may even call it a demonstration of sorts, but it is clearly represented in almost all worldwide media as anything but a legitimate protest.

Now I am happy to accept the direct action element of Antifa may not in and of itself be a protest, but is very clear that the violence is in aid of their stated goals of protesting the far right. Koncorde (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"Scott Crow" broken link

This name, Scott Crow, is hyperlinked inside the article. But it redirects to the wikipedia page of Common Ground Collective.

Is it supposed to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.221.250 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Crow EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism

Please remove the "domestic terrorist movement" description in the opening line. The reference for this accusation is to a Blue Lives Matter website which is obviously ridiculous POV. No reputable organization has declared antifa even a well-defined movement, much less a "domestic terrorist movement". Antifa activists consistently oppose documented terrorist organizations such as the KKK, etc. Unlike with such organizations, no deaths, crowd bombings, mass shootings, vehicular homicides, or etc. are attributable to antifa. Calling them domestic terrorists is obvious double-speak with blatantly political motives. It's page vandalism. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.239.81 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done --MarioGom (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The description should be considered for adding back in given the new stance by the government, like the DHS defining antifa as a terror org. Bgrus22 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: the Independent misreported the original source, Politico. I really think you should read this article before making comments like that. Doug Weller talk 21:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: If youre certain on that reporting, I will defer to you towards this case (thank you for educating a hot-head like me), but I still feel the argument being done on the lede section is productive and should be had with regards to the quality of this page. Since this seems solved should this section be cleaned out or something to keep the talk page cleanish? Bgrus22 (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sections on this talk page are automatically archived after seven days of inactivity. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we re-add domestic terrorist organisation, numerous government entities now classify antifa as such a movememnt. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html Atom alchemist (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Per Doug Weller, the Politco article references talks about individuals being added to a watchlist, in addition you cannot both have them on the so called Terrorist organisation list and also have the President talking about adding them, and that adding being described as "political theatre" by a variety of sources. Koncorde (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Spencer Punch

The article currently describes this incident as something that an apparent antifa supporter did. Are we including stuff by apparent Antifa supporters? I didn't think so, and so I propose removal of this incident, since it isn't established that anyone in Antifa punched Spencer. The sources themselves attribute the claim that it was Antifa to some white nationalist who was on the scene. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, can I remove this? Surprised at no responses here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It is only an "apparent" antifa supporter due to the nature of antifa and their methodology. It is difficult to confirm if an individual belongs to a movement when said individual is covering their face and that movement doesn't keep records of membership. P.S. and to answer your original question: Yes, we are including stuff by apparent antifa supporters. Galestar (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I've repeatedly read on this page that we can't include the Ngo incident because it was only apparently Antifa who put him in the hospital with a brain bleed. Are you ok with including that too? Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a critical difference. We have video of that neo-nazi getting punched. There's even auto-tuned versions of it. The only evidence we have that Ngo has such a soft head that a milkshake gave him a "brain bleed" is his own Twitter account. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That's an argument for not including the claim of a brain bleed. We do have video of him getting assaulted, though. So does this mean you would support mention of him getting assaulted (though not of the brain bleed)? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I question that a blogger getting punched in the head by masked individuals who he was antagonizing constitutes something WP:DUE - basically I don't think Ngo is relevant. Unfortunately Spencer is. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

a blogger? he has written for WSJ and some other large conservative papers. he was on one of the biggest podcasts there is because of the incident, but its not worth a little mention in antifa's wiki page? and how was he antagonizing them? Mbsyl (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, saying that he was antagonizing the guys who beat the tar out of him is a violation of WP:BLP and I request that it be removed immediately. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain the relevant difference? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Spencer coined the term "Alt-Right" and has arguably been second only to Trump in normalizing white supremacist discourse in the United States. The famous punch of Spencer was also probably the first time a lot of people in the States heard of the antifa movement. Ngo annoys antifascist counter-protesters in Portland. One has international relevance. The other is a nobody. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this is undue, only insofar as I don't see it explicitly linked to antifa in many secondary sources, though I will be the first to admit my research is cursory. Of the two sources we currently cite, Mother Jones almost, but not quite, makes the connection. USA Today doesn't at all. Perhaps I am wrong, but if the state of the secondary sources is as I've seen so far, I would remove this mention. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You're using ad hominem to defend an assault against an innocent bystander, of which you have zero credible evidence for your accusations of him being an alleged "neo-nazi" as well. I think we should include Ngo's incident as it is a perfect example of violence and abuse on behalf of Antifa, who were wielding the antifa flag and were openly protesting en masse. That "milk shake" was a single attack on him of which after he succumbed to numerous blows and strikes. I will keep your post as evidence of Conflict of Interest Editing. You've been warned.2601:49:1:5316:D9D3:94AC:367D:A0B (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few WP:RSes refer to known neo-nazi Richard Spencer, a neo-nazi, as a neo-nazi. And frankly I don't give a hoot about complaints about "ad hominem" comments from an anon at a dynamic IP when I refer to Spencer as what he is. Simonm223 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, a warning! Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but you've forced my hand. I've put this entire website on double secret probation. I'm sorry it has come to this. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid and I think this should be removed, and Simonm223 disagrees. Anyone else want to comment? Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources: The Intercept - this one is very explicit in saying antifa activists punch nazis including Spencer; boingboing Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Also The Nation. As a note antifa punched Richard Spencer returned 53,000 results on google. There's even a dedicated twitter feed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

These are partisan sources that would need attribution. Not sure Boing Boing is RS at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, none of these sources says that the guy who punched Spencer was antifa, so they're beside the point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The Intercept is very clear that Spencer was punched by people taking antifa actions I think you need to go back and read the source again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

But carrying on, here's the WSJ, literally saying A demonstrator identified as antifa punched Richard Spencer. Here's a book review that also literally says antifa punched [Richard] Spencer. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep giving sources that don't report the incident in which Spencer was punched. The Intercept doesn't even mention the incident. The WSJ is RS, but they don't mention the incident either. Please provide quotes if you disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was confusing. I mean that the WSJ piece does not seem to include the quote you gave, so I'm not sure where you got it. I've never heard of "the fullest" but I don't see that we need to scrape the bottom like this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if there's an issue of retrospective naming and ascription here. The Spencer incident was in January 2017 but the wave of interest in "antifa" didn't really begin until about perhaps six months later (which was also when this article was created). So while more recent sources are likely to make the inference that a masked person punching a neo-nazi is probably "antifa," at the time of the event the term didn't have sufficient currency for that inference to be commonplace. Either way, I'd support removing the half-sentence about Spencer from the article. While I agree that this was an event of some significance, and would be well worth mentioning if the connection to antifa was more clear-cut, from the sources cited in the article and those linked above it seems as though the connection is a bit too tenuous. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: I'm sorry if you failed to identify the quote in the WSJ article; it's the text attached to the photo of Spencer getting punched. I suggest you need to re-read the article with greater care. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't see the WSJ quote due to Paywall, but the book review is quoting the Alt Right person as identifying the people who attacked Spencer as Antifa (and so being able to proclaim a common enemy). Not quite the same thing as the person who launched him actually being Antifa. Koncorde (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The WSJ quote is a picture quote connected to a picture of the nazi getting punched. Its inclusion in the article may be tied to the far-right attempt to divorce antifascism from taking action against fascists. Include stuff about Ngo, a fascist-sympathizing blogger for the phrenology blog Quillette. Because Ngo plays the victim well. But everybody knows Spencer is a nazi, so exclude mention of antifascists taking action against him because that would seem like they really do target fascists. I'm not interested in pandering to far-right fantasies that antifascists have no interest in combating fascism, so I think this incident provides important context. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I read it carefully. The version I had access to only gave the text of the article itself, not the non-article text (photo captions and the like). Anyway the fact that WSJ says that an unspecified demonstrator identified the attacker as Antifa falls far short of verifying that the attacker really was Antifa. It adds to the shakiness that the text isn't in the body of their article. We do not know whether the puncher was Antifa. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. And I've provided multiple supporting sources which, while admittedly not at the level of the WSJ, should be ample evidence to demonstrate this is a notable instance of antifascists punching a well-known neo-nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have missed those sources. I see a claim. I don't see it corroborated by a RS. Even Richard Spencer's article does not identify the attacker. Koncorde (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Diversity of tactics

This is a see also, but perhaps should be used as a description somewhere? --Doug Weller talk 10:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ngo Attack is Due

Here are fifteen reports, all from major news organizations, of the attack on Andy Ngo, and it really only scratches the surface. In light of the breadth of coverage, together with the fact that the attack is repeatedly mentioned as a motivation for legislation being considered in the US senate, and also as the motivating factor for the recent August 2019 rally, I cannot see how this story can be regarded as undue.

[1] WaPo reports The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore.

[2] NBC News reports that Chaos also broke out during a rally in June, when masked antifa members physically attacked conservative blogger Andy Ngo in an incident shared on social media.

[3] The Independent also reports the attack: A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland. Andy Ngo was surrounded and beaten by protesters wearing black with their faces concealed, while being covered in a milkshake, eggs and spray on Saturday. He was taken to hospital for treatment after posting a video showing bruises and cuts to his face and neck.

[4] The Intercept reports the attack: Andy Ngo was attacked in Portland on June 29 while filming a Patriot Prayer rally heavily outnumbered by antifa. A video shows him being punched, kicked, and hit with coconut milkshakes and silly string by masked individuals.

[5] Buzzfeed News had a reporter with Ngo, who wrote a long piece on what happened.

[6] BBC reports Conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who works for online magazine Quillette, was beaten in an attack that sent him to hospital.

[7] NYT wrote that In Portland this weekend, activists in the trademark black uniforms associated with antifa, as well as anarchists and related movements, struck the journalist Andy Ngo in the face, sending him to the emergency room. Mr. Ngo, who was also pelted with milkshakes, reported the attack in a video live-streamed to his more than 140,000 Twitter followers.

[8] NYT also reports the attack here, stating that it was the reason for the recent rally in Portland: Biggs ... said he had organized the rally in response to the beating of the conservative writer Andy Ngo in the clashes in June. Many have blamed Antifa for the beating, which was captured on video.

[9] Haaretz also reports the attack: Mr. Ngo, who has a reputation for embedding with far-right activists and maligning the left and anti-fascists in particular, was soaked with milkshakes, punched by a masked anti-fascist, and covered in silly string.

[10] The Atlantic (Peter Beinart, opinion) says On June 29, a video appeared showing masked activists wearing black clothing—the garb commonly associated with “antifa,” the self-described anti-fascist movement—assaulting the conservative journalist Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon.

[11] The Guardian reports Widely shared video taken by the Oregonian journalist Jim Ryan appeared to show Ngo being hit by counter-protesters and sprayed with silly string.

[12] AP reports Andy Ngo, a writer and photographer for the conservative website Quillette.com, posted on Twitter that he was attacked by anti-fascists and had his camera gear stolen.

[13] The Hill repeats the AP report: Andy Ngo, a sub-editor and photo journalist at Quillette, a conservative website, said he was attacked by anti-fascist protesters and taken to the hospital for head and facial injuries, according to the Associated Press..

[14] CBS News reports Andy Ngo, who describes himself as an editor at the conservative website Quillette and says he is "hated by antifa," said on his Twitter feed that he was attacked by anti-fascist protesters and had to be taken to the hospital to treat injuries to his face and head. Ngo also said the attackers took his camera equipment.

[15] ABC News reports Andy Ngo, a conservative journalist for the outlet Quillette, said he was among those assaulted at the march.

Of course someone could maintain that the attack wasn't clearly perpetrated by antifa. However, that conflicts with several RS above, including WaPo. Moreover, the sources which say that antifa perpetrated the attack are more than we have for the attribution of the Spencer punch to Antifa, which we currently include in the article. If consensus for inclusion of the Ngo attack emerges, I'd be happy to propose some language. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you struck all of the cites that do not say antifa did this but say things like "garb associated with antifa", or "anti-fascist" instead of antifa, or "counter-protesters" instead of antifa, or "multiple groups" not just antifa, or in other manners do not actually say antifa was behind the attack. Then we can focus on any that actually make a claim. O3000 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

We might want to say that the attack was perpetrated by "apparent antifa supporters" as we do in the Spencer punch story in the current version of the article. If we decide on that langauge, the sources you're asking me to strike would be relevant. So I don't think I should strike them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL We document facts, not what looks like it might be a fact. O3000 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"Apparent antifa supporter" is currently in the article. Are you for removing that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Haven't looked into that incident. But, doesn't sound good. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

As I've said before, I am for removing the Richard Spenser section unless we can find more sources (or perhaps they exist already) directly attributing that to antifa without qualifiers (like "apparent"). I am not opposed to adding a sentence or two on Ngo, but I would caution that we shouldn't use sources that essentially relay hearsay, like the last one where it simply says, in essence, "Ngo said he was attacked." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have tried and failed to find RS ascribing the attack on Spencer to Antifa, though of course I'd welcome help looking for such a source. Typical of the RS on this--which seems to be far less reported on than the Ngo attack--is the USA Today report we currently cite: [4]. This report says Spencer was punched by a masked protester and reports that Spencer claims that it was an Antifa member who punched him. But USA Today never reports in its own voice that it was an Antifa member who punched Spencer. In any case, I will strike the cagey references in my list above if we decide to remove the Spencer story from the current article. But I'm not sure how to tell when we have consensus on removing the Spencer. Galestar and Simonm223 seemed to disagree with removing the Spencer story from the article when I talked to them above. And certainly a case can be made, as I believe Simonm noted, that this Spencer punch brought a lot of attention to Antifa. So to me it's a little unclear where to go from here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's an RS that ties the Spencer punch to Black bloc, and then says " the black bloc is part of the longstanding visual language of international anti-fascism, or antifa." https://www.thenation.com/article/if-you-appreciated-seeing-neo-nazi-richard-spencer-get-punched-thank-the-black-bloc/ I think it would be extremely strange to not have Spencer mentioned in the antifa article. It is a big part of the antifa story. I know this isn't RS, but I think Google Trends shows how interconnected they are: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=richard%20spencer,antifa Also, thanks for putting together all of the links on Ngo, Shinealittlelight. Ngo is clearly another big part of US antifa's story, whether the group who attacked him was antifa or somehow a bunch of people pretending to be antifa. A huge rally just happened and the far right is saying that it was largely because of the latest attack on Ngo. I think it gives the article a look of extreme bias to not include Ngo at all. Mbsyl (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my post above and the discussion about Antifa vs antifa. If "antifa" means anti-facist, then I am antifa. But I have nothing to do with Antifa. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you think many RS are using 'antifa' in a way that generalizes it as such User:Doug Weller?? From what I have seen, it is used almost exclusively to describe far left extremists who believe in political violence and deplatforming, often dressing in black bloc. I would be curious to see 1 RS that has a story about antifa that isn't about violent extremists, but rather just normal everyday people who don't like fascism. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/what-is-antifa.html this story is all about the question of what is antifa and i see no mention of your lowercase a group. I also don't see them capitalizing antifa when discussing the violent extremistsMbsyl (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but I have to say that repeating the same thing about them being far left extremists who believe in political violence is getting boring. I am sure some of them are, and I'd be amazed if most of them weren't. Even the NYTimes article says "the loose affiliation of radical activists". It carefully avoids saying that antifa supporters attacked Ngo.It also says "Many antifa organizers also participate in more peaceful forms of community organizing," My guess, and it can only be a guess until someone manages to research a number of supporters, is that all Antifa supporters believe that violence may be necessary at some point, that many take part in it, but that not everyone does. I think if I'd been around (and in the UK of course) for the Battle of Cable Street I'd have taken part but I doubt I'd take part in any violence but I wouldn't try to stop it. This is straying a bit from original research, which we can discuss here, and forum talk, but First they came .... Doug Weller talk 16:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that labeling them (in a way that you agree with, and because I'm trying to make a point about the topic at hand) upsets you? I don't see where you addressed my argument regarding antifa vs Antifa and I don't understand where you get this idea that there's an uppercase and lowercase A antifa. Like I said, I see virtually no RS using antifa like that. Mbsyl (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Back to content here. Doug Weller, nobody uses 'antifa' (or 'Antifa') to mean something that encompasses such a large number of people. The central use of the term is for a certain movement. And people can be against fascism without being a part of that specific movement. That's primarily how we use it in our article, and primarily how it is used in RS as far as I can see. We are not able to clearly see that members of the movement committed either the attack on Spencer or the attack on Ngo. And yet, in both cases, those attacks do play a big role in the coverage and attention that Antifa has received, and, in the case of Ngo, a minority of RS (prominently WaPo) have identified the attackers as antifa. Here are the options I see:

Option A: include both attacks, noting that although many have claimed antifa perpetrated the attacks, and the attacks have caused antifa to gain public visibility, the identity of the attackers as antifa remains contested.

Option B: Exclude both on the grounds that in neither case can we be confident that the attacks were antifa.

I'm tentatively in favor of A, but I don't feel too strongly. What I feel strongly about is that we can't keep the Spencer in while excluding the Ngo. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the relevant policy, DUE, with RS. It doesn't matter whether you can find sources, but whether sources about antifa routinely mention this. See for example "As Portland deals with Proud Boys protests, here's what Trump doesn't get about antifa", by Gary LaFree, founding director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) (NBC, Aug 17, 2019). There is no mention of Ngo. The only sources that routinely mention him in articles about antifa are extreme right blogs. TFD (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight listed 15 RS that mention Ngo. You list one that doesn't and conjecture that only right wing blogs routinely mention Ngo. I think the 15 RS links wins this one. Mbsyl (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying that it isn't enough that nearly every major news organization reported about this; we would also have to show that each of those organizations mentions Ngo "routinely" in stories they publish about Antifa. That's an extremely strict criterion that would lead to cutting nearly all the information we have out of the article as undue. So I think you're misinterpreting WP:DUE here, unless you want the article to be cut down to just a short paragraph. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I just tested by googling "Associated Press antifa". I got two AP stories in my search results on the first page. Both mention Ngo. So I don't agree with your statement that "The only sources that routinely mention him in articles about antifa are extreme right blogs." Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they mention Ngo. They just don't say Antifa was the culprit. And frankly, I'm not going to read 15 entire articles when so many of the quotes you pulled from them clearly do not implicate Antifa, and I don't care what a Google search suggests. We're not going to do your work for you. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You do not need to read the 15 articles. Many of them do not say that Antifa was clearly the culprit. This is not contested, so I'm not sure why you're making this point. Maybe you've just gotten used to disagreeing with me? We happen to agree in this case. RS generally don't say antifa was the culprit in this attack, though a few RS (WaPo, for example) do say that. The question is then whether option A or B above is best, or a third option I'm not thinking of. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Many of them do not say that Antifa was clearly the culprit. Great, strike them. Otherwise I'm certainly not going to read 15 articles when you've said many of them don't implicate Antifa. O3000 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've explained that you're not being asked to read 15 articles, and I've explained why I am not striking the ones that do not clearly identify antifa as the culprit. I'm not going to repeat; read again. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will pay no attention to an article I haven't read. Therefore, I see no reason to include Ngo. I have no opinion on the other attack at this time, and thus the two options are not sufficient. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't the faintest idea why you think that humorous. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: I think it's time for you to drop the stick on this point. The question of whether the Ngo incident should be mentioned in the article has been discussed in great depth (see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7#I decided to remove the whole Portland section and move it here, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7#Violence against journalists - new section?, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)#Andy Ngo) and there has never been a consensus that it belongs in the article. At this point, it's very unlikely that that will change. This sort of behaviour may be considered disruptive. There are many other areas of this article that could do with improvement, and almost 6 million other articles you can edit instead; I'd recommend you find something else to focus on. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have primarily argued not for including the Ngo attack, but for either removing the Spencer attack or including the Ngo attack. This is a new argument, and some editors have seen merit in the line of reasoning I'm suggesting. Meanwhile, please no non-complimentary commentary on me; if you think I've broken a rule, report me. Otherwise, let's focus on content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Breaking rules, when necessary, is encouraged, but unfortunately certain kinds of behaviour are inimical to getting on with the work of building an encyclopaedia. As far as the "new argument," I'm afraid it's both insubstantial and incoherent: as far as I can see you've suggested that "it looks like promotion to include the Spencer punch and not the Ngo attack", but haven't explained why, or why anyone else ought to care about what things "look like" to you. As such, it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: you're saying that if we have x we must have y, as though there were an intrinsic relation between them, but you haven't explained what that connection is, so it feels like an attempt to distract from the matter at hand. Focusing on the half-sentence in the article about Spencer, where a consensus in favour of removal might well emerge, would be a good example of something that would be a better use of your time than continuing to dwell on Ngo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to politely ask again that you please stop commenting on me. I've laid out an argument here based on coverage in RS. You can't reasonably insist on including "appears to be antifa" for the Spencer case but not for Ngo. That makes no sense. Comparisons can form the basis of a cogent argument in some cases, such as this one, as stated in the policy you cited. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally, when I'm wasting my time on a futile endeavour I prefer to be told about it, but if you prefer not to know then that's your prerogative I suppose. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight -- though I agree with your view on the article here, sometimes you have to admit that you're not persuading enough to form consensus. You can certainly try again after some time, as consensus can change. Also, I see nothing untoward in Arms & Hearts' replies to you. There's a big difference between referencing another editor's arguments and commenting on them personally. As ever, reasonable minds can differ. Dumuzid (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that I've not found consensus, but there's WP:NORUSH. There are other editors who haven't weighed in. I see no reason to draw a conclusion on the day I posted this stuff. Give it a little thought, give time for others to see it, etc. And yes, I would prefer not to receive any non-complimentary commentary about me on article talk pages, in line with the instruction of administrators that I respect, who regard all such commentary as personal attacks. I try not to talk about others, and I expect others to try not to talk about me. Anyway, let's give this a minute to develop already. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with Shineallitlelight on this, this issue should be covered, along with possibly the government and a large swathe of the U.S. seeking to define the movement\group as a terror organization (already done by the DHS). This is a 'prominent controversy' as I mentioned down on the lede section and should be included, the Ngo and Spencer cases being some of the controversial examples to a bigger controversy that could realistically see Antifa marked out as a terror org (this is a realistic threat to the movement\group and is a prominent topic amongst the Right in the U.S.) Bgrus22 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What exactly can be said here beyond "Antifa made news after a journalist for Quillette said he was attacked by antifascist protesters?" I'm not completely averse to any mention here, but there's not a lot to the story. Nblund ^talk 15:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That's about all, I think, though we'd probably have to hash out the exact language to be included. It's much like the Spencer punch. The attacks on a par, and should receive the same amount of attention in our article: either no attention or a little attention. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight, Nblund, Dumuzid, Arms & Hearts, Bgrus22, Objective3000, and The Four Deuces: hope I haven't missed any, has everyone read Andy Ngo#Confrontations with antifascist activists? I confess I hadn't until today. I think that section gives some important context to this discussion. Specifically that we shouldn't mention the attack, if we mention it at all, on its own. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm already involved over at Andy Ngo - and I stand by what I've said before, that this may be due on his article but not here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Doug Weller, can you elaborate a little? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ngo getting milkshaked and punched has directly to do with the arrangement he made with far right groups to protect them in the media in exchange for access. As such, his antagonism toward antifascism goes beyond the scope of what is WP:DUE here - that dispute belongs on his page, not here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug Weller. Oh, wait, you're not Doug Weller! Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not. But I felt it was pretty obvious what Doug Weller was saying. If they feel the need to weigh in, they are of course welcome to. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: I really would like an explanation of your comment - it looks a lot as though you were trying to make a point. I was hoping that others would chime in and give their opinions, and Simonm223 did. I thought it was clear that I meant that to add something here without the context would be simply wrong - when you yank something out of its context it will often be misunderstood. At the moment the most Ngo merits is a see also. Although that would probably be seen by some editors as an invitation to add him to the article. The fact that something can be verified is never enough to merit its inclusion in an article. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

When I asked you what you meant, I wanted to know what you meant. I wasn't trying to make a point. I still don't know what "important context" you were referring to. Did Simonm223 correctly identify what you had in mind? This is not a trick question. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It still doesn't make the incident DUE in this article. We would need to show that it was a major issue in articles about antifa. It's similar to the example I provided about Ted Bundy. His activism in the Republican Party is significant to his story, and mentioned in books and articles about him, it's not mentioned in books and articles about the Republican Party. If future books about antifa give substantial coverage to the incident, then it would be DUE. Also, do we know that Ngo was trying to provoke antifa, or anti-fascists in general? (A lot of demonstrators are not antifa.) TFD (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

TFD, I think that's a reasonable perspective. Do you think the Spencer punch is due by this standard? Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Lede missing controversy

WP:LEDE says that the lede has to include "any prominent controversies", the current one makes no mention of the controversy surrounding the group being defined as a terror organization or utilizing fascist tactics (both prominent claims among many right-wing political figures). Considering that the controversy does exist, despite the page not covering prominent cases of violence like the recent Portland, Oregon violence and the case of Ngo, (and yes I am aware that wikipedia functions as a thesarus not a news channel, but that does not change the fact that these are relevant cases along with the president's calls to redefine the organization as a terror group) it would make sense to include it in the lede and possibly provide a section on the controversy itself. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: what group? It's always a good idea to read or search the talk pages if you're new to an article that is as controversial as this one. Antifa is a social movement, it's not a group. I think all of us who are frequent editors here know about the stuff with 2 Senators and Trump, but just because it's in the news right now doesn't entitle it to be in the lead. The Portland rally is interesting because it lacked any substantial violence and is not a prominent controversy, and Ngo is discussesd above. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The dictionary defines a movement as "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas." Moreover, the NYT and other RS call Antifa a collection, which the dictionary defines as "a group of things or people." Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: , @Shinealittlelight: I am aware that there is no formal structure to the movement, but that does not change the fact that the DHS classified the movement, or as they describe it an organization, as a terror group. Its also more than just the two senators and the current president, its a common topic amongst right-wing political talking heads, thought leaders, and political leaders meaning it is a prominent controversy for half the country. As for violence at that specific example there are plenty of videos of said violence, the violence in question has been under reported (which means that it cant be cited in wikipedia I know), but there are several records of arrests and violence occurring surrounding these episodes that draw on similar parallels (the well known Berkley protests to stop a scheduled speaker and the lesser known arrest made because of Steven Crowder's undercover operation a few years back as two well known ones). I'm curious how you would defend the argument regarding the classification as a possible terror organization as not being prominent given that the government and administration are focusing on the issue regularly while Antifa supporters regularly defend the organization I see two sides encapsulating a large population within the country arguing over a significant legal status. This is not a small scale issue like the WP:LEDE says should be ignored for NPOV guidelines, but is a prevalent topic and important to the future of this movement/group (however you would like to define it). Bgrus22 (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I was only responding to Doug Weller's claim that Antifa is not a group. As for your proposal, the lead should follow the body. If you want to propose adding some of this to the body, that's the place to start. I would support that. But you're unlikely to have many other supporters among the editors currently working on the article. You could weigh in above about Ngo, which is a controversy that I documented as very widely discussed in RS, but I've been nevertheless unable to gain consensus about adding even a short mention to the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We can't use dictionary definitions here. And would you really call the Civil Rights Movement a group? A collection can include individuals, right? And I ran into a dictionary definition of archaeology saying it was the study of the past, which is also incorrect, archaeologists have done work on contemporary rubbish dumps. And you can't outlaw or prosecute a movement. You could treat the organised groups legally of course. By the way, I'm pretty sure not half the country is right-wing. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Bgrus22 makes a good point. Whether Antifa is a group is not relevant; WP:LEDE says controversy should be included in articles generally, not just about groups. FYI, it is more than the President and two senators who have called for it. MaximumIdeas (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that what's clear is that Antifa doesn't have formal membership or a hierarchical leadership structure. But if someone wants to call them a loosely affiliated group of people, I think that's a reasonable description, so long as the person agrees that there's no formal membership or hierarchical leadership. I can see your point that it sounds a little funny to say that the Civil Rights movement is a group of people. I think that's because it sounds like that's all they are when someone says that. But I do think it's true that the CRM was a group of people. It certainly was made up of some people who were loosely affiliated with each other. And so it seems that those people made up a loosely affiliated group (what else does it take to make up such a group?). So the reason we don't say "The CRM was a group of people" is that it seems to deflate its significance. But it is true nonetheless. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Bgrus22 and MaximumIdeas, we would need to add these things to the body before we add them to the lead. Start there, by providing appropriate RS and arguing that the information is WP:DUE. This is what I did above for the Ngo case, and I haven't been able to gain consensus so far. But that's how WP works--you have to gain consensus to add to the body, then the lead reflects the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to second Shinealittlelight's advice above, but I'll also give my initial impression (which could certainly change). While I understand the impetus here, we should remember that WP:LEAD specifically tells us not to give "undue attention" when mentioning prominent controversies. I'll agree that it's something of a close call, but for me, this falls under WP:NOTNEWS, at least at this point. The coverage of this (again, for me) has so far been rather spotty rather than sustained. That could certainly change, but for right now I would oppose this inclusion. Of course reasonable minds may differ! Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Look at the entirety of the portion of you are quoting from WP:LEAD, "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section," since this is an important controversy your argument would not apply. Unless of course you had reason to believe it is not important. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Bgrus22, given the coverage in the reliable sources, I believe it is not important. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I would agree with you that it is under reported in much of today's media, meaning that by wiki guidelines it is hard to cite, but to say that it isnt a point being discussed and brought up at length within half of the country's political sphere is incorrect. I concede that if its an issue of citation it may not be covered, but if we are able to use less than strictly defined RSs to cover what is a known issue that would definitely improve the overall quality of this page. I do appreciate your argument a lot more than just denying the existence of the issue, and if that is the consensus of this page (that RS are the only ones able to cover the issue at hand) I could agree to that since it is rational enough.... despite WP:IAR saying we should value the quality of a page over the wikipedia rules themselves. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Bgrus22, I'd encourage you to have a look at the policy on verifiability--and I don't mean to sound patronizing. Forgive me if I come off that way. Wikipedia has made a conscious choice to tie itself strictly to what reliable sources say, and for (I think) a very good reason. Can you imagine trying to convince the crew in this comment thread of the underlying truth of anything at all? We would quickly turn in to the worst forum you've ever seen (see also WP:NOTAFORUM!). Instead, by relying on secondary sources, we change the conversation from "X is bad because..." to "The Wall Street Journal says this about X...." We certainly still argue (plenty). But at least this way, we all have outside authorities we can point to. So even things that are widely discussed within the country are "invisible" to Wikipedia until reliable sources report on them. If you have sources you think might be borderline, by all means present them, but be prepared for opinions to differ. If you feel like a more neutral forum is necessary, you can always ask at WP:RSN. In short, by all means, make your arguments and present your evidence, just be prepared to not always prevail. Again, on this one, I disagree with you, but I understand where you're coming from. If you can convince enough people to form a consensus that I'm wrong, I'll happily defer. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I'm going through the verifiability page like you suggested and see where you are coming from, and I do understand that things can remain invisible on Wikipedia, but I would like some clarification. On the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page it states sources may be biased so long as they are reliable and I would like to know why a writer from the oh so spooky intellectual dark web who is known to properly source his claims and make coherent arguments would not be considered a biased but reliable source? What's more, if you take the context of such a source as being not representing the facts of a case but the fact that a view point exists and is widely held it most definitely is a reliable source in that context. For instance person X may not be entirely accurate about something (since we can not provide an RS better apt to verify the claim), but the fact that person X has made the claim and has a wide following with like minded individuals could demonstrate a widely held belief on a topic. If we were to change the context of an inclusion, to say that some people consider they organization as such that could be proven if we are willing to define a RS based on who reliably portrays the populace being refereed to and would remain within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but it's not the identity of the writers that keeps me from endorsing this, it's the context in which you seem to want to include their thoughts--and again, forgive me if I am wrong. Let's say Ben Shapiro wrote an article (and not an opinion piece, just for this example) for the Wall Street Journal. I don't think anyone here would have a problem calling that a reliable source, since the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, an editorial policy, etc. While Tweets are technically 'published,' per the Wikipedia definition, I don't think anyone's tweets have a good reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Ditto YouTube videos. If you can provide some sources which have that sort of reputation, we can certainly talk. And forgive me, but I am not quite certain what you mean by your last sentence? It sounds like you're saying "we should define reliable sources by who tells the truth," which, again, is not what we do. That's just another way to start a Reddit-style debate. If you want to propose certain sources here, to me, or at the reliable sources noticeboard, then by all means do -- though if you choose to go to the noticeboard, I'd ask that you do a quick archives check to make sure source wasn't discussed in the recent past. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Then what if we utilized the argument that there is a large group of people who share the controversial opinion (as shown in this chat) that Antifa is a terror org (not that they are or even cite specific instances of violence, but that there are people who are thought leaders in the American right who push this controversy which has gained traction). I don't see then why we could not use a source like say Shapiro, since he could reliably demonstrate what right-wingers are arguing (I am not saying to use him to substantiate accusations of violence). This would capture the sentiment that is driving the controversy while not falling into the issue of attributing specific actions to an movement that may be too loosely organized to have actively planned such things. @Dumuzid: In that context do you feel that a normally less than reliable source could be used to accurately describe a notion that is widely held and then be the basis of the 'prominent controversy', "some leaders amongst America's conservative sphere feel the movement is a domestic terror organization and would like it to be defined as such"? The controversy being whether the movement is such an organization (and we could definitely find articles showing a defense for antifa from RS), how attributable actions can be (if we would like to include that since it seems to be a topic that has come up in the talk pages regarding similar issues and since that is a common point of contention irl), and the fact that an, admittedly small, group of politicians are pushing for this legal classification. The prominence could be noted by attributing it to the 'Intellectual dark web' and saying that it is a common point discussed there (also true) which could translate into feelings amongst their supporters. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're still sort of missing the point: Shapiro is not, in and of himself, a 'source' in the traditional Wikipedia sense. He, as a person, does not have editorial or fact-checking policy, because no one does. He becomes a source when he is published in a place that has those features, and a reputation for accuracy. Even then, we still have to determine whether information published in such a way is sufficiently notable and sufficiently due for inclusion. If there are specific articles or the like that you wish to discuss, let's do that. But Shapiro's thoughts are not themselves a source for this article. There may come a time when his thoughts receive coverage in reliable sources--as some facets of the "intellectual dark web" have--and then such things are fair game. But "a lot of people think x" doesn't get you anywhere on Wikipedia until a reliable source prints a story (or academic article, etc.) saying that "a lot of people think x." So, as I say, if there are specific sources or articles, please, bring them up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

sigh Again with the DHS thing, which has been thoroughly discussed and rejected. The only source is the Politico article, and the DHS itself does not verify the claim, nor is there any Federal process for declaring a domestic organization a terrorist group. It's bunk. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

How about the attack on the ICE detention center or general reports of violence like this? Considering the definition of Terrorism on the wikipedia page, "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence, generally against civilians, for political purposes" it would seem to fit with the actions being undertaken by these self-identified members.Bgrus22 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Daily Wire is not going to fly as a source for this, and your own interpretation of how to define terrorism is WP:OR. Antifa is obviously a controversial movement, but the claim that they are a terrorist group is not the "controversy" itself, it's just a talking point used by people who were already predisposed to dislike them. I don't see any evidence that there is actually a serious debate here. Nblund ^talk 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I understand that the Daily Wire is not a RS, but what RS is covering the attempted attack on the ICE facility? I can't find much off of a cursory search, but I do know the facts of the case since it has been so heavily cited in right-wing media. As for the definition, that is not original research thats a cited statement made on the wikipedia page for terrorism (please read what I write before you make claims against me). As for the claim that they are a terror group, there are a large number of mainstream talking heads that are taking up that flag both in political and media circles (it just happens that its an under reported issue). Relegating the argument to being a point of view, by claiming its just people who are upset ranting about a movement sounds a lot more like a point of view to me than what I have been saying, which is 'there is a common view amongst right-wing/conservatives in the country that members of the organization perform acts of violence, which could be construed as terror based on the definition, and several people have taken to pushing for the movement\group to be defined as a terror organization in response to the actions of people assumed to be related or who self-identify with the movement.' Bgrus22 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where you get the definition, the question of applying that definition to a particular group is going to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. We need reliable sources that explicitly support any claims we're making here. If reliable sources aren't covering something, Wikipedia is going to follow suit, regardless of our personal opinions. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or address problems of media bias. Nblund ^talk 22:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out the existence of WP:IAR and say that if this does make the page itself better at the cost of the rules then I would gladly value the page over said rules. Wikiepedia seems to value quality of article over adherence to Wikipedia's fifth pillar, that it has no firm rules. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I included a member of the 'intellectual dark web' because such a source could be considered reliable depending on the context in how it is used. If you treat someone like Shapiro as a thought leader or public conservative thinker, he becomes a mouth piece that can accurately capture widely held sentiment amongst conservatives in the country. You can then use such a source to cite that people feel that way, ie a controversy of whether or not the group is a terror org, not that they are committing acts of terror. I concede we could not use such a source on actions being done, but by wikipedia's definition of an RS it would seem we could use that same source to show a notion that is prominent in some circles. I don't believe that would be vandalizing the page since it would just show there is controversy surrounding the existence of a group that many see as violent, and we could easily cite a defense for the movement in order to stay neutral. I would actually argue that not highlighting this controversial topic would be akin to pressing a viewpoint via a lie by omission (the lie being that many people feel this group is controversial and amongst that group some section, still a notably large group of people, feel the movement should be called a terror group). Bgrus22 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: the Independent misreported the original source, Politico. I really think you should read this article before making comments like that. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Like I said above, if the issue is that there is a lack of RSs covering the topic I would be more than happy to wait and see what may come about (although I would argue that under reporting is occurring and if we want internal consitancy with other pages like that one on terrorism it would make sense to include the controversy as a right-wing complaint against individual actions in the organization if nothing else). I still feel that WP:IAR says it best, that for the improvement of an article we can and should ignore all rules. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: - Wikiepedia seems to value quality of article over adherence to Wikipedia's fifth pillar, that it has no firm rules - you're correct and that is how it should be. It doesn't mean we can add original research. The fifth pillar clearly states, do not be reckless. starship.paint (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules is all well and good, but it only tends to work where there's broad agreement, since there's no way around consensus. So by all means, be bold, but to my mind, there's no Wikipedia substitute for old-fashioned persuasion. Cheers, and happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. IAR is used when it's unlikely many will disagree that an action is a positive for the project. Consensus rules. O3000 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

As above. IAR is designed when a rule, policy or guideline is holding back progress in order to promote an evaluation of the rule, policy or guideline. This is not progress, but an attempt to find a clause that can be used to circumvent normal consensus. Koncorde (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of IAR is that where a strict adherence to individuals rules would violate the objectives of neutrality, reliability and no synthesis, that we ignore them. It's similar to accounting standards in most countries where individual rules should be ignored if following them would lead to misleading financial statements. But that's not the case here. The only reason to include this information would be to give prominence to criticism ignored in mainstream sources, which is a violation not only of the letter of DUE, but the spirit as well. TFD (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless you account for the fact that there are RS in the sense that there are sources that can reliable capture the opinions of many individuals on the issue, even if they are not reliable to relate the facts of an event. Wiki guidelines state that a biased source can be reliable given the context and I think there is something to be said for several thought leaders of the right, who exist outside of mainstream sources, making the same claims. If we look at the context it would make sense to use someone like Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder who capture sentiments among the right when presenting the fact that there is a growing movement of people from the president to conservative thinkers (or whatever term you would use for the intellectual dark web) and show that there does exist a controversy in how this group is seen. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of unimpeachably reliable sources we can cite to make the point that lots of people on the right don't like antifa; we don't have to cite Ben Shapiro to make that point (and we won't). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia, at its best, plays the long game. We're not a political play-by-play sheet. The policy on reliable sources acts as a filter that helps achieve that. If the views you mention are discussed enough for a length of time, they will make it into the reliable sources in a notable way. Though the great and good of this website have changed the wording, I still like to say that on Wikipedia, we're after verifiability, not truth. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't even understand the point of this argument. What has Ben Shapiro to do with this article and why do his opinions matter in an encyclopedia article other than an article directly about him? O3000 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: - it took me less than a minute to find a reliable source (The Hill) [5] stating that President Trump declared Saturday he is considering labeling the militant anti-fascist movement antifa a terrorist organization … The announcement is red meat to the president’s conservative base that has railed against what it sees as a growing liberal threat to its free speech led by antifa. The anti-fascist movement has gained notoriety as supporters donning black costumes have engaged conservative activists in confrontations that have sometimes devolved into violent clashes. Bottom line: green sources at WP:RSP are generally reliable. If your source isn't there, check WP:RSN. We are not going to accept unreliable sources (except probably in articles about themselves as the subject). starship.paint (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Except what defines reliable? Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear that reliability can change based on the context in which one uses a source. For instance I doubt we could use the North Korean central news agency to 'reliably' relate world events in a thesaurus, but that same source could easily demonstrate the DPRK's response or view point accurately. The same source, depending how it is used, can meet the standards for reliability as set out by wikipedia. In the same way, while most reliable sources covering antifa detractors may focus on the president and the two supporting senators who want to classify them as a terror org, we could utilize thought leaders who can reliably demonstrate viewpoints (I am not saying to cite acts committed through these sources, since I can understand the issue with that, but to cite the fact that there is a large population that shares the opinion that these sources are espousing on Antifa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgrus22 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

starship.paint, Trump tweets many misinformed, misleading and contradictory things every day before most of us wake up. If it leads to anything, then we'll mention it. This isn't a North Korean encyclopedia, where every articles needs a commentary from the Dear Leader. TFD (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22 and The Four Deuces: - I think both of you missed my point. The key part of the quotes above which I wanted to highlight is that the president’s conservative base that has railed against what it sees as a growing liberal threat to its free speech led by antifa. Not the Trump part. Bgrus22 keeps talking about how conservatives feel about antifa, I provided a reliable source, so there's no need for an unreliable source in this scenario. starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There's already mention of several "conservative" opinions of the group. I don't think that fear antifa will repeal the First Amendment is a major issue for Trump Nation. TFD (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

No I think I understand what Starship is saying, and yeah thats preferable but not all those opinions may be captured in RS since by their very nature they are not in legacy media. That being said it is preferable to cite from a more widely accepted source if possible. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)