Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Anti-government" and "Mark Bray, antifa sympathizer"

@HappenedAnd88: I'd like you to explain your edits. A google search suggest that only the BBC source supports the "anti-government" clause, which is insufficient weight for lead. And, considering your other edits inserting personal analysis "antifa sympathizer" to undermine one expert on the topic, you might be using the "anti-government" descriptor as a pejorative. Discuss here, and please stop edit warring and calling other users' input on your talk page "vandalism". Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The reliable source states it. Just because you don't like what it has to say, doesn't mean you get to pick and choose what goes in the article. Also, allow me to remind you that you do not WP:OWN this article and your behavior needs to stop. HappenedAnd88 (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC) striking comments by confirmed sock-puppeteer User:OnceASpy --Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

And other reliable sources don't. Cherry-picking and maximizing content from a single source isn't helpful, and oversimplifying anarchists as "anti-government" is also quite some editorializing. You surely understand that claiming other users owns an article when all they did is forcing you to discuss isn't the best course of action, don't you? Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking to fit your POV. Your behavior is breaking the rules of Wikipedia and is disruptive. You don't get to decide which parts of a reliable source go in the article based on how you personally feel about the subject. You're going to stop this now. HappenedAnd88 (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The Economist article actually says, "[Antifa] usually condemn racism, sexism, homophobia and often capitalism. Some are anarchists."[1] It is quite a stretch to say that they are "anti-government and anti-capitalist." As the source says, "The decentralised character of Antifa and lack of theoretical basis ensure appeal to all “anti-fascists.”" By the way, please observe no edit-warring. HappenedAnd88, what does the "88" stand for? TFD (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The cited source [[2]] which is reliable and used in this article states "Antifa is anti-government and anti-capitalist". HappenedAnd88 (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This may not be WP:DUE. Do we have other sources which say this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this might actually be appropriate, if the consensus is that it's not undue--but given that it's a bit of an outlier (though as mentioned, from an RS) I would want to see in-line attribution. Something along the lines of "The BBC has said...." We should be careful to not make it look as though it's a prevailing or even general take among the sources. Cheers all, happy holidays! Dumuzid (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There are two problems with mentioning "anti-government" in the lede that haven't been mentioned above. The first is that per MOS:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This means that any claim of that sort should only appear in the lede section if it appears (and ideally is elaborated upon) elsewhere in the article. The second is the question of ambiguity: "anti-government" is a term that could refer a wide variety of political traditions that have nothing else in common, from anarcho-communism to the politics of the Tea Party movement. Groups that have found themselves opposed by antifa groups, such as Patriot Prayer, might also be referred as "anti-government." We shouldn't add material to articles solely because it appears in reliable sources (and in this case the plural "sources" may be inaccurate); rather, we should include material that is likely to improve readers' understanding of the topics at hand, rather than material that might confuse or obfuscate. (I reverted HappanedAnd88 on the separate issue of whether we ought to include a description of Mark Bray when quoting him, but as no one here has offered any arguments for doing so I assume the consensus on that point is clear.) Wishing everybody a pleasant remainder of the holiday season, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems there is a conflict in sources about the exact definition and scope of antifa. Does it include anyone who demonstrates against fascism, people who belong to groups that attend demonstrations or just people who use black bloc tactics? Or, as anti-antifa activists believe, is there no distinction among the three? As long as the conflict exists, then we should use the most common description. And note too that reporters are not experts in the analysis of social movements, but rely or should rely on expert opinion. TFD (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason there is a conflict in the sources is that 'antifa' is an amorphous, leaderless group of groups. Antifa is completely orthogonal to black-block; black-block is (was?) a tactic used on major demonstrations and marches, where a smallish group of marchers would pad themselves up and don motorcycle helmets with the aim of protecting the main body of marchers from attack by the authorities. Antifa are not particularly known for marching. FWIW I haven't heard of any march in the last ten years that involved a black block; perhaps they are still used in places like Greece.

Antifa may be different in the USA; but in Europe, they generally concern themselves with disrupting street activities by 'fascists', such as leafleting campaigns, street stalls and so on. They don't wear a uniform. They don't dress in black, particularly.

Who are these 'anti-antifa activists'? Doesn't that simply mean 'fascists'? This nexus of demonstrators and black-blockers in which anti-antifa activists supposedly believe includes only one group that is anti-fascist: those who demonstrate against fascism. That is not an accurate definition of antifa. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be so many issues with this article, and it seems like there's an active effort to keep it as whitewashed and misleading as possible. I've got other things to do on this platform that are constructive. I won't be back on this article again.HappenedAnd88 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that there is such effort, feel free to make other contributions and escalate via WP:RFC and WP:ANI, although it might not go the way you want. Otherwise this is not a place for general complaints. And, HappenedAnd88, we have yet to see an explanation on why you'd display an "88" in your username. You should elaborate on that, and on whether this is your first account here. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No thanks, on all accounts. I'm not touching this dumpster fire any more. Take care and happy new year.HappenedAnd88 (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Tsumikiria, MrDemeanour, TFD, Arms & Hearts, User:PeterTheFourth, Dumuzid, I just blocked Happenedetc. as a sock of User:OnceASpy, who was probably not a new editor to begin with. Be wary of trolls. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I remember that editor--I knew something seemed familiar. Happy New Year! Dumuzid (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you. So this means we should be more active in identifying and reporting trolls as soon as they show signs of disruptive and NOTHERE, I presume? Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's something to be aware of--it sucks that one can't always take editors in good faith, and we must always try to do so, but trolls and POV pushers are like dogs returning to their vomit, yes. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization

@Aoa8212: Regarding these four edits: This has been discussed before. Quoting Arms & Hearts on Archive 5, "the consensus was in favour of Bobfrombrockley's view that we ought to use "antifa" to avoid giving the impression of a formal organisation". I've seen far right figures intentionally use "Antifa" or "ANTIFA" to misleadingly paint the movement as a single organization, although I don't believe that was your intention. Can you provide your reasoning to challenge the consensus? Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 11:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

My intent was consistency of capitalization. I'm dropping the matter now. Aoa8212 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any particularly strong views on whether we should capitalise the term or not; clearly we're citing sources that use both variants. I reverted your edit though because it seemed to do more or less the opposite of what the edit summary said, by creating a situation where "Antifa" appeared in the "Hoaxes" section but not in the two more substantial sections above. I see now that while the "Ideology and activites" section and its subsection use "antifa", the "History" section uses "Antifa," so there was already (and still is) substantial inconsistency, which should probably be rectified. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Editorial Bias

The general theme of this article is that of opinion, not fact. It has clearly been written by someone who dislikes the group and who is on the right-wing of the political divide. It needs citations for all instances of physical violence, property damage, etc. to be credible.

Antifa IS a group set up in England in 1985 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Fascist_Action

--juglugs (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that's a different group that no longer exists. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Still, it is nice to see somebody alleging a right wing bias for change. Variety is the spice of life...
Sarcasm aside, they do have one valid point. Claims of violence or criminality should always be validly referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I kinda understand where this complaint comes from. While antifa activists certainly engage in various activities not necessarily violent in nature - from a reader's viewpoint, this article largely focuses on the violent aspect. I'm not blaming previous editors as this is a media bias widespread in journalism as controversial content sells, but it certainly doesn't hurt to add other activities of the movement that is reported through RS'. Direct action entails more than violence, these contents are due. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Regarding this addition, there are several problems with it. First, the independent source cited does not support the overly-dramatic description of "decided to label" as if this was some carefully-considered, officially-released designation; it just says that the FBI used the term, once, in a single confidential intelligence report of unknown providence (and that their one-time use of that term faced serious internal pushback). That seems WP:UNDUE to place so much focus on; one line from a confidential intelligence report doesn't mean very much. Second, most of the other sources used in that addition (capitalresearch.org, pamplinmedia, campusreform) do not pass WP:RS. Third, the entire "but other people point out..." section is WP:SYNTH, since it doesn't directly relate to the documents above (and, again, the sourcing is mostly unusuable.) As written, there isn't anything salvageable in that section - it gets the facts wrong, then uses WP:SYNTH to cobble together an unrelated argument from, mostly, random blogs and personal websites or from unrelated commentary. The aspects of that commentary that are worth covering are already covered elsewhere in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

This page fails to mention that antifa is a terrorist orginization (using violence or the threat of violence to accomplish political goals). In fact it is as if whoever wrote this page supports thier activities. I wonder if your page on ISIS is a puff peice supporting their activies and fight against the evil capitalist.....since wikipedia clearly supports terrorists. 68.148.43.79 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you reported Wikipedia to the FBI or your local police organization? It would seem like the only rational next step. Dumuzid (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume they're talking about the fact that the FBI and DHS apparently consider Antifa a domestic terrorist organization that is the "primary instigator of violence" and the "greatest thread to public safety." This probably deserves mention in the introductory header, or maybe its own section. At a very minimum, the "Ideology and activities" should probably be rewritten with this in mind. As it is, the article seems to be going strangely out of its way to cast them in a positive light, calling their activities "activism" and talking about how the "oppose fascism" and apparently defending their actions because they oppose white supremecists. Do a text search on the page for "white sup" and I see it comes up nineteen times. Would you characterize ISIS as "activists" who are engaging in "notable activism" and talk about how they "help church groups" like this article is doing for Antifa? A lot of this article reads like an advertisement for the group. Meanwhile:

* https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-dhs-warned-of-increasingly-violent-antifa-clashes-in-2016-documents-show "...FBI and Department of Homeland Security wrote that “anarchist extremists” and Antifa groups were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies. They blamed these groups for attacks on police, government and political institutions, racists, fascists and “symbols of capitalism.”

* https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 "Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,”"

* https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396 "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has formally classified the activities of anti-fascist groups (antifa) as “domestic terrorist violence”

* https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/apr/10/dhss-antifa-neonazi-CA-rundown/ "Homeland Security continues to argue that Antifa, not white supremacists, pose “the greatest threat to public safety”"

2601:600:877F:B570:E988:CF12:C72B:94E5 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Look at that, not a single response from Wikipedia "editors." So now you have citations/facts and do nothing. One would assume that the introduction section for Antifa would be Similar to that of the Proudboys. Unfortunately, the bias is so strong, the introduction section reads as if Antifa is fighting an ethical and moral fight against tyranny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.110.3 (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

This group is often portrayed as simply and anti-fascist group. In theory it is, yet in action they have engaged in countless fascist and destructive demonstrations such as silencing and intimidating individuals who appose their belief systems. They have driven people out of restaurants, protested at journalist's houses and assaulted law enforcement and civilians with mace, fireworks and bodily fluids. Antifa is also known to United States security agencies as a domestic terror group. Raccoonman5 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

not to mention the undercover expose with steven crowder. Bgrus22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you believe that Steven Crowder's show is a reliable source? Because I can assure you that it is not. I see that you are new to the encyclopedia, so you may wish to review our reliable sourcing policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate." Is this what your response is to confuse and ignore changes in the article? It is very obvious what changes need to be made, such as simply writing "Antifa has been labeled an domestic terrorist group by US Federal Law Enforcement Agencies." How hard was that to write? Do you comprehend this edit or should I paint you a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.110.3 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

Change "Notable Activism" to "Notable Terrorism" 205.213.143.134 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

agreed Bgrus22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"Please establish a consensus."

Why do you need to "establish a consensus" for a fact? Do I need to "establish a consensus" for saying the sky is blue?

Stop stonewalling, the more you do, the more the bias becomes even more blatant...

Hoax Clarification #PunchANazi

In the hoaxes section it should be noted that the #PunchANazi hashtag on twitter was a real far-left movement promoting assaulting people. The single individual post was a hoax, not the entire #PunchANazi tag. The distinction would be extremely unclear to anyone not already familiar with #PunchANazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.175.106 (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Source for this? I can find sources for it being a hoax (not just the first post).[3][4] It might be a good idea to rewrite that section with these sources. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

If a solid consensus can't be reached on the lede than why don't we try and write more heavily based on reliable sources like the ADL? As of now there's an antifa supporter disruptively editing to make the article more in favor of the group. And right-wingers wanting to edit to include the DHS and FBI reports suggesting antifa is a domestic terrorism threat. To avoid bias we should stick to reliable sources. Kilometerman (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa Here's a good article from the ADL, a reliable source, that provides a nonbiased view on antifa. Kilometerman (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The United States have no formal mechanism for designating groups as domestic terrorists. This has been discussed many, many, many times prior. All the sources you're proposing are already included in the article. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see more current reliable sources. The ADL one is still late 2017. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The only recent news about antifa revolves around a newly released document (https://propertyofthepeople.org/document-detail/?doc-id=5784867-ROCIC-Special-Research-Report-Antifa-Anti-Antifa) that is very critical of antifa. I would love to use it and the ADL article but I want consensus first.Kilometerman (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The first source that antifa was labelled a terrorist group is taken from an article in The Indpendent. While that indeed is what it says,[5] it is reporting what was reported in Politico, which merely says that some actions carried out by antifa are "domestic terrorism." Antifa is of course not a group. The second source used does not say antifa has been labelled a terrorist group either.[6] Neither does the ADL source. I agree with using the ADL as a source and note its writers have more expertise in extremism than most journalists. TFD (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is what the far-more reliable Guardian would describe the released intelligence report: Experts say the report mischaracterizes the dynamics of the street violence that was emerging at that time, and is mistaken in characterizing white nationalist groups as “anti-antifa”, suggesting they act in opposition to leftwing groups or out of a sense of anarchism rather than having their own political and violent agenda. [...] The report blames the two sides equally for the violence [...] Michael German, a former FBI agent who infiltrated far right groups in the 1990s, and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, said the report’s framing was wrong.“Somehow they have this set up almost like antifa is the antagonist, and anti-antifa has developed to resist it, [...] What it seems to do is completely whitewash the history of white supremacist violence in this country. [...] framing it this way belies the way in which far-right groups use these public spectacles as the method to incite violence. And they come knowing that it will attract protest groups from the community. [...] [Such groups] intentionally go to places to provoke protesters to come out, and they go armed for a real street fight”[...] The report takes the description of anti-fascists as “terrorists” at face value, something many experts disagree with. [...] The report makes further assertions about the relationship between the groups that experts say are unsupported by facts.. This can definitely added to the article, provided that we accurately reflect how experts and RS said about this particular report. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 05:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

An opinion piece from the Guardian is not a "far more reliable source" than an intelligence report conducted by the US government. Again, let's try and keep the article NPOV and avoid biases! Kilometerman (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It isn't an opinion piece. The Guardian's opinion section is called Comment Is Free and comment pieces have a distinctive pale pinkish background colour. As far as I can see the U.S. government hasn't published any intelligent reports that are relevant to this article and no one has proposed citing one, so how the Guardian compares to such a report seems like a red herring. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The ROCIC report is earlier than the ADL report. It is not a US Government report although RISS is federally funded. We shouldn't be using the primary source in any case, the Guardian report is the sort of thing we should use. And I will say it's really weird - if that's the sort of thing Politico used in its report I'm not surprised it didn't get any traction. It's a mess. "Neo-confederate groups such as the League of the South; neo-Nazi and Identitarian groups such as Vanguard America, the National Socialist Movement, the Rise Above Movement and Identity Evropa; and street-fighting groups such as the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights and the Proud Boys are not mentioned." And white supremacists were motivated by Antifa? Nothing to do with their beliefs. The bottom line is although it just hit the media, it's old news and doesn't represent the current state of anything, just as it didn't represent reality at the time it was written. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Than what can we use? I'm fine with whatever as long as its a reliable source and doesn't have POV problems like the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilometerman (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead should not describe Antida as Anti-facists as they are the facists, at least put a disclaimer that is their description not most obeservors including the U.S President.32.217.198.62 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The U. S. President is not a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking, so his opinion does not really matter. If he was a college professor or respected academic, it would be notable. Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

State of New Jersey on Antifa, note especially "The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence"

Because people keep telling porkies about what the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security said about Antifa, I want to put this in an easily identifiable section of its own:

"Antifa, or anti-fascists, is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas."[7] Doug Weller talk 16:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Extremist & domestic terrorism

Dumuzid: Can you please explain what issue(s) you have with the edit here that you reverted? There's a number of WP:RS and government agencies (not only the FBI), that have labeled the organization as an extremist group connected with domestic terrorism. 84percent (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing -- the source you cited was basically saying the FBI report was "shocking" and not believable. While it would certainly be a source for the idea that the FBI has called Antifa "extremist," it's dubious that we can use that more generally. I don't doubt that there might be other sources to that effect, but I don't think that one was appropriate for the general notion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You must be referring to the quote from one left-wing activist saying "Even knowing the FBI’s legacy of going after activists, the report was still shocking, said Shapiro."? I don't see how commentary from one activist would nullify the news. Here are some more sources without that commentary unambiguously labelling Antifa extremist:

• https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/alt-left-alt-right-glossary.html
• https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39004753
• https://www.dw.com/en/anti-fa-merch-lands-st-pauli-in-hot-water-with-shower-gel-maker/a-46430010
• https://www.bustle.com/p/what-is-antifa-this-far-left-extremist-movement-is-gaining-more-attention-76222

84percent (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

And as has been pointed out, 2017 is not today. What we do know as fact is that the government has no mechanism for labelling groups as domestic terrorist and that in any case Antifa is not an organisation or group. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Since when is that? From the FBI; "Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." (emphasis mine) wumbolo ^^^ 08:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

in any case Antifa is not an organisation or group Antifa is a social movement, and a social movement is a social group. wumbolo ^^^ 08:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: that FBI site does not contradict what I said. It's talking about terrorist acts, not terrorist groups. And no, in the sense we are discussing Antifa is not a group. It's got a wide following with differing political beliefs, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether a source was written two days ago or two years ago doesn't make a difference, there is no time limit on the validity of a source in WP:RS. Also arguing the semantics of whether Antifa constitutes a group or not is irrelevant here. Neither of these are valid arguments for excluding mention of the designation of Antifa's activities as domestic terrorism by US security services. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: That's what we call synthesis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Antifa as mentioned earlier has been declared by the President to be a domestic terrorist group as has the state of NJ.72.22.189.98 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, never happened. The President can't make such declarations and has a reputation for not being always accurate, to put it mildly, and it's simply untrue that the State of New Jersey called this non-group a terrorist group. If they did I'm sure you can find an official statement (as opposed to claims in the media). I'm going to quote them in another section. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not think the president ever said that. However, when presented with a petition to call antifa a terrorist group, the White House replied, "Although Federal law provides a mechanism to designate and sanction foreign terrorist organizations and foreign state sponsors of terrorism, there is currently no analogous mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations."[8] TFD (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, the president never said this, the DHS did. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they didn't. The DHS has made no formal classification of "antifa" as terrorist. That Politico story even states that they had "confidential law enforcement documents" calling them that, which... is vague as hell. All we can do is speculate what those documents said, and the DHS has refused to comment on the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Objectivity issue

Perhaps a section should be added with examples of fascistic methods and actions employed by members of the self-described anti-fascist group. Like forcible suppression of dissenting opinions and justification of violence in pursuit of political goals, among other. Maybe a section could be added on very liberal application of labels 'fascist' and 'Nazi' to non-fascists and non-Nazis who merely disagree with left leaning ideas, and how physical violence against those branded as such is justified. Or maybe add a criticism section, just to complete the picture. Because it currently seems quite skewed, almost like a propaganda piece. Just my two cents. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps draft something like what you'd like to see (using reliable sources, of course)? Additions are always welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism sections are frowned upon for most articles. Any criticism can be placed in the article in the appropriate places... however, you must back up any additions with reliable sources. So far, none have been presented for the claims you make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole page is not objective as Antifa sympathizers are allowed to have a veto. Witness David Wellar blocking of a user because he posted on talk page facts about Antifa violence and facism.173.166.127.233 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

To be quite clear, any editor has a veto so long as they have the support of reliable sources or Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And who is David Wellar? Is the IP always this wrong? In any case, I'd say Wellar made a good block. :-) Doug Weller talk 08:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Weller and Acotereon are banning any criticism or facts about the violence of Antifa members or that they are the facists.These adminis need to remove themselves from the page184.9.55.77 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion backed by reliable sources, then make it. Attacking other editors is not useful. O3000 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

notice that the thread on NJ labeling Antifa as a terrorist group is gone. Why is brietbart not acceptable but the intercept of Guardian is?15:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.37.11 (talk)

It's in the archives. NJ never labeled it as a terrorist group. Here is what they say now, which you would have seen if you'd read my post above. "Antifa, or anti-fascists, is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas."[9] Doug Weller talk 16:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas.

This is quite literally the dictionary definition of terrorism

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

WookieInHeat (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@WookieInHeat: that's what we call original research, our articles depend upon sources discussing the subject of the article. We don't use that definition. If you look at List of designated terrorist groups you might get a better idea why we don't use our own analysis of something. I've also seen no evidence that all followers of the movement use violence - some use other methods, eg doxing. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Please refer to the archives. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I dare say that given that definition, every military on earth is a terrorist organization. We have a LOT of revisions to make if that's the case. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR when the group's behavior has been classified as domestic terrorism by the DHS, as has been reported by many WP:RS media outlets. The only mention of this is buried down at the bottom of the article, and downplayed with very imprecise, vague wording: "By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism." WookieInHeat (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It has not been formally classified as domestic terrorism. Please stop posting that same article over and over, which only says they have "internal memos" with the term in it. And "monitoring... in relation to terrorism" does not equal "classified as domestic terrorism." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral language: antifa engaging ... those whom they "identify" as fascist, racist, or on the far-right

I see a recent change I've made has been reverted, on claims that a more "neutral" word was needed, e.g.:

- the following sentence "They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they label as fascist, racist, or on the far-right."

- has been replaced with "They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right."

Yet, per the most popular definition (available via Google search): "identify=establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is". This, however is clearly not true since no rigorous process of establishing (who someone is) seems to be involved and, especially, there have been plenty of wrongfully labeled (and later physically attacked) individuals. Some examples:

- Antifa violence against Bernie Sanders supporter

- Jewish man mistakenly attacked in Philadelphia

Also, regarding the attacks on some professional categories, like cops or military (for example): no reliable source mentions any "identification", just smears and slurs preceding a violent attack:

- 2 Mexican-American Marines attacked by Antifa affiliated mob Mcrt007 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that using "label" is more appropriate. Sjö (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to lean toward "identify," because "label" to me has a connotation of artifice; it seems to imply that the targets are chosen and retroactively called fascist, etc. As misguided and repellent as Antifa tactics and beliefs can be, I see no evidence that said beliefs are not sincerely held. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That was my thought and the reason I reverted. How about "see as" or if you want to use a longer word "perceive as"? I should have been pinged about this, by the way. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Both "see as" and "perceive as" seem more accurate. I also checked the history of the page and "identify as" was added on November 7, 2018. Before that date, the Wikipedia page was using "deem as" (which also seems more accurate).Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&oldid=867555947 Mcrt007 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Identify" is a good choice of words. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Identify" is neutral, as it does not rule out these incidents. "Label" on the hand is POV-ridden in nearly all occurrences. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Identify" is hardly accurate especially when it comes to ad hoc attacks. Barely any reliable source refers to the incidents as such. If "labeled as" is not a good choice, "see as", "perceive as" or "deem as" (which was actually used in the past, until November 7, 2018) all sound like neutral and more fair choices. Mcrt007 (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Just personally, I don't see how "identify" can't apply to ad hoc attacks. Identification can be instantaneous and mistaken. That being said, I think "deem" was my proposed compromise last time this became an issue, and I am still fine with that as the wording. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say that "identify" is neutral (it indicates that they make that identification, without taking sides as to whether it is correct) while "label" is a clear expression of doubt per MOS:ACCUSED and WP:CLAIM, and therefore not acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Identify" is far from neutral and implies a high degree of certainty (compared to "label as", but also "deem as", "seen as", "perceive as", etc the latter are not expressions of doubt per the links you have provided). Also, please check the official definition of "identify" in popular sources. e.g.: the Top-3 links that show up on Google:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identify : "1. to establish the identity of"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/identify : "1. to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing; verify the identity of"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/identify : "1. Establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is."

Thesaurus.com (https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/identify) gives as synonyms for identify: "analyze", "classify", "determine", "diagnose", "single out", "pinpoint", "find", "distinguish", "diagnosticate", "determinate", "ascertain", etc which imply certainty.

Also, even if they make that identification themselves, as you're suggesting, why should that be given undue weight here, over RS (which rarely use it)? We don't call North Korea's form of government"democratic" just because they make that identification about themselves.Mcrt007 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Words can have different connotations defending on context. Generally identification would only be considered conclusive if written in the passive tense. But we could say a witness identified the accused as the perpetrator in court. The term label generally implies a degree of malice. Perceive implies a high level of subjectivity. Both label and perceive cast doubt on the honesty or objectivity of sntifa, although there is no support in reliable sources for that, just a questioning of their tactics. The guys in the black shirts with the swastikas and the guys in the white sheets and Stars and Bars probably are fascists and racists respectively in most people's judgment. TFD (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Reading the discussion after I posted, I prefer "identify". TFD is absolutely correct about context. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If we say "a witness identified the accused as the perpetrator in court", how is that not a conclusion? Passive tense ("the accused was identified as the perpetrator by a witness in a court") or active tense don't seem to change the meaning much (or the certainty of the statement). I see the point of not casting much doubt on the actions of the movement as a whole; just don't agree that their many documented errors (some of which I've listed above) should be ignored in an effort to paint an image of infallible "honesty or objectivity" when it comes to who they "identifying" as their targets. Context does matter, but it's usually the meaning of the words expressed that paint it.Mcrt007 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mcrt007, maybe I can explain my point of view a bit. Perhaps it's an artifact of my off-Wikipedia life, but "a witness identified the accused as the perpetrator" means, to me: (1) the witness believes it to be so; (2) it is evidence tending to show that the accused is the perpetrator; but (3) it is not conclusive and may be rebutted by other evidence. An identification is, again to me, inexorably wrapped up with the identifier. When the identifier is as nebulous and untrustworthy an entity as Antifa (as opposed to, say, a bus full of nuns), one should take said identification with a quarry full of salt. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid and the majority of other editors here. "Identify" is a less bad option than "label", which is an obviously non-neutral word. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Mcrt007, I appreciate that statements can be rephrased in the passive tense. What I was referring to was where there was no agent in the sentence as in "Jack the Ripper has been identified!" If one saw that headline in a reputable news source, one would expect that conclusive identification had been made, rather than another writer had come up with another theory. TFD (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If Antifa's "identification" of people as "fascist, racist, or on the far-right" is ALWAYS CORRECT, and they never misidentify, then it should merely say "fascists, racists, and people on the far-right": there is no need to say "identify" at all. If, however, they have EVEN ONCE attacked somebody in error, then "label" is more appropriate: you cannot identify someone as X unless they are X, just as you cannot "know" some postulate Y unless Y is actually true (otherwise you can only think you know Y). Equinox ◑ 23:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

As we have discussed above, to me, at least, "identification" does not automatically connote correctness. Eyewitness identification is notoriously fraught, but we still refer to it as "identification." To paraphrase a saying, your ideolect may vary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really. If one firefighter somewhere once set a house on fire and failed to put it out, would it be wrong to say that firefighters fight fires? Maybe we should change the title of Firefighter arson to something else. TFD (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I decided to remove the whole Portland section and move it here

"In Portland, Oregon, United States, on 30 June 2019, the practice of throwing milkshakes at right-wing individuals was used by members of Antifa against the Proud Boys. Andy Ngo, a journalist for Quillette who was beaten and sprayed with silly string by members of Antifa while covering the protests, also had a milkshake thrown at him. Ngo was subsequently hospitalized, suffering cuts and bruises to his face, a torn earlobe and a small brain hemorrhage, as a consequence of the attack.

What I found while reviewing the sources is things such as: " take a look at this picture of my friend and colleague Andy Ngo." Well that is hardly a neutral source. And really, we are using blogs as sources now? "Portland police claimed without offering evidence that some milkshake cups had been filled with quick-drying cement." I think "without offering evidence" is enough there, and then, "Actual milkshakes were used by leftwing protesters. A videographer and editor for the rightwing magazine Quillette, Andy Ngo, had one dumped on him early in the day." What he had dumped on him was a real milkshake, not a cement one that the quote seems to hint at and surely reporting folks getting shakes poured on them is not really what we are doing here. That Something ugly happened and that Andy Ngo was a recipient of some nasty work might be included, but lets let someone figure out what occurred before we rush to judgement. Carptrash (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Why hide that section here? The previous version ("20:15, 30 June 2019‎ Dumuzid") seemed like a fair description of what happened. The violent assault against Andy Ngo is available on video, has been reported by various reliable sources and the version you have edited had no reference to "quick-drying cement" whatsoever (so why bring it up?). Should additional information become available during the next days, the paragraph can be enhanced accordingly. As for what you call a "blog" ("The Spectator" article, if I understand correctly) is pretty much the equivalent of an "opinion" article in The Guardian and both sources have tons of citations on Wikipedia. Mcrt007 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have better sources, present them? These ones are terrible - one blog, completely unusable for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim like this, especially one you're trying to present as a fact rather than as an opinion. The one news source is carefully skeptical ("appeared to show", "Ngo said", the "Don't know how this started" quote, etc.) - all context that you removed in both your proposed addition and your comments here and which, collectively, reduce this below the level where the section would satisfy WP:DUE, let alone something that could justify the sweeping language you're proposing for it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The claim is not exceptional(fringe/extraordinary) as you're implying - and saying The Guardian is "carefully skeptical" is just throwing around weasel words to emphasize your personal interpretation. The video linked in The Guardian article actually shows (not simply "appeared to show") a violent attack against Ngo, no matter how much you'd like to obfuscate, with language tricks, what happened. As for the "sweeping language" - I haven't proposed any: I was simply proposing reverting to the previous version of the page.

In addition to The Guardian and Spectator, several other sources list the incident, e.g.: The Independent states: "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."

New York Times / Associated Press also mentions that 3 police officers were treated for injured, maybe the Wikipedia-article should include that information as well ? Mcrt007 (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem, again, just for me, is tying such to Antifa itself. Note, for instance, that the last article includes Antifa amongst other anti-fascist protesters. I am a bit on the fence about including this claim, but stronger assignment to Antifa itself (and not simply "protesters wearing black with their faces covered") would help. Cheers, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Agree with the removal. The Spectator quote is a blog post and completely unacceptable for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims like these. The Guardian source is extremely skeptical in tone (a skepticism that the version here notably omitted, presenting things that the Guardian described as dubious claims as if they were fact. As written it does not meet WP:DUE yet, but even if it did, it would have to be presented far more skeptically - when a source describes something as just a claim, we can't treat it as a fact. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• These protests are fairly routine at this point. Any specific incident listed in the article should be sourced as either an example, or as somehow informative or exceptional. Something happened in Portland, and sources mention that something happened, but they don't really explain why this is of lasting significance. Including it here without better context seems premature at best. This applies to several other incidents currently in the article, also. Grayfell (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If the protests and violence is routine, would a list article suffice? wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The line between antifa events and basic protests against Donald Trump would be too blurry. Every protest where some random local news source says "antifa" was present would be hundreds of events every year for the past three years. Most would be Run-of-the-mill. My point was that we need to be able to explain why these are encyclopedically significant. A list article would not help us do that. Any comparison between events/incidents/protests/riots would be misleading or confusing without context. We almost never have reliable numbers for how many attendees there were, or how many on any given side of the issue. We especially do not know how many protesters at any event are "antifa", or even what that would mean. With prose, we can more clearly indicate this, but list articles imply a level of confidence which we do not have. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Violence against journalists - new section?

Physical attacks against journalists at Antifa rallies don't seem to be new: in addition to Andy Ngo's case (discussed in the above thread) who has been attacked twice since May, multiple other cases of Antifa physical attacks against journalists or media personalities have been covered by the media. The current wiki-page only documents one such example (e.g.: the doxxing and harassment of Tucker Carlson). But info can be found detailing harassment and physical attacks against multiple other journalists, including Taylor Lorenz (The Atlantic), Dave Minsky (Reuters, Vice), Cal Perry(NBC), Tim Mak (NPR), Gary Cooper & DeJuan Hoggard (ABC), and others.

According to the Freedom of the Press Foundation "Since last year, we’ve also documented over a dozen different physical attacks on journalists or livestreamers covering antifa rallies. Most of them were local reporters assigned to cover a public protest, or freelance or independent journalists trying to document the protests with their own equipment. We’ve seen an independent photographer beaten and attacked with a pipe covering a protest in Berkeley, a local CBS journalist in North Carolina attacked with a stick and needed four staples in his head, a journalist for The Hill punched in the head, a Chicago Sun-Times journalist repeatedly punched in the chest, and several cases of cameras being taken or knocked out of reporters’ hands and then damaged or completely destroyed. Recently, we’ve had multiple journalists contact us unprompted to tell us they’ve felt threatened or menaced when covering such protests. These were reporters sympathetic to anti-fascist issues and did not reach out lightly."

Should we add a new section for such re-occurring, deliberate and violent incidents? There's plenty of them so far. Thanks! Mcrt007 (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to verge into original research, but I think that article is fairly compelling. I think the notable aspect here is the pattern, and we need more reliable sources to limn it. If it gets some pick up in more mainstream news (or the like), I would support such a section. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be skeptical given those sources. The Atlantic source is an opinion piece, and the other two are personal websites. Beyond that there's a risk of WP:OR in stitching things together into a section that would clearly be intended to push a particular conclusion; we'd want more (and better) sources discussing that topic directly first. --Aquillion (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• What would qualify as "better" sources here? The article on Taylor Lorenz, for example, is an editorial (signed by an editorial board) but other sources cover the event as well (so, I guess, we could select something else instead of it). The other two are from Freedom of the Press Foundation, so not exactly personal blogs. Some of the stories are backed up by Columbia Journalism Review as well, which, like Freedom of the Press Foundation, tracks assaults against journalists (e.g.: Dave Minsky assaulted by Antifa). By comparison, I see the Wiki-article quoting Mark Bray in 3 different sections (though he is a low-profile academic and his works only have 32 citations on Google Scholar, all in low-impact journals). And, out of the 3 sources, one is a Vox interview, and another also an interview on lareviewofbooks. How are we not verging into original research and undue-weight by repeatedly quoting his opinions? Mcrt007 (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Include for sure. We can discuss the sourcing, but it should clearly be in the article. The FoPF article is very good. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• The basic issue is that aside from the opinion piece, these are largely personal websites with no clearly-defined methodology. Beyond that, as I said, their claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would require more serious sourcing than they would otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2019 (UwTC)

• Which are the "personal" sites you're referring too? Freedom of the Press Foundation is an organization tracking assaults against journalists. The US Press Freedom Tracker I used to source information is a project of Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and others (e.g.: SPLC). Their methodologies are more consistent than Vox's and other media outlets (about whom is more fair to say they don't have "clearly-defined" methodologies, yet are quoted in this article in multiple places). Their reports have been featured in the mainstream press as well (e.g.: Associated Press, Huffington Post, Wired, The Hill, etc) Mcrt007 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant, since secondary sources are allowed to do primary research that we are not (obviously, since that's what we rely on.) If you think that the sources you linked are important because high-quality sources sometimes rely on them, obviously the answer is to wait and see if those higher-quality sources pick up this aspect. (I also think that, reviewing the Freedom of the Press foundation piece in detail, it doesn't really support what you want it to - after all, its header is You can support antifa without justifying repeated physical attacks on journalists and it contains numerous caveats to avoid placing general blame on antifa for these incidents, something that somewhat seems the reverse of the implication of the section you're proposing.) And, again, these are extremely WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims - if there were actually an unusual number of journalists getting attacked at antifa demonstrations relative to other comparable events (something the Freedom of the Press piece specifically does not say), you would expect there to be vastly more mainstream coverage than the tiny handful of clippings you've assembled here. If you want to claim something exceptional or remarkable in the article, you need a level of sourcing that reflects that, not (essentially) an opinion piece with that many caveats. --Aquillion (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Stop with the Weasel Words, please ("higher-quality sources", "unusual numbers of journalists getting attacked", etc) :) . If there are repeated cases of journalists being attacked, I'd actually expect for various organizations tracking violence against journalists to document those cases (and they do). The article you're quoting You can support antifa without justifying repeated physical attacks on journalists doesn't really absolve Antifa of responsibility for their actions as you imply, the without justifying repeated physical attacks on journalists part is very clear on that. As for the section part dedicated exclusively to the attacks: I'm not sure if that's the best alternative or not (some Wikipedia articles have similar sections, others have the "incidents" listed as part of more general sections. The solution proposed by Wumbolo seems reasonable as well).Mcrt007 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a huge need for a section, but I welcome a general rearranging of the article. I found this which should be in the article, and this interesting interview which provides a useful perspective. wumbolo ^^^ 12:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This reference is very important. wumbolo ^^^ 22:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I do advise against a separate section as high risk POV and insufficient sourcing, but the FPF and CJR are excellent sources that can be included, provided that we accurately summarize the sources, including FPF's stances on the issue and opinion division between supporters of the movement, as well as other experts cited in the article. The other opinion pieces linked above can be dismissed. Additionally, as for the "hate crimes where multiple black trans women were murdered are but liberal hoaxes" and "I can't be far right if I'm an Asian gay" Andy Ngo, his journalism are of the Project Veritas kind. Sources say that he is an editor of Quilette rather than a journalist. Similar reasons for conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson. It is inappropriate to count them as violence against journalists. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree for Tuck, perhaps "violence against media figures" is better? wumbolo ^^^ 16:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, this is entirely misguided. That would suggest a general targeted violence against any media figures. At least I haven't read that they want to tear Bill Nye apart. Tucker Carlson is a particularly controversial one. The accurate description would be something like "incidents of attacks on field reporters covering protests", but this doesn't merit any separate subsections. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 16:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. This isn't "targeting journalists" (especially since Ngo is hardly a journalist). More an issue of journalists getting caught up in violent protests. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

ABC News seems to disagree: they call him a "conservative journalist" here: [10].Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jake Tapper reports that "Antifa regularly attacks journalists" here: [11]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek reports that Ngo was a "journalist" here: [12]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Hill calls Ngo a "photojournalist" here: [13].Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• That would suggest [...] No it wouldn't. There are many articles with "attacks on civilians" sections yet they do not imply "a general targeted violence against any civilians". wumbolo ^^^ 21:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose this, absent substantially better sourcing. This proposal is driven by a Breitbart story that was published just a few hours ago, located at the URL below:

  https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/07/01/nolte-cnns-antifa-pals-have-assaulted-15-journalists/

  The Breitbart story lists 15 instances of violence against journalists at Antifa events, but their sourcing leaves much to be desired. R2 (bleep) 20:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I was wondering where this suddenly came from. That explains the odd WP:OR-ish nature of some of the above proposals as well, since I'd assume people are attempting to assemble the Breitbart piece's conclusions (knowing Breitbart itself isn't a WP:RS and can't be cited here) using higher-quality sources. But, unsurprisingly when it comes to Breitbart, the sourcing isn't there yet. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not completely certain of this, but it looks like Mcrt007 posted their proposal here before the Breitbart source was published. If correct, that might or might not be a coincidence; regardless, there is only one media outlet that's pushing this story, and that's Breitbart. I'd oppose the addition of a section about violence against journalists at Antifa events unless/until the subject as a whole is covered by reliable sources. R2 (bleep) 20:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Breitbart article was published 4 hours ago (16:20 UTC). I've added the post at 06:11am UTC but thanks to Aquillion for his insinuations in addition to the non-issues he keeps throwing around in the previous posts. Mcrt007 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, Jake Tapper doesn't count of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I've seen Jake Tapper's twitter posts and the various articles mentioning them 2 days ago (they were mentioning 3 crews and 4 journalists attacked). Freedom Press documents about 12 cases in the past year alone, Vox mentions 3-4 cases as well (in 2018) and so on. Some of these overlap (they're probably the same). Oh, and one more thing: all the sources I've listed above are reliable (some, like CJR among the most reliable) Mcrt007 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the sources. You haven't listed any CJR source. R2 (bleep) 20:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's a blatant lie. Here's again the article on Dave Minsky. Right at the beginning of the article, it says in bold Assaulted by Antifa and, next, it gives Minsky's story. Mcrt007 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a lie (please assume good faith), but an honest mistake as I had misread your previous comments. Stricken. R2 (bleep) 21:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the earlier accusation. Mcrt007 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So while that's a reliable source, it's not what I was looking for. I want to see a reliable source say something about Antifa attacks or violence against journalists (plural), not an isolated incident. R2 (bleep) 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the kind of proof you're asking for ("Antifa attacks or violence against journalism") is a reasonable one. What matters is that the incidents involving journalist are real and a growing number: at least 12 documented by US Press Freedom Tracker alone; there are other sources which I did not have time to check yet. Will probably list them all along with their references, in a post sometime this week.Mcrt007 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

What matters to you and what matters to me may be different. That's what consensus building is all about. R2 (bleep)

Here's a 2018 Washington Post article (posted above the Wumbolo) that documents "Antifa attacks or violence against journalists (plural)". Mcrt007 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Harassed, threatened and occasionally jostled" is not the same thing as violence. However, I'd support a sentence or two about this (not a new section). R2 (bleep) 21:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

+1. A whole section strikes me as undue, at least at this point. That being said, I definitely think the sources already adduced mean it bears a mention. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Tapper's tweets aren't reliable sources, and since when did you get snarky, Shinealittlelight? R2 (bleep) 20:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right, R2. I apologize. I'm a little keyed up for no reason related to you. I agree that his tweets aren't RS of course. But you yourself might allow them to affect your beliefs about the situation. They really have attacked a number of journalists. It should be in the article if we can support it with RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not about my beliefs. I support content about violence against journalists, if it's reliably sourced. I oppose content suggesting there's a general problem if it's not reliably sourced. R2 (bleep) 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As listed at WP:RSP, Breitbart is a deprecated source and should not be used. It is amusing though, that a website, that supports Trump who calls the "fake news media" the "enemy of the people", is the only one in media opposing violence against journalists. wumbolo ^^^ 21:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019

File:Antifa @ Trump in Phoenix 8-22-17.jpg has wrong date on the main page.

Description under the photo states: "Trump's visit to Phoenix July 22, 1917" while the photo name suggests it was 22. august (2017 of course, not 1917). Crabzmatic (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Orville^talk 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Carptrash (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa = Terrorists?

"US security officials have classified the left-wing group Antifa as "domestic terrorists", confidential documents have revealed."[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tym Whittier (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is covered in much greater depth in the "Ideology and activities" section. Broadly, a response in 2018 stated that Federal Law does not have a "mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations"; some people have used comparable terms informally in internal discussions, and there has been some controversy when they leaked, but it's not an official classification in the sense you're taking it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Added to the lede. Galestar (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's not in the article body it shouldn't be in the lede, and there's been no consensus for inclusion in the past. I've removed it. Please read the archives. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

K, I read the archives. They don't seem to deal with this source, which unambiguously says "US security officials have classified the left-wing group Antifa as "domestic terrorists"". You're right though - first step is to include that in the article itself before considering it for the lede. Galestar (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've attempted to add this source to the article but Grayfell insists on reverting. There are several past discussions in the archive where some (but not all - no clear consensus) editors essentially performed their own WP:OR about how U.S. security agencies don't do these classifications but that's really all they are: Original Research. If the reliable source says that the U.S classifies them as such, we should say that. Galestar (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Independent source is mostly derived from a Politco source which is already cited. The article already explains this pretty well as By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism. This is a summary of the substance of the source, not merely the choicest soundbites. This is also helpful as this gives a specific time-frame, which establishes context and weight. Reusing a different source, which is documenting the exact same information, to present it as though it were a new point in more inflammatory, open-ended language, is inappropriate for multiple reasons.

It's also not clear why this would belong in a "criticism" section (which is another issue) instead of where it is currently discussed. There are other issues, also, which have already been discussed, so for multiple reasons I do not think this proposed change is appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Its a lie by omission to fail to mention that they are classified as domestic terrorists. Include the time frame if that helps but the most pertinent part of the source is to directly label them as domestic terrorists. This article as written is very carefully trying to avoid calling them that even though the RS does so directly. Galestar (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Which "security officials" classified them as domestic terrorists? By what authority did they classify them as such? Did they classify all antifa as domestic terrorists, or just some of them? This was a confidential report, so was this "classification" an official declaration somehow made in secret? Was this one part of a larger document taken out of context? What does it mean to classify this nebulous movement as domestic terrorism, and what would that entail? Would anything change? Would there be heightened scrutiny? Would there be any legal difference?

A lie of omission could also bee seen presenting a factoid by removing all the surrounding context. Saying that they were "classified as domestic terrorists" does not provide enough context to be helpful. The current wording is not misleading and is supported by sources. Since this has already been discussed, if you have something new to add, cut to the chase, please. Unless you have consensus, do not restore this content again. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, Politico is the only source for this, the Indepedent is simply reporting what they said (and getting confused about what Antifa is, first calling it a group and then a lose coalition. The Politico article did not call them "domestic terrorists", it claimed on the basis of undisclosed documents that their activities had been classified as “domestic terrorist violence,” a description that I doubt you can find in any official documents. Yes, the headline says it, but headlines are never reliable sources. They are written by editors (not the authors of the articles) to draw attention to the article - we've discussed this at WP:RSN before. We also have an official statement that the government has no mechanism with which they can classify an organisation (which Antifa is not) as a domestic terrorist organisation. And finally the Politico story was largely ignored by the media and so far as I know there have been no reliable sources since repeating any forms of the claims. Finally, we already have a paragraph on this in the article, although I doubt that it deserves even that given what I've said above. To repeat, it was an unsubstantiated claim that called no one terrorists and was only briefly and minimally covered in the media, later followed by a denial that the government ever classified groups as domestic terrorists. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Knowing little about Antifa, I am confused here. Politico reported in September 217: the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO. Yet the AP and others reported in February 2018: The White House said Trump opposes violence and that federal law provides no “mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations.” I'm not suggesting that we give this subject the treatment that Tym Whittier wants, but how can we exclude reliable reporting based on something the Trump White House (the Trump White House!) said? It seems to me, per WP:NPV, we have to cover the Politico source. Unless it's been debunked or otherwise shown to be unreliable? R2 (bleep) 16:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is because the meaning of "classified" is vague; many readers are mistakenly taking it to mean "officially classified in some public way", which is not a thing. What it means is that some people have used the term in internal discussions that ended up being leaked - the Politico source is clear about this elsewhere. That's why we ended up covering it the way we do, which makes the full context clear, and it's why this proposed change (which has been suggested before, using this less-detailed source) has been repeatedly rejected. It gives the impression that there's some official list of terrorist groups somewhere that has Antifa on it, which is not the case. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What source are you basing your analysis on? Politico explicitly says DHS "formally classified" antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." If this is incorrect or impossible, then point me to a source that says so. Also, please point me to where we cover this material "the way we do"--I don't see it in the article at all, but maybe I'm missing something. R2 (bleep) 18:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What does "formal" mean? What does it mean in this context, or in any other relevant context? Where did they formally classify this movement as such? I have no doubt that some government agency or other could formally classify yadda yadda, but I don't understand what information that provides. The only other use of the phrase "domestic terrorist violence" in the source refers to right-wing groups. The document cited by Politico is "Baseline Comparison of US and Foreign Anarchist Extremist Movements". If the PDFs available online are to be believed, the document was released in April 2016, which matches the document Politico describes. The document (again, take with a grain of salt) doesn't use the phrase "domestic terrorist violence", and barely discusses anti-fascism at all. It does, however, include Politico's quote of the phrase "the capitalist system". I am not attempting to second-guess the source, but I really don't understand what this is actually saying, or what it would be explaining to readers. So again, what does "formal" mean here? Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'd have to guess the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis maintained a list. See this. R2 (bleep) 23:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't put "I guess" in the article. Anonymous sources within the DHS saying that some formal internal classification existed (which the DHS refuses to comment on and says was never intended for public release) doesn't seem like enough to include. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Politico article doesn't mention anything about a list. The document was jointly issued by that office, but unless I've missed it, it doesn't treat antifa as a unified group, and therefor doesn't place it on any list, either. As far as I am aware, no reliable source mentions a specific list. A precedent-setting formal designation of a domestic terrorist group should be supported by something better than this one ambiguous comment attributed to an anonymous source. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Politico explicitly says that anonymous sources within the DHS say that antifa was formally classified as such internally (though the nature of the classification is not elaborated on), but that The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've started an RfC to address this issue. See below. R2 (bleep) 17:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)