Talk:Antifa (United States)

Recent edit

In this edit, the different line breaks prevent me from seeing what was actually changed. I reverted it for now, but would be open to further discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The edit shifted the term "militant" to a more prominent position on the first line, an edit which I would be opposed to, for the record. TheValeyard (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TheValeyard. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I support the edit. There is no reason why "militant" should not be in the first sentence. Truthsort (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a change; current placement is fine. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I do, the current placement is too low, it's mostly known for it's violent protests, so this should be near the first paragraph. "The group is known for causing damage to property during protests" Policypolicy (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

it's mostly known for it's violent protests... is a point-of-view found in a narrow, slanted selection of mostly fringe sources. Minor POVs do not get equal weight. TheValeyard (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Your POV doesn't constitute at the Majority POV, it's a quote from the 2nd article cited in the wikipedia page. CNN doesn't seem like a "fringe" source. Your POV doesn't get equal weight to the cited sources. Policypolicy (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My p.o.v., whatever it may be, is not germane to the discussion. The sources cited say they are "known for" acts of violence, while "mostly known" (emphasis mine) is a concoction of your own. Words have meaning, and when you try to add them to Wikipedia articles with no support from a citable source, it becomes original research. TheValeyard (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

PP isn't advocating that "mostly known" should be added to the article, they're merely expressing that opinion to support their point. That said, I don't know why they want "The group is known for causing damage to property during protests" to be added, I feel like "They are known for their militant protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence." covers it pretty sufficiently. Cjhard (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Employing militant tactics is a feature that they do to shut down supposed facist.[1] There have been all sorts of acts of violence committed by Antifa. There is nothing POV about having the word "militant" in the first sentence of the lede. Truthsort (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede

I'm pretty sure this is the consensus version, ping @DHeyward: as he seemed to think so also. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As is mentioned in the above section, the changes were under discussion so no that was not the consensus. Please discuss your proposed changes, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is "under discussion" then the consensus version ought to be restored until a new consensus has formed. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I did per the discussion, just above this new section you started. I returned it to the version before I made the changes. Leave me alone.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward had already reverted it to the consensus version here Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither you (DS) nor DHeyward were in the above discussion of the lede and the consensus was for me to return it to the way it was before my changes. You are being disruptive again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I'm such an idiot, because you discussed something that automatically makes it the consensus version, my bad. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it was still under discussion means that it gets reverted back when someone asks and undoing that was disruptive. I will not speak on your idiocy. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, that change was not down by me and I ain'ta gotta clue who or how it happened. By the way, you are not alone in getting push back on ideas here; I could not move two words without upsetting someone. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been following this page for a while and I am absolutely certain that that version never had consensus (and it has definitely never been the stable version.) Just looking up the page shows that it was roundly rejected the moment it was proposed, with almost nobody joining discussion in favor of it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede editors describing antifa in their own words

I looked at the 3 cited sources, not one of them describes antifa as "a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups". The only attempt at defining what "antifa" is, is in the CNN source, so I've replaced it with the only definition given in the cited sources.

New Version

   Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) is a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party Platform. 

Old version

   The Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States.

Also, I've removed the NY Times source titled "Justice Dept. Demands Data on Visitors to Anti-Trump Website, Sparking Fight". It only mentions Antifa loosely ("But a smaller group of anarchists — sometimes called the “black bloc” of the so-called Antifa, or anti-fascist, movement — protested violently.") and isn't used in the article at all.

I've looked in the history to see if there were removed citations from the lede only one from lifezette which also doesn't corroborate the old lede.

CNNs definition is vague, but it's the only cited definition, improve upon it by getting more sources.

--Policypolicy (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted, so you have my apologies. I think the discussion should come first--and I am not sure the direct quotation of CNN's definition is the best approach here, but perhaps I'm wrong! Dumuzid (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to revert, offer an explanation don't just revert and say we should discuss WP:TALKDONTREVERT. As I said, "CNNs definition is vague, but it's the only cited definition, improve upon it by getting more sources."

I don't think the direct quote of CNN's definition is in any way a good representation of the RS; rather it's favoring one above others. You'll also take note that there are others who agree with me--searching for consensus is always a good idea. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, cite the others, as I said, CNN is the only one that attempts to define "antifa". Also "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view". Policypolicy (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, and Dumuzid reverted before I could) Hi, I believe this is based on a misunderstanding about references. The description given in the lede sentence is a summary of the contents of the article, so the references for the claims in the lede sentence (such as 'autonomous') can be found in the rest of the article. If I understand correctly, you accept that your version, being based on one source, is vague, but believe that it's better because it's properly cited. I agree with the first part of the analysis, and think the original version is much better. I'll revert it back to its original, but if there are claims in the lede sentence that aren't supported in the body, they should certainly be removed. Cjhard (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, first of all conglomerate is unsourced in either of the 3 articles. Don't revert without proper explanation, and you can't just include autonomous in the lede just because it was mentioned once in another source, that isn't cited in the lead but elsewhere in the article. I don't think the original is better, I just said the one cited source is vague. Don't just revert because you feel like it. Cite the citations from the body to the actual lede. Because I don't see anything for "conglomerate of autonomous groups" in any of the body sources.Policypolicy (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, I think you've misunderstood Wikiepdia's requirement for verification in an extremely strict way. Every word of an article doesn't need to be directly sourced. The lede sentence describes Antifa as a 'conglomerate of autonomous groups' because the article is describing a conglomerate of autonomous groups. Indeed, it's basically a rephasing of the first line of the 'Ideology and activities' section: "The Antifa movement is composed of autonomous groups, and thus has no formal organization." What part of 'conglomerate of autonomous groups' is missing? 'Conglomerate'? Conglomerate means "a number of different things, parts or items that are grouped together; collection." You should also drop the combative tone, it's not helpful to yourself or anyone else. Cjhard (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. WP:SYN Some editor took it upon themselves to describe it as "conglomerate of autonomous groups" which is unsourced. "Every word of an article doesn't need to be directly sourced" No, how you describe it in the lede does need to be sourced.WP:VERIFY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policypolicy (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, Policypolicy! But where we are differing is in that "sourcing" does not necessarily mean direct quoting, and using direct quotes can be a problem for representing the spectrum of reliable sources, rather than just the source quoted. Honestly, we welcome your contributions! If you could be a touch more collaborative, I think it would be great for all. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to User:TheValeyard 's revert due to "no consensus" WP:DRNC. I'll put the edit back in tomorrow if there isn't any change in the lede or any proper arguments against my edit. Policypolicy (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And I take it you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes a "proper" argument? Makes things nice and easy! Dumuzid (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In the last few weeks the lede has been changed without consensus, it was changed without consensus again last night, so which is the consensus version? Not the current one for sure Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Policyx2, so you can be blocked for edit-warring and bad-faith battleground behavior. TheValeyard (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not edit warring.Policypolicy (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I had earlier looked at the citations for the 1st sentence and they did not match the content provided. If these refs are confusing, I suggest they be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, the 2nd and even the 3rd don't even match the content provided. The wired article describes what they do, but it's not even used in the article.Policypolicy (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

First, I prefer the "conglomerate" version to the version which mentions the Dems, as it is closer to summarising the article. However, I have a bunch of problems:

• I don't think there should be footnotes at the end of the first sentence - the sentence should summarise the sourced article. If it does, the three footnotes there now (Jessica Suerth of CNN, "Justice Dept. Demands Data" in the NYT, and "No-Nazis Face a New Foe" in Wired) are odd choices.
  • This WP article puts a lot of weight on the Suerth article, but it should not. The journalist who wrote it is a journalism student[2] who was an intern at CNN[3] and it was her second ever article for CNN.[4] I think it is very likely CNN really didn't know what antifa was when they first heard of it in August so got an intern to quickly write an explainer. Just as WP replaces breaking news articles with better secondary sources after stories have progressed (see WP:BREAKING, we should be really cautious about relying on this kind of quick ill-informed background piece from mainstream media.
  • "Justice Dept. Demands Data" is an article about something else which mentions antifa in passing, and in an unclear way. It is a very bizarre choice of article to use to source anything about antifa.
  • The Wired piece is much better informed and the sort of article which we should be using as a source in this article. But I expect it is being used here because the headline has the words "far left" in it - but reading the article it seems clear that this is an editor's choice of words that bears no relation to the content of the article.
• What does "conglomerate" mean? It's an odd word. I think "loose affiliation" is better, or "loose network"?
• Should the lede say "Antifa is", "The antifa movement is" or "Antifa refers to"? I would avoid the first of those, as it gives the impression of a proper noun. I marginally prefer "refers to" as it least gives that impression.
• I thought it was clear from the above discussion that the consensus is against "self-styled". That seems like unnecessary editorialising, and should be self-evident anyway.

So, my proposal would be something like this, with no footnote at the end:

   In the United States, antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) refers to a loose network of autonomous anti-fascist groups.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support the wording suggested by Bob Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Antifa apocalypse placed into 'Hoax' sub-section with other incidents

Should there be a section on the false tales being spread about Antifa? This last one, Antifa apocalypse, was a whopper. Plus that article has come under [5] by DS; so by combining it with other hoaxes, we will not lose the information and all the sourcing, as I don't believe this will be the last one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me, as there was definitely coverage in RSes. There's currently an article at Antifa apocalypse being considered for deletion; I think it's better dealt with briefly here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the section currently entitled Twitter spoofing could be re-named to cover all of these fake news stories? Definitely Antifa apocalypse should be dealt with (briefly) here, whether it has its own article or not.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a Hoax section as I'm sure this will not be the last one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll be a dissenting voice. I don't think there should be a section about "Lies About Antifa", especially with this Antifa Apocalypse thing as an example. I don't think a minuscule hoax that will be forgotten in a week, concocted by some sort of extreme fringe, needs to be debunked in the article. I have the same opinion about most of the Twitter spoofing section too. Russians trying to declare Antifa a terrorist group is encyclopedic information. Some dickheads on 4chan trolling twitter is trivia. Cjhard (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

These 'hoaxes' appear to be a real and new feature of today's politics and as such are noteworthy from a political science point of view. The fact that the 'Antifa Apocalypse' spent weeks bouncing around the far-right news echo chamber is sign of a consorted dis-information campaign, like 'the UN troops gathering in North Dakota' stories of the past; it speaks more of those that are saying them, than the ones being spoken about. Given how some of these political hoaxes gained traction, even as far as being repeated within the White House, shows a fundamental shift in US political intercourse that should be documented, IMO.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with Cjhard, the information is already covered in the Refuse fascism article, it us trivia and has no place here, it is simply UNDUE Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Political dirty tricks have a long history in the USA including dis-information and slander campaigns. These issues are of note as Antifa is political in its nature. Thus a small sub-section is not unreasonable, and Antifa is NOT Refuse Fascism so the issue should be addressed on this page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this per WP:notnews. Truthsort (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The hey that got to do with anything? Something like 80% of this article has to do with recent events. Volunteer Marek  02:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't have any long-lasting notability. Truthsort (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not by it's self, but it does as a pattern of political misinformation campiagn conducted by elements of the far-right. This is why it needs to be groups with the other incidents in a sub-section so others can also note the pattern from the Twitter Hoax, all the way to this one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about editor's biases. Take it to user talk pages.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the same Darkness Shines that that nominated Anyifa Apocalypse page for removal so there appears to be some built-in biased. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Do you have to comment on me constantly? It's up for deletion as a pointless article, and the content has no place here as it's already in the Refuse Fascism article. A see also link is enough for such trivia Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC) I mentioned your actions as they color your comments. You have skin in this game, you started. In fact my suggestion is a way to deal with you putting the page up for deletion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think it may be worthwhile to have a section "Hoaxes targeting Antifa" or something similar, as a catch-all section to cover such instances, rather than focusing on individual ones in the section name. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Hoaxes targeting Antifa appears to be the consensus and to merge the Twitter hoax with other hoaxes and disinformation campaigns under this section. I wonder how Volunteer Marek feels about this as Antifa Apocalypse was a page that they were involved with greatly? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Volunteer Marek  02:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek , when you have time, you would be the best person to merge your article with the Twitter section and begin a new Hoax section. With continued news like, "'Antifa Supersoldiers' Are Coming to Kill White People Within Days: Right Wing Conspiracy"[6] it seems that this will be an issue for time to come. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus to merge that material here. The result of the AfD was redirect to Refuse Fascism where it is covered. No need to astroturf a fake event. --DHeyward (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is consensus of the majority and your opposition is noted along with the other two editors. The result of the AfD was to redirect that article, but here the consensus is to merge some of the information with other articles and as the hoaxes focus on Antifa, not the lesser know and smaller Refuse Fascism, it is logical to include the 'Antifa Apocalypse' on the Antifa article. Likewise, as I just pointed at, with the 'Antifa Supersoldiers', Newsweek story, these hoaxes are continuing and as they make national news about Antifa; logic would dictate their inclusion here. Thanks again for your input. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to add this junk here. It's already covered elsewhere so no need for passing news if the day to be here Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)