Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Antifa (United States). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The Politico article absolutely needs attribution
@Ahrtoodeetoo: I disagree that it is unnecessary. The Politica article is the only source for these unsubstantiated claims and it's common to attribute sources, especially for something as uncertain as this. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's bad practice to provide in-text attribution when a reliable source provides uncontradicted factual information. It's somewhat inconsistent with our verifiability policy (if a reliable source says something, we can say it) and our neutrality policy (don't present facts as opinions), and it's unnecessarily wordy and distracting. It makes the article about media coverage of Antifa, rather than about Antifa itself. In-text attribution should generally be reserved for opinions, disputes among sources, and quotations. There is definitely no requirement that we use in-text attribution in this circumstance. If a reader wants to know where the information comes from, they can simply click on the footnote. R2 (bleep) 16:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also, we should avoid calling reliably sourced content "unsubstantiated" as it undermines our verifiability policy. R2 (bleep) 16:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Um, I am not suggesting we say that in the article. But it's an obvious fact that undisclosed interviews or discussions are not substantiated by another source. We are just asked to believe the source. What is verifiable is that Politico reported unconfirmed (maybe that's a better word) material. I agree this is a tricky one, something that we don't often run into. I'm not convinced that we have to treat the article as entirely factual, there are too many ifs and buts - things we just don't know. It's puzzling that this was so secretive - why wasn't any of this made public? Or why was it leaked in this way? Doug Weller talk 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think this is actually pretty straightforward. You're objecting to this diff, right? Politico reported that it had obtained confidential documents. What's wrong with simply saying that Politico obtained confidential documents, rather than saying that Politico reported it had obtained confidential documents? Are you suggesting that they might not have obtained confidential documents? Or are you saying that Politico's description of the documents was somehow inaccurate? R2 (bleep) 17:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. But then, I think it's no surprise that I think WP:NOTNEWS is way too lax. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Politico is quite reputable. What's the basis for your belief that the source isn't reliable? R2 (bleep) 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's a US opinion journal and thus is not reliable for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- See Perennial Sources[1], current consensus is that it is reliable. Galestar (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Current consensus was largely shaped by Americans and is in violation of WP:NOTNEWS but then I long since stopped expecting Wikipedia to truly adhere to WP:NPOV - I think what I'm saying is I would support placing a RfC on this issue and will vehemently oppose its inclusion under WP:DUE when it happens. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- As this is a U.S.-centric movement, it seems odd to take issue with the fact that the sources are also U.S.-centric. Galestar (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you think me challenging the reliability of American journalism is odd in any context then clearly we haven't crossed paths much. I'll admit I'm in the minority on this one at this time. But I hope to eventually change that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- ETA: My main complaint over the use of sources like Politico though is more that it's journalism than that it's American. Please see WP:NOTNEWS point 2 - the single least observed policy in Wikipedia political articles. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- As this is a U.S.-centric movement, it seems odd to take issue with the fact that the sources are also U.S.-centric. Galestar (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Current consensus was largely shaped by Americans and is in violation of WP:NOTNEWS but then I long since stopped expecting Wikipedia to truly adhere to WP:NPOV - I think what I'm saying is I would support placing a RfC on this issue and will vehemently oppose its inclusion under WP:DUE when it happens. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- See Perennial Sources[1], current consensus is that it is reliable. Galestar (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's a US opinion journal and thus is not reliable for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Politico is quite reputable. What's the basis for your belief that the source isn't reliable? R2 (bleep) 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. But then, I think it's no surprise that I think WP:NOTNEWS is way too lax. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think this is actually pretty straightforward. You're objecting to this diff, right? Politico reported that it had obtained confidential documents. What's wrong with simply saying that Politico obtained confidential documents, rather than saying that Politico reported it had obtained confidential documents? Are you suggesting that they might not have obtained confidential documents? Or are you saying that Politico's description of the documents was somehow inaccurate? R2 (bleep) 17:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Um, I am not suggesting we say that in the article. But it's an obvious fact that undisclosed interviews or discussions are not substantiated by another source. We are just asked to believe the source. What is verifiable is that Politico reported unconfirmed (maybe that's a better word) material. I agree this is a tricky one, something that we don't often run into. I'm not convinced that we have to treat the article as entirely factual, there are too many ifs and buts - things we just don't know. It's puzzling that this was so secretive - why wasn't any of this made public? Or why was it leaked in this way? Doug Weller talk 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- We would need to show broad coverage in mainstream media or academic papers on antifa in order for this to have weight. A delegate to the Republican National Convention murdered doaens of women yet it is not mentioned in the Republican Party article. TFD (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahrtoodeetoo: I think Politico is generally reliable. That article though bothers me. We've no way of knowing if they were being played by factions in the government, for instance. Although I often don't trust the government when it says things publicly, I trust if even less when it uses the media this way. And as I said, why didn't the article get broader coverage? Did other players in the mainstream media stay away from it for some reason, eg being unsure of their sources? However, I feel like an idiot as so far as I'm concerned it's still attributed as a Politico article. However, looking at the diff again I'm not sure we should state as fact that "One internal assessment acknowledged" - I prefer the earlier version "Politico stated that one internal assessment acknowledged". Doug Weller talk 19:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- For me, Politico is certainly reliable (in the Wikipedia sense, at least!). That being said, I would favor attribution here as we have one reliable source that seems to be way out in front of all of the others. Without pretending to know anything about the truth of the claim, it certainly seems to be an outlier. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Doug, the "One internal assessment acknowledged" language is Politico's own analysis, right? Are you saying the analysis was incorrect? It seems to me if there's a problem there, it's with the word "acknowledged," which expresses some tacit endorsement. Why don't we say, "One internal assessment said"? Dumuzid, it's already made clear from the text that this reporting comes from Politico. R2 (bleep) 20:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think rs is a problem, since it is covered in the local paper and Newsweek. But it lacks weight. TFD (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that DHS was classifying antifa as engaging in terrorist activities lacks weight? Are you serious? I'm proposing putting something in the body, not the lead. R2 (bleep) 23:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- But the DHS never publicly said that. What we have is Politico saying "the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO." In other words, someone or someones talk to Politico anonymously and showed them alleged documents. Am I the only one who sees something fishy in the DHS deciding to let the public know through leaking this to one news channel? I trust Politico generally, but I don't trust anonymous DHS officials. As for weight, a DHS announcement would have had weight. This? I don't think so. And Newsweek no longer impresses me and just IIRC reported what Politico said. Major media outlets ignored it. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that DHS was classifying antifa as engaging in terrorist activities lacks weight? Are you serious? I'm proposing putting something in the body, not the lead. R2 (bleep) 23:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think rs is a problem, since it is covered in the local paper and Newsweek. But it lacks weight. TFD (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahrtoodeetoo: I think Politico is generally reliable. That article though bothers me. We've no way of knowing if they were being played by factions in the government, for instance. Although I often don't trust the government when it says things publicly, I trust if even less when it uses the media this way. And as I said, why didn't the article get broader coverage? Did other players in the mainstream media stay away from it for some reason, eg being unsure of their sources? However, I feel like an idiot as so far as I'm concerned it's still attributed as a Politico article. However, looking at the diff again I'm not sure we should state as fact that "One internal assessment acknowledged" - I prefer the earlier version "Politico stated that one internal assessment acknowledged". Doug Weller talk 19:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- This in-text attribution discussion is apparently intertwined with the RfC below. I suggest we see how the RfC plays out and then revisit this. R2 (bleep) 17:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Using an archived copy of a New Jersey Homeland page that no longer matches the current page mentioning antifa
I had to search for what NJ says now, as the 2nd link was only to a main page so useless. It's here and says "A majority of New Jersey-based anarchist extremists are affiliated with Antifa and focus on issues of racism, immigration, and other perceived social injustices. There are three loosely organized chapters in New Jersey, known as North Jersey Antifa, South Jersey Antifa, and HubCity Antifa based in New Brunswick (Middlesex County)....Anarchist extremists will mobilize in response to issues they believe are unjust, carry out criminal and violent acts during otherwise First Amendment-protected events and protests, and target perceived enemies." It then adds some details about various actions.
Then "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." This is followed by a section on symbols. " I don't think we should use a page no longer maintained by the state. They decided to withdraw it and replace it with a new one. I don't know why, but we should not use a page they removed but should use the current page, focussing not just on the link but that statement "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." That's lacking in the archived page and might be the reason it was replaced. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused... can you please provide links to both the old and the new versions? R2 (bleep) 17:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahrtoodeetoo: the new one is the link I gave in my 2nd sentence.[2] The archived one is the one in the article.[3] Doug Weller talk 20:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Quick-drying cement
Apologies, I misclicked in the middle of my edit summary! While this might be notable, I don't think we can state as fact what boils down to "reports" and something that was "said" to have happened. We're going beyond the reliable sources when we do that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- We can definitely state "reportedly" or "allegedly" when it is accepted by the police, I don't understand why I keep getting reverted. No BLP concerns. wumbolo ^^^ 18:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- For me, it's a bit soon and a bit undue. That being said, reasonable minds can differ, and if the weight of consensus is against me, so be it. But for now I would oppose inclusion. Happy Sunday! Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am finding things such as, "Police have received information that some of the milkshakes thrown today during the demonstration contained quick-drying cement," - which means (1) that it is not the police who are making the claim, and (2) there is no statement about who was doing the throwing." I mean, it could be the Chamber of Commerce trying to promote Portland cement for all we know. So yes, too soon. Carptrash (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- For me, it's a bit soon and a bit undue. That being said, reasonable minds can differ, and if the weight of consensus is against me, so be it. But for now I would oppose inclusion. Happy Sunday! Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
So are we going to have to wait until there's a finished court case for the person(s) suspected of throwing milkshake with quick-dry cement because Jason Wilson of The Guardian has stated in his piece that the police did not produce any evidence? I say just write that the police said there was quick-dry cement in the milkshake. We don't have offer WP:FALSEBALANCE for official police statements and fringe groups engaged in street violence. The Independent, USA Today and [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-clashes-between-r ight-wing-demonstrations-and-antifa-turn-into-civil-disturbance/ CBS News] all just write that this is what the police stated. --Pudeo (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Did the police say that, though? In the three sources you just cited, the police say they received reports of such a thing. That strikes me as a big difference. Therefore, this doesn't meet the test for me; maybe it does for you. If you can convince enough other people, then you win, and more power to you. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- What source says the police definitively have determined (not "received reports" from unspecified anonymous unverified whatever) that such a thing happened, and what source definitively attributes these purported actions to antifa activists? Until those questions are answered, obviously we can't move forward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I further note that neither the Independent nor the Fox News source cited by Wumbolo makes the cement claim as fact (Fox uses the "said to be" construction) and neither one makes any claim as to who might have been responsible for the purported concrete-tainted shake. That's right, not even Fox News is directly blaming this on antifa. Claiming otherwise is a simple misrepresentation of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- What source says the police definitively have determined (not "received reports" from unspecified anonymous unverified whatever) that such a thing happened, and what source definitively attributes these purported actions to antifa activists? Until those questions are answered, obviously we can't move forward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- The weakness of the sourcing at the moment means that we'll have to wait a bit, yes. If what you're claiming is true, better sources supporting your interpretation more unequivocally should appear later, but right now this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which the sources are treating with extreme skepticism - not something worth putting in the article yet. --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- From a chemical standpoint, sugars are generally used to prevent concrete from drying. A milkshake + concrete mixture is therefore impractical and hilarious. More importantly, the source for the police tweet is literally an anonymous hoax email from someone named "Antifa McCrimes" with the claimed milkshake content being soymilk and concrete, sent to the Portland PD. We've seen in the past years that police departments across the US has been treating hoax documents from 4chan or 8chan as genuine evidences and used them against regular citizens. Police department themselves aren't reliable sources and this looks like another 4chan false flag hoax to me. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 14:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOR and a random Twitter Anime analyst extraordinaire is not a reliable source and not even a blue checkmark. These conspiracy theories add no value at all to this discussion. I could link to much more high-profile evidence by Twitter blue checkmarks that it was in fact cement in those milkshakes, but I'm not gonna do that and just point to your flimsy reference who is not even a blue checkmark. wumbolo ^^^ 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- And I can link to blue checkmarks saying that the white particles on poor Andy's face are nothing but coconut shaves. The general consensus holds that the content is both undue and too soon, with reliable sources suggest against its factual accuracy. And I've made my point that police departments aren't reliable sources by any measure. It is gravely inappropriate for you to 'reportedly' obfuscate them as if it was reported by our highest quality sources. It was not. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Police departments are the most reliable sources. That's an overwhelming consensus on all of Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 16:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- And I can link to blue checkmarks saying that the white particles on poor Andy's face are nothing but coconut shaves. The general consensus holds that the content is both undue and too soon, with reliable sources suggest against its factual accuracy. And I've made my point that police departments aren't reliable sources by any measure. It is gravely inappropriate for you to 'reportedly' obfuscate them as if it was reported by our highest quality sources. It was not. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOR and a random Twitter Anime analyst extraordinaire is not a reliable source and not even a blue checkmark. These conspiracy theories add no value at all to this discussion. I could link to much more high-profile evidence by Twitter blue checkmarks that it was in fact cement in those milkshakes, but I'm not gonna do that and just point to your flimsy reference who is not even a blue checkmark. wumbolo ^^^ 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: C'mon, dude, you're pointing to 'blue checkmarks' as signs of trustworthiness? Try a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am literally not. I said I would not link to them. wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: "
your flimsy reference who is not even a blue checkmark
" - what is this supposed to mean then? PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)- @Wumbolo: Would you please answer this question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: Since journalists almost always have the checkmark, not having it is an indicator of irrelevance. (But in contrast, having it does not imply relevance) From [4]: An account may be verified if it is determined to be an account of public interest. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: We do not use twitter checkmarks to indicate relevance or lack thereof. Don't try this in the future. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: nope, it is an indication of whether a self-published source may be an expert on the subject. A reference to a tweet constitutes a BLP violation especially often when it is not by a verified account. wumbolo ^^^ 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: "
A reference to a tweet constitutes a BLP violation especially often when it is not by a verified account.
" Please stop making shit up. We have actual policies written down. Try WP:RS. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)- @PeterTheFourth: I'm not. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. wumbolo ^^^ 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: "
- @PeterTheFourth: nope, it is an indication of whether a self-published source may be an expert on the subject. A reference to a tweet constitutes a BLP violation especially often when it is not by a verified account. wumbolo ^^^ 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: We do not use twitter checkmarks to indicate relevance or lack thereof. Don't try this in the future. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: Since journalists almost always have the checkmark, not having it is an indicator of irrelevance. (But in contrast, having it does not imply relevance) From [4]: An account may be verified if it is determined to be an account of public interest. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: Would you please answer this question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: "
- I am literally not. I said I would not link to them. wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: C'mon, dude, you're pointing to 'blue checkmarks' as signs of trustworthiness? Try a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Just thought I would add this to the general discussion: [5]. I think it's fair to say we should all be more skeptical, especially of allegations that align with our personal beliefs. Wikipedia's slow motion and resistance to sensational claims is a feature, not a bug. Dumuzid (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- a quote from Dumuzid's posting and another reason why we don't rush these things into the articles. "Yet, PPB’s tweet containing this rumor (my bold) has gained nearly 13 thousand re-tweets and has been regurgitated by national media outlets like NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, and, of course, FOX News. Conservative leaders—like US Senator Ted Cruz, Ann Coulter, FOX’s Laura Ingram, and former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch—also parroted the claim on their popular Twitter accounts. " Also why, although we don't always have the choice, folks such as NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, and, FOX News are not always (ever?) to be completely trusted. Carptrash (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would never trust a local source over all of NBC News, CBS News, ABC News and FOX News. Completely opposite of WP:WEIGHT. wumbolo ^^^ 20:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is currently a huge amount of misinformation related to this spreading on the internet, especially on right-wing websites, so I would suggest holding off on adding anything related to it (including eg. opinion pieces that discuss it) until the dust has had a chance to settle. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ah the antifa-backed media denying police-backed claims. The "reporter" cited in your link has a history of doxing political opponents. wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you would read the article, you would notice that the author is simply pointing to a lack of evidence. If he's wrong, a refutation should be a very simple matter. Again, I would highly encourage you to bring a skeptical eye even to the things you want to believe. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, he is making a "Not True" assessment. You don't know which eye I am looking anything with, but I'd certainly believe police over terrorists. wumbolo ^^^ 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- But would you believe a single police tweet, based on hearsay, over a total lack of any other evidence? He is making a "not true" assessment because one would think that a claim like that could be based on some objective evidence. What we have instead is a rumor magnified by a social media echo chamber. This isn't police vs. terrorists. This is hearsay police claim vs. observed reality. Nice to know you have chosen your side. Dumuzid (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- You all know that Ngo's claims are patently false based on things like basic chemistry. It's just nonsensical chatter from a blogger who got upset he got ID'd for his contributions to a racist blog. This is not notable, per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and frankly, considering how quick drying cement interacts with sugar, WP:PROFRINGE. Arguments to the contrary from the faction of Wikipedia who side with the far-right on fascism related talkpages boil down to WP:GREENCHEESE and should be disregarded per WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, he is making a "Not True" assessment. You don't know which eye I am looking anything with, but I'd certainly believe police over terrorists. wumbolo ^^^ 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you would read the article, you would notice that the author is simply pointing to a lack of evidence. If he's wrong, a refutation should be a very simple matter. Again, I would highly encourage you to bring a skeptical eye even to the things you want to believe. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- A discussion of the rumor's spread [6] Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- And now the high quality sources expressly wrote that it was just another right-wing hoax all along, originating from an anonymous email: [7][8][9][10] Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 07:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- The New York Times published what may be the most through investigation into the matter, casting serious doubt on the claim and calling it "questionable." [11] R2 (bleep) 17:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm confused. At Ngo's article User:Wumbolo says it was confirmed by the police.[12] Doug Weller talk 17:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- My take: There is no question that Ngo was attacked by people dressed in Black at an Antifa rally, shortly after the crowd shouted "fuck you Andy Ngo" at him[13] [14], and coverage of that is significant, so we should cover it. The milkshakes bit is unclear, and at this point, we don't have enough to include that. As for the question of whether the attackers were Antifa "members", I'm not aware that the perpetrators have been identified, so we shouldn't say that. The phrasing in the NYT is "a black-clad activist striking the conservative journalist Andy Ngo" . . . perhaps we can say something similar.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd very much prefer not to get involved on the Ngo article, but it still says "Portland Police wrote on Twitter that some of the milkshakes thrown during the protest contained quick-drying cement." That of course is accurate and the police still defend it, admitting that there's no evidence. But it's pretty obviously only part of the truth. Snopes calls this false and has a quote from Portland officials. "Portland city officials admitted in a July 1, 2019, phone call with reporters that the evidence for the statement made in the tweet was based solely on an observation of a police lieutenant in the field that day who, according to the Portland Mercury, “‘saw a powdery substance that appeared to cause some irritation [when in contact with skin].’ The lieutenant also said the milkshake smelled similar to wet concrete, a smell they were familiar with from ‘having worked with concrete before.'” Also "Alex Zielinkski, news editor for the Portland Mercury, told us the claim that any of the milkshakes contained cement appeared to be nothing more than a likely hoax."[15] This is causing the milkshake distributors to receive death threats. See also[16] [17] and [18] Doug Weller talk 09:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be neutral for Wikipedia to publish police claims absent any evidence as anything other than unsubstantiated claims; frankly, it's a pretty widely known fact that police are not always truthful in their PR activities. We have reliable sources such as Snopes and (as much as I dislike relying on newsmedia for much of anything) the New York Times (which is generally treated as reliable by Wikipedia) both saying, "this was a hoax." Andy Ngo got hit with a vanilla milkshake. Not a cement laced milkshake, not a cement laced soy milkshake. The evidence, outside of the fantasy land of Conservative blogging, is that he was hit with an ordinary old milkshake. All this nonsense is, as I said above WP:GREENCHEESE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also, since this article has brought this piece of WP:RECENTISM WP:CRUFT to my attention I've started an AfD for Milkshaking that is likely of interest to editors who watch this page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be neutral for Wikipedia to publish police claims absent any evidence as anything other than unsubstantiated claims; frankly, it's a pretty widely known fact that police are not always truthful in their PR activities. We have reliable sources such as Snopes and (as much as I dislike relying on newsmedia for much of anything) the New York Times (which is generally treated as reliable by Wikipedia) both saying, "this was a hoax." Andy Ngo got hit with a vanilla milkshake. Not a cement laced milkshake, not a cement laced soy milkshake. The evidence, outside of the fantasy land of Conservative blogging, is that he was hit with an ordinary old milkshake. All this nonsense is, as I said above WP:GREENCHEESE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd very much prefer not to get involved on the Ngo article, but it still says "Portland Police wrote on Twitter that some of the milkshakes thrown during the protest contained quick-drying cement." That of course is accurate and the police still defend it, admitting that there's no evidence. But it's pretty obviously only part of the truth. Snopes calls this false and has a quote from Portland officials. "Portland city officials admitted in a July 1, 2019, phone call with reporters that the evidence for the statement made in the tweet was based solely on an observation of a police lieutenant in the field that day who, according to the Portland Mercury, “‘saw a powdery substance that appeared to cause some irritation [when in contact with skin].’ The lieutenant also said the milkshake smelled similar to wet concrete, a smell they were familiar with from ‘having worked with concrete before.'” Also "Alex Zielinkski, news editor for the Portland Mercury, told us the claim that any of the milkshakes contained cement appeared to be nothing more than a likely hoax."[15] This is causing the milkshake distributors to receive death threats. See also[16] [17] and [18] Doug Weller talk 09:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
"autonomous"
This is incorrect, Antifa have a variety of well-documented funding sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.165.112 (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- What are they? TFD (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Antifa is not and have never been a single group, organisation or movement, it is a term that describes pretty much anyone who is strongly against fascism. As such, there are no "members" of Antifa and being antifa is like being part of Anonymous where the only requirement you need to fulfill in order to consider yourself part of Anonymous is being supportive of "hacktivism", similarly, being Antifa simply requires you to be strongly anti-fascist! As such, how can anyone "fund Antifa" when there is no financial structure or any kind of leadership? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Chris Hedges
I'm uncomfortable with including an extended quotation by Chris Hedges that's sourced to a Youtube video published by RT America, a propaganda arm of the Russian government. Does anyone else share this concern? At a minimum I think the quote should be trimmed considerably. Why does Hedges get twice as much real estate as any of the other views? R2 (bleep) 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- It could be because he gives the most comprehensive explanation of why the Left rejects antifa. It might be better however if you could find an academic textbook that summarizes the various arguments for and against antifa, and add it. TFD (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- If it's so significant then are there independent reliable sources that describe his view? I don't know much about Antifa and don't want to get too involved, but it concerns me that we're giving weight to a propaganda machine that we know has taken an interest in stirring up a debate over Antifa ([19], [20]). No matter how reasoned or comprehensive Hedge's criticisms might be. R2 (bleep) 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not his view necessarily, but the view he expresses which appears to be similar to Chomsky's. I don't think though that you can state an opinion is given too much prominence if you are unfamiliar with the literature. TFD (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ha well I can and did.
And my concern isn't related to the view itself. R2 (bleep) 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC) - Of course anyone can state an opinion based on no information at all. I meant that it is not helpful to the discussion. TFD (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ha well I can and did.
- Not his view necessarily, but the view he expresses which appears to be similar to Chomsky's. I don't think though that you can state an opinion is given too much prominence if you are unfamiliar with the literature. TFD (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- If it's so significant then are there independent reliable sources that describe his view? I don't know much about Antifa and don't want to get too involved, but it concerns me that we're giving weight to a propaganda machine that we know has taken an interest in stirring up a debate over Antifa ([19], [20]). No matter how reasoned or comprehensive Hedge's criticisms might be. R2 (bleep) 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have reverted the section to its previous state before all the POV edits attracted by the recent protest. "Criticized by all sides of the political spectrum, including the far left" is absurd. Chomsky alone doesn't represent the "far left" and his political stance has significantly moderated in recent years. Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 07:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't just Chomsky. Its Chomsky, ex-head of SPLC Richard Cohen, Chris Hedges, and I can probably find more if that isn't enough. Why not just change it to 'including several prominent figures on the far left' instead of deleting it?Mbsyl (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Tsumikiria I am still waiting for a response here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 04:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Newsweek
There is at the moment no consensus that the current Newsweek, independent since it was sold last year, is a reliable source. User:Galestar, I know what RSP says, but it also points to this recent discussion, the only one that I can find since it was sold.[21]. I see no consensus there that it is. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Then take it to RSN, until then I see no reason it would not be reliable. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific about why you think it might be inaccurate in this particular case? Benjamin (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
User: Tsumikiria commanded that I "Do not revert without discussion" the addition of "look intimidating" seen in the following sentence: Antifa activists often use the black bloc tactic, in which people dress all in black and cover their faces, in order to thwart surveillance, look intimidating and create a sense of equality and solidarity among participants. Tsumikiria says "it was not a motivation, but rather a benefit."
From the article cited, "This mass of solid black descending upon the park in Berkeley, hunting for fascists, was an intimidating aesthetic. That’s by design." The article then does go on to question whether it is motive or benefit, but they already established it is by design, and other RS confirm that intimidation is a tactic, not merely a happy coincidence. From ADL: "Their presence at a protest is intended to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame. This is why most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive." https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa
Tsumikiria, I hope you will finish our discussion in the Paul Welch section, where you cited Mother Jones as an RS source about antifa, but seem to refuse to accept that they even know what antifa means in another article by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- This appears to be a duplicate comment, intended for below section. Galestar (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Paul Welch
I'm curious how this wiki could have no mention of an incident that is arguably more violent than anything Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer have done, namely the Paul Welch incident, in which a Bernie Sanders supporter was hit over the head with a bat and robbed of his US flag in broad daylight in front of a large crowd. This incident is on film and has been cited in several mainstream publications, including Oregon's monopoly daily newspaper, Newsweek, and The Hill
Can someone explain to me how this isn't significant? I searched the talk page and found a justification for this based on User:Simonm223 (who recently removed my mention of the incident saying "This is not a reliable source nor is it a notable incident") thinking it doesn't represent the entire movement. What does represent antifa if you take the view that they are 'decentralized' and therefore not a group? Can we not criticize or discuss antifa as a group at all because they say the are merely a collection of freely acting individuals?? And many are wearing masks, so should we assume that all of the ones committing violence could be Agent Provacateurs?
Also, how can I argue the validity of sources with Simonm223 when they say "I don't trust any American newsmedia."
Does this not stand in great contrast to the Proud Boys wiki, where one member saying a bigoted word is included in their thorough catalog of 'events' and is backed by citations from non-RS sites Gothamist, Village Voice, and The Daily Beast.
How can wiki readers believe there is a NPOV when someone saying a hateful word is cited by non-RS sources and included in the Proud Boys article, but an aggravated robbery of a US flag is considered "not a notable incident" and 2 publications that cite it and that are much more RS than Gothamist, etc. are said to be non-RS? Mbsyl (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think you make a fair case, but why not simply add it to the article yourself? That's sort of the whole idea behind this encyclopedia. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I did, but it was deleted. I'm fairly new to editing, so I thought I would consult the pros on here to get a better understanding.Mbsyl (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- The sentence you added previously is not acceptable, because it makes claims that go beyond what the source you cited says: the Oregon Live article doesn't say anything about anything being stolen from Welch or anything about any sort of bat. I wouldn't be opposed to the article featuring a sentence which cites the additional sources linked above and more accurately summarises what the sources say, however. You may also wish to bear in mind Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: the fact that something is discussed in the Proud Boys article has no bearing on what should be mentioned in this article. If you think there's a problem with that article you should amend it, either directly or by raising the issue at Talk:Proud Boys. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- The policy WP:Other stuff exists does not say that other articles have "no bearing" on what should be mentioned. Rather, the article says that sometimes such arguments are valid, and sometimes not. Mbsyl has proceeded according to policy. Arms & Hearts objects to the use of 'bat' and 'stolen'. So how about this as a revised version of what Mbsyl originally wrote:
At a August 2018 Portland, Oregon counter-rally, several Antifa protestors attempted to forcibly take a US flag from Bernie Sanders supporter Paul Welch after striking Welch on the head with a club.
Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support including the information, in some form or another. Benjamin (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- My only issue would be chronology; according to the Oregon Live source, the attempt to take the flag was before the strike to the head. Other than that, I think it bears mentioning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this and would add that "Bernie Sanders supporter" is too vague: did he support Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign? His 2020 campaign? Any or all of his campaigns in Vermont between 1972 and 2018? It also requires too much prior knowledge on the reader's part – if one doesn't know who Sanders is then the significance of who Welch voted for is not going to be apparent. I'd prefer something like "Paul Welch, a self-identified progressive". "Several" is also redundant verbosity, because "Antifa protestors" in the plural already carries the same implication. But these are relatively minor quibbles that needn't be threshed out in advance on the talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- i think its common sense to assume that he was at least a bernie sanders supporter during the attack. seems like a pretty nitpicky point. bernie polled as the most popular politician in america in a fox news poll...people know who he is. more people know bernie sanders than know what 'progressive' means i would guess. Mbsyl (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. Around 1.132 billion people speak the English language, of whom a majority will know the meaning of a common word like "progressive". Only around 327 million people live in the United States; people outside the U.S. are not usually familiar with also-ran U.S. presidential candidates. This is the English Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia, so we should aim to write in ways that are comprehensible to English speakers regardless of nationality. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/04/bernie-sanders-global-popularity-1254929 "From South America to Europe to the Middle East, leftist leaders are celebrating his candidacy, viewing him as an iconic democratic socialist with the potential to lead a worldwide progressive movement." the word for 'progressive' may vary from country to country, but the name Bernie Sanders surely doesn't.Mbsyl (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. Around 1.132 billion people speak the English language, of whom a majority will know the meaning of a common word like "progressive". Only around 327 million people live in the United States; people outside the U.S. are not usually familiar with also-ran U.S. presidential candidates. This is the English Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia, so we should aim to write in ways that are comprehensible to English speakers regardless of nationality. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- i think its common sense to assume that he was at least a bernie sanders supporter during the attack. seems like a pretty nitpicky point. bernie polled as the most popular politician in america in a fox news poll...people know who he is. more people know bernie sanders than know what 'progressive' means i would guess. Mbsyl (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this and would add that "Bernie Sanders supporter" is too vague: did he support Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign? His 2020 campaign? Any or all of his campaigns in Vermont between 1972 and 2018? It also requires too much prior knowledge on the reader's part – if one doesn't know who Sanders is then the significance of who Welch voted for is not going to be apparent. I'd prefer something like "Paul Welch, a self-identified progressive". "Several" is also redundant verbosity, because "Antifa protestors" in the plural already carries the same implication. But these are relatively minor quibbles that needn't be threshed out in advance on the talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- My only issue would be chronology; according to the Oregon Live source, the attempt to take the flag was before the strike to the head. Other than that, I think it bears mentioning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I thought we had consensus here, so I put in some language similar to what is above, and O3K, who hasn't contributed to the talk page discussion, reverted it on the grounds that we need "better RS" for "such an accusation". I'm going to reinstate with Newsweek and The Hill sources as well. If O3K has a problem with that, he can revert again and explain himself here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. This is completely undue as an isolated incident absent further updates and sourcing. We're WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT apply. And the "more violent than anything Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer have done" is patently absurd. The former regularly instigate street fights and intimidate peaceful leftist organizations and the latter has beat up unarmed women on multiple occasions. Things like this don't warrant a mention on those articles. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 03:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- This user is a self-proclaimed Antifa supporter (see userpage). Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Lmao, if I had joined any organizations, including antifa, that constitutes a COI, I'll let people know. Other than mere personal opinions, I don't know how to console your paranoia. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 04:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- yeah i noticed the 'bash the fash' on their talk or user page. they certainly seem to be editing with a very pro-antifa bias. re: proud boys instigating street fights - antifa said that this 'battle of portland 2' was proud boys "planning to invade downtown Portland, looking for targets for violent attacks" on itsgoingdown.org, but anyone can look at footage and see it was just 20 or so trump supporters waving 2 us flags in the city square until antifa showed up. this whole thing in portland started because conservatives were coming here to have a little public prayer and antifa made a huge deal about it and followed them on their march routes harassing them until they had a clash. i don't know how many RS support this, but as someone at the rallies, i 100% know this to be true and i know that at the very least, videos will support what i am saying. the right only started it if you consider having a little rally that no one would have known about an attack, rather than considering following conservatives while wearing all black with masks on, holding weapons, and screaming harassing things at them, to be the start of the attack.Mbsyl (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cool story, bud. Because our reliable sources specifically say that it was the neo-fascist Proud Boys who organized the entire event. If you're personally or financially related to the Proud Boys, you must refrain from editing this article and its talk pages, as well as Proud Boys and far-right politics in the US in general. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- believe it or not, i'm not a proud boy or conservative. i am just very skeptical about antifa's branding, tactics, and goals. mother jones (who i have donated to) also says antifa killed someone in 2007. want to add that to the article? https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/timeline-anti-fascists-nazi-punching/ And I cringe at them citing Portland Mercury as an RS in your link. this is the same publication that supported Micah Rhodes for years and had nothing to say when he was arrested twice for having sex with minors. and they ran a story accusing someone of being racist because they had a black girlfriend and possibly had some beer poured on them after stealing someone's seat at a movie theater showing a far left movie with a nearly all black cast.Mbsyl (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That punk fraternity infighting had nothing to do with antifa, so as the rest of your rant. Good luck and nice try. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- from mother jones, who you just cited as an rs, : "Here’s a timeline of the American anti-fascist movement...
- A 25-year-old man is beaten to death outside a punk show in Asbury Park, New Jersey, after reportedly refusing to take off a Confederate flag T-shirt. An alleged FSU member is arrested but not charged." Good luck explaining your way out of including this in the wiki article. The only thing you can say is Mother Jones got it wrong, because it was actually his friend who was wearing a shirt with a rebel flag, according to Rolling Stone.Mbsyl (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That, at best, belong to the FSU article, not here. A single incident, no further reports, facual accuracy disputed between sources, Rolling Stone didn't say antifa at all which means this is just another WP:OR, nothing of value to include. That was cherrypicking at its finest. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- are you saying Mother Jones doesn't understand what antifa is after you just cited them as an RS about the recent antifa/proud boy rally here in portland? why is Rolling Stone seemingly more credible than Mother Jones, who you just cited as an RS in relation to their knowledge of antifa? the alleged murderer in the Mother Jones/Rolling Stone articles was in a group that opposes far right ideology and was allegedly attacking someone who they perceived as far right, no? first google result for antifa defintion: a political protest movement comprising autonomous groups affiliated by their militant opposition to fascism and other forms of extreme right-wing ideology. from ADL: "Their presence at a protest is intended to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame. This is why most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive." so, according to the dictionary and experts, including the website that you cited as an RS (in regards to a story pertaining to antifa) - antifa are groups that oppose racism, fascism and/or far right ideology.Mbsyl (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That, at best, belong to the FSU article, not here. A single incident, no further reports, facual accuracy disputed between sources, Rolling Stone didn't say antifa at all which means this is just another WP:OR, nothing of value to include. That was cherrypicking at its finest. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That punk fraternity infighting had nothing to do with antifa, so as the rest of your rant. Good luck and nice try. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- believe it or not, i'm not a proud boy or conservative. i am just very skeptical about antifa's branding, tactics, and goals. mother jones (who i have donated to) also says antifa killed someone in 2007. want to add that to the article? https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/timeline-anti-fascists-nazi-punching/ And I cringe at them citing Portland Mercury as an RS in your link. this is the same publication that supported Micah Rhodes for years and had nothing to say when he was arrested twice for having sex with minors. and they ran a story accusing someone of being racist because they had a black girlfriend and possibly had some beer poured on them after stealing someone's seat at a movie theater showing a far left movie with a nearly all black cast.Mbsyl (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cool story, bud. Because our reliable sources specifically say that it was the neo-fascist Proud Boys who organized the entire event. If you're personally or financially related to the Proud Boys, you must refrain from editing this article and its talk pages, as well as Proud Boys and far-right politics in the US in general. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 06:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- This user is a self-proclaimed Antifa supporter (see userpage). Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended personal attacks
|
|---|
|
- Support: It is a notable incident and merits inclusion. Galestar (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The sources so far appear to be a blog, a local paper, and Newsweek, which does not have the best reputation for factual accuracy. I'd like to see better sources before inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Newsweek is listed as having consensus for reliability under WP:RSP. Galestar (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but we don't treat sources as binary - reliable or not reliable. It's a spectrum, and we should be careful with Newsweek, and I don't think if it is the only source we can use we should tread very carefully (and look to supporting sources.) We also do tend to determine consensus for these things on a case by case, which is important when discussing alleged violent action. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with Newsweek you should try WP:RSN and attempt to remove them from WP:RSP.
While you're doing that, The Hill [22] is also generally considered reliable. That's two reliable sources reporting on it.Galestar (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)- That's the blog part of the site, buddy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- if you just look at the video, the most charitable way you can describe it is as people dressed in black attacking a man and trying to steal his flag and then one clubs him on the head and walks off (while a large crowd does nothing to help identify or capture the assaulter or to help the victim, which i would say is due to the Terror invoked by large groups of people with weapons, dressed in black/masks, who take over the city with violence and intimidation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's not the point; we decide WP:DUE based on coverage, not based on how it makes people feel. A WP:NEWSBLOG isn't really strong support for inclusion, and the other two, while they connect it to antifa in the headlines, only mention that connection briefly rather than going into any depth. Given the brief and relatively slight coverage, it doesn't make sense to describe this as "notable activism" by antifa; it doesn't pass WP:DUE or tell the reader much about the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Point still stands about Newsweek, and then there's these: Fox News, Washington Times, National Review, Chicago Tribune, and Toronto Sun. There really is no question: story is notable, DUE and several sources all saying pretty much the same thing, plus there's also a video of the incident. Galestar (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Galestar: The perennial sources list you yourself point to calls Fox News, National Review, and the Washington Times 'partisan sources'. Would you please stop throwing links around and get an independent reliable source that supports what you say? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also the Toronto Sun is a tabloid and is not a reliable source for anything beyond sports scores. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Partisan does not mean not reliable. Sorry but despite some editor's claims to the contrary there was a lot of coverage of this incident in reliable sources. Galestar (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Galestar: The perennial sources list you yourself point to calls Fox News, National Review, and the Washington Times 'partisan sources'. Would you please stop throwing links around and get an independent reliable source that supports what you say? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Point still stands about Newsweek, and then there's these: Fox News, Washington Times, National Review, Chicago Tribune, and Toronto Sun. There really is no question: story is notable, DUE and several sources all saying pretty much the same thing, plus there's also a video of the incident. Galestar (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- We shouldn't ever "just look at the video". The video is a primary source and is of no interest when there are reliable (written) secondary sources we can use. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's not the point; we decide WP:DUE based on coverage, not based on how it makes people feel. A WP:NEWSBLOG isn't really strong support for inclusion, and the other two, while they connect it to antifa in the headlines, only mention that connection briefly rather than going into any depth. Given the brief and relatively slight coverage, it doesn't make sense to describe this as "notable activism" by antifa; it doesn't pass WP:DUE or tell the reader much about the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- if you just look at the video, the most charitable way you can describe it is as people dressed in black attacking a man and trying to steal his flag and then one clubs him on the head and walks off (while a large crowd does nothing to help identify or capture the assaulter or to help the victim, which i would say is due to the Terror invoked by large groups of people with weapons, dressed in black/masks, who take over the city with violence and intimidation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's the blog part of the site, buddy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I share WP:DUE concerns. The coverage is slight and doesn't really go into more detail on how this connects to the subject; I definitely don't think it meets the standard of the rest of the "notable activism" section. It seems to have been one incident that received a tiny smattering of coverage at the time and nothing since, so I'm unclear as to why people are suddenly pushing to add it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was plenty of coverage of this incident. If you still think there wasn't, you haven't been paying attention. Galestar (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with Newsweek you should try WP:RSN and attempt to remove them from WP:RSP.
- Sure, but we don't treat sources as binary - reliable or not reliable. It's a spectrum, and we should be careful with Newsweek, and I don't think if it is the only source we can use we should tread very carefully (and look to supporting sources.) We also do tend to determine consensus for these things on a case by case, which is important when discussing alleged violent action. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Notable and has RS coverage. Really helps explain the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't an RFC (at least not yet.) Why are you bolding your support? --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'll bold my support all I want, thank you very much. It just makes it more convenient to quickly visualize consensus, that's all. No biggie. Anyway, sources are reliable enough, and this event is obviously more significant than a celebrity eating lunch or whatever. By the way, let's try to stay on topic and not argue or revert each other too much. Also, I notice the article got a spike in views. Why's that? Benjamin (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't an RFC (at least not yet.) Why are you bolding your support? --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- You can keep saying 'support' in as big a font as you want, it won't give your arguments any credence. Consensus isn't a vote, and your repeated comments won't fool anybody. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Geez man, I'm not trying to fool anyone; lighten up. Address my arguments, will you? Benjamin (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Benjaminikuta: What arguments? All you have are assertions and your repeated use of a bolded 'support'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Were this a !vote, you having bolded your support twice would be very dirty pool and you'd be getting a lot more than people asking you to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Benjaminikuta: What arguments? All you have are assertions and your repeated use of a bolded 'support'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Geez man, I'm not trying to fool anyone; lighten up. Address my arguments, will you? Benjamin (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hell no And nice try with the old one person agreed with me after five minutes so that's consensus maneuver. It's an isolated incident. It is not reflective on the overall antifascist movement or on even a local branch of antifascist activity. Simply put, it's undue WP:CRUFT trotted out by conservatives in an attempt to WP:COATRACK the idea of antifascists as indiscriminately violent cartoon anarchists. Absolutely not. No. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- As that essay says, it's just shorthand, so you're going to have to be more specific about the real underlying policy reasons. I agree that the content shouldn't be unduly emphasised, but I do think it has enough coverage at least a brief mention. If you think that other aspects of coverage are comparatively lacking, then you are welcome to improve those. Benjamin (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here's another essay for you to read: WP:GREENCHEESE. A single incident involving a single individual who may or may not have had ties to a single organization within the loose agglomeration of organizations that believe fascists should be directly confronted is not WP:DUE any relevance in the article about the phenomenon of the loose agglomeration. Rather it is WP:CRUFT - something only of relevance to a subset of fans of the Proud Boys and not something that contributes to any real understanding of the antifascist movement. Furthermore, the fans for whom this is WP:CRUFT are openly antagonistic to antifascists, as antifascists are openly antagonistic to white-supremacist western-chauvinist gangs, which they rightly consider neo-fascist organizations. As such, inclusion of this WP:CRUFT is being used by said fans as a WP:COATRACK to mis-characterize the antifascist movement by asserting an isolated and unfortunate confrontation between two individuals has some relevance to the topic when, it, as WP:CRUFT does not.
- IS this specific enough for you? Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's a whole lot of baseless assertions and WP:OR. We follow what the RS's say, not your conspiracy theories. Galestar (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is not, but rather an excellent explanation on how this isolated incident is only of value to some fans, rather than to serve useful, long-lasting information to our reader. Your sourcing so far have not convinced experienced editors, and editors in your direction can offer no more useful arguments than "I stan". Know when to stop. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 16:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- We've offered plenty of other arguments above, as well as reliable sources that establish both the truth of the content and the notability. There's been nothing from you side except sticking your fingers in your ears and not listening. Galestar (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is not, but rather an excellent explanation on how this isolated incident is only of value to some fans, rather than to serve useful, long-lasting information to our reader. Your sourcing so far have not convinced experienced editors, and editors in your direction can offer no more useful arguments than "I stan". Know when to stop. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 16:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's a whole lot of baseless assertions and WP:OR. We follow what the RS's say, not your conspiracy theories. Galestar (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- IS this specific enough for you? Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Since this is covered by several sources, I disagree with your characterization that even just mentioning it would be giving undue weight to it. To the contrary, excluding it when it has sufficient coverage would indeed be failing to give it the weight it is due. Benjamin (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at the proposed edit and the sources, I do not understand how this one incident is supposed to be encyclopedically significant. I am not saying it is or isn't, I am saying that the edit fails to establish this. The three sources are presumably reliable, but they are news coverage of a single event published within a few hours of each other. To repeat what I've said before on this page: There are hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents which could be included, many with similar news coverage. Being violent or serving a political narrative is not the deciding factor here, sources are. So why, precisely, does this belong in the article? I am not asking any editors to explain to me, I am saying that we must summarize those sources which explain this. If sources do not explain this, and sources do not follow up on this, it's unlikely to have any lasting encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- No A delegate to the Republican National Convention murdered several dozen women, which is far worse than this incident, but is not included in the article about the Republican Party because reliable sources have not established its significance. And it received far more coverage than this incident. The same applies here. TFD (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- We aren't debating the contents of Republican Party here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, I was providing an example. Examples are often useful in order to help people understand similar situations. The relevant policy is Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." A reference in local media and a few other sources does not provide any weight for inclusion. The only reason anyone has heard of the case is that it has received a lot of attention on websites in the echo chamber. TFD (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the other article, but if the incident is reasonably significant, I surely would support including it there too, for what it's worth. I realize that editorial opinions can differ, but I think this incident is relevant to the central idea of the article. If there are so many such incidents that they cannot reasonably all be discussed in depth, then they should be summarized however is appropriate. But again, simply outright excluding it from any mention at all is not giving due weight. Benjamin (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- "I think this incident is relevant to the central idea of the article" is clearly against Balancing aspects. It does not matter what you or I consider relevant, but what the body of literature on the topic does. If it were up to editors, then some would put in whatever the echo chamber liked while others would put in what antifa websites liked and argue against each other. That's why this discussion page is so long. The approved way is to just put in what mainstream sources consider important. TFD (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- The requirement is that sources be reliable, not necessarily that they be the most mainstream. Benjamin (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, just because something is reliably sourced does not mean it should be in the article. You must also consider weight which says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Think how long the article on the United States would be if everything that ever happened there and was reliably sourced was included. TFD (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- When an article gets too long, it should be split. But I don't think the length is the problem here. It's only a brief mention, anyway. I agree that discussing in great depth would indeed be undue. But likewise, giving it absolutely zero weight would also be undue. The weight it is given should be proportionate to the coverage in sources, right? A lot of coverage, a lot of weight. A little coverage, a little weight. No coverage, no weight. But you're arguing that there should be no weight, even when there is some coverage. Benjamin (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, just because something is reliably sourced does not mean it should be in the article. You must also consider weight which says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Think how long the article on the United States would be if everything that ever happened there and was reliably sourced was included. TFD (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- The requirement is that sources be reliable, not necessarily that they be the most mainstream. Benjamin (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- "I think this incident is relevant to the central idea of the article" is clearly against Balancing aspects. It does not matter what you or I consider relevant, but what the body of literature on the topic does. If it were up to editors, then some would put in whatever the echo chamber liked while others would put in what antifa websites liked and argue against each other. That's why this discussion page is so long. The approved way is to just put in what mainstream sources consider important. TFD (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the other article, but if the incident is reasonably significant, I surely would support including it there too, for what it's worth. I realize that editorial opinions can differ, but I think this incident is relevant to the central idea of the article. If there are so many such incidents that they cannot reasonably all be discussed in depth, then they should be summarized however is appropriate. But again, simply outright excluding it from any mention at all is not giving due weight. Benjamin (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, I was providing an example. Examples are often useful in order to help people understand similar situations. The relevant policy is Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." A reference in local media and a few other sources does not provide any weight for inclusion. The only reason anyone has heard of the case is that it has received a lot of attention on websites in the echo chamber. TFD (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- We aren't debating the contents of Republican Party here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Tne guideline says that including some events may be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. The way we determine that is by looking at its treatment in the body of reliable sources. Another way is to consult tertiary sources, that "may be helpful in evaluating due weight." The problem is that if you follow right-wing blogs, you will find a different emphasis on news than if you get your information from mainstream news sources. If you think this article should read more like an article in Breitbart than in the New York Times, then you need to get the rules changed, rather than arguing over numerous articles.
As to your first point, not everything reported in news media about the United States will find a place in any article. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia "does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere....not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia....While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
TFD (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I certainly don't think that Wikipedia articles should be more like Breitbart. "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I think it's obvious that this incident has received more significant coverage than the sort of trivial news that policy is directed towards. Benjamin (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, it is not obvious. What coverage? Every source proposed here (unless I missed any) was published within a two-day period following the incident. There has been no follow-up from sources which have indicated or explained how this is significant to the larger topic. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- That coverage be sustained over a long period of time is a requirement for article subjects, not individual statements within articles. Benjamin (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is an essay, but regarded as a good explanation for this: WP:10YT O3000 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- That coverage be sustained over a long period of time is a requirement for article subjects, not individual statements within articles. Benjamin (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Benjamin, so your argument I that "significant coverage" of the actions of an individual member of an international movement is that it got mentioned in the local newspaper. I think the problem is that each editor has a different method of what is important about a topic, based on their own beliefs, personality and what they have read. Each editor would therefore write an account of antifa differently. Some would be sympathetic, others hostile, most somewhere in between. And they would do this by their selection of facts and opinions they reported. But policy and guidelines require us to write the same articles, with the same emphasis on facts and opinions as presented in reliable sources. The media and subsequently academic sources may be wrong on their emphasis, but we have to accept that or change the rules. But I don't see how we could ever come to agreement if there were no rules. There are however other wikis with different rules. TFD (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Intimidating clothing by design or an unplanned benefit?
User: Tsumikiria commanded that I "Do not revert without discussion" the addition of "look intimidating" seen in the following sentence: Antifa activists often use the black bloc tactic, in which people dress all in black and cover their faces, in order to thwart surveillance, look intimidating and create a sense of equality and solidarity among participants. Tsumikiria says "it was not a motivation, but rather a benefit."
From the article cited, "This mass of solid black descending upon the park in Berkeley, hunting for fascists, was an intimidating aesthetic. That’s by design." The article then does go on to question whether it is motive or benefit, but they already established it is by design, and other RS confirm that antifa intimidation is a common tactic, not merely a coincidence. From ADL: "Their presence at a protest is intended to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame. This is why most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive." It makes no sense that the intimidating nature of clothing that is all black (like Isis or burglars) while wearing masks like a criminal would not be a motivation to dress that way. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa
Tsumikiria, I hope you will finish our discussion in the Paul Welch section, where you cited Mother Jones as an RS source about antifa, but seem to refuse to accept that they even know what antifa means in another article by them. Mbsyl (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Could you provide a link to the Mother Jones article you mention? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/timeline-anti-fascists-nazi-punching/ Mbsyl (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Mbsyl, though after reading it, I don't quite follow how it shows that "they don't even know what antifa means." Could you explain? It's probably just me being slow. Thank you! Dumuzid (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- no worries, Dumuzid. i was referring to Tusmikiria saying that Mother Jones was wrong in their classifying FSU as antifa, after Tsumikiria had recently cited MJ as an RS in regards to a different article about antifa. it seems like if Mother Jones is an RS, much less an RS regarding a story specifically about antifa, - then Mother Jones should know what the word 'antifa' means as that is a pretty basic thing to know. also, they should understand what anti-fascist means better than most when you consider they have been using the term for nearly 20 years: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/11/german-greens-changing-colors/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/german-right-wing-rock-fans-trojan-t-shirts/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/02/congressional-race-almost-sums-northern-california/ Mbsyl (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Mbsyl, though after reading it, I don't quite follow how it shows that "they don't even know what antifa means." Could you explain? It's probably just me being slow. Thank you! Dumuzid (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/timeline-anti-fascists-nazi-punching/ Mbsyl (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)