This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
wp:notforum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Are y'all members of ANTIFA? Seems like a very sympathetic article to a terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C726:DAD1:BF78:960B:B396:C4A9 ( talk) 12:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with this accusation of favoritism. This article for the most part reflects a neutral point of view. It mentions the acts of violence committed by the movement, their radical beliefs, and some of their more controversial actions. As someone opposed to Antifa myself, I find the article to be quite fair and unbiased. Anasaitis ( talk) 21:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the unsigned comment and with KirnMagic and others that the article is not neutral as it stands. In my earnest attempt to help mitigate the problem in favor of neutrality I would like to remind all editors: WP:PA WP:BULLY WP:POV railroad WP:Civility /info/en/?search=Shadow_banning SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Well hello again Dumuzid. I believe that I have a consensus that the article isn't as neutral as it could be and that is why I highlighted several others who have had concern. Let's take it at that to agree to disagree. Peace out... SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 13:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
Antifa are fascist groups using the veil of anti-facist. Violence, threats of violence and stopping free speech are fascist characteristics. History shows that. Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018
This
edit request to
Antifa (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2605:6000:1702:C1B6:E0D2:6080:F41:6831 ( talk) 10:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I concur with the sentiment above that Antifa may themselves be fascist groups using the veil of anti-facist; however, my interest is in keeping the article as neutral as possible. I caution such commentary requires hard facts and citation. As Wikipedians we must follow the rules and gain consensus. There is no UserTalk to take this offline, so I thought I'd add the following. One can argue that fascism is a more of a left-wing ideology. In simplest terms, according to Macmillan for children (Simon & Schuster books), fascism is a political system led by a dictator in which all industry is controlled by the government. Fascism encourages extreme nationalism and does not allow people to have opposing political ideas.
For some reason, left-wing activists would like to put the blame on the right-wing for fascism. This angers someone in the right-wing when they few the left wing as the fascists trying to conflate. I express these things not to spur a political debate, but rather to have us all be mindful that labeling is a sensitive area and we must all remain as neutral as possible. SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 23:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
Just curious why my previous content was removed here for view? I'd like to remind editors that no one owns any article on Wikipedia and when content is continually removed and when there is no discussion then one feels there is a WP:BULLY ?! This is a talk page for heavens sake. Am I being silenced? Case in point is that the semi-protected page sub section should be removed if it's not content that's up for discussion. I'm concerned because removing this data allows anyone capable of editing a page the ability to shape the narrative about that subject by creating original criticism -- even talk pages! Again, I’m reaching out to the impassioned editors and I extend an olive branch.
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 00:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Where would the appropriate place be to include black bloc on the antifa page? Black bloc is an identifying marker of antifa and I don’t see any controversy with inclusion of my research. Since there seems to be some individual discussions with editors, I'm now looking for consensus or discussion on the antifa talk page.
Here is the research which connects the two: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/ https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 17:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A proposal stands to insert a heading section for discussion on black bloc. Since the suggestion was a heading should not have just one sentence, I propose the following: "The Antifa activists generally wear black bloc, a look characterized by a combination of black hoodies, black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks, goggles or gloves. Some antifa activists bring red flags, shirts or shields and this may distinguish them from other kinds of black bloc activists, protesters or counter protesters. Dressing in black bloc promotes cohesion and unity with the other antifa members as it allows members privacy or anonymity. [1]" SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Please don’t minimize my research and this news source. The Mercury News is a nonpartisan source of local news and it’s the fifth largest daily newspaper in the United States. The Mercury News article best describes antifa, and is relevant to the Wikipedia content describing antifa: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/
The Mercury News Article article reads: “They wear black pants and sweatshirts, with either helmets or hoods over their heads, bandanas across their faces — and dark sunglasses, goggles or gas masks over their eyes. Many carry makeshift shields and flags, whose staffs can quickly become weapons. They call themselves “antifa,” short for anti-fascist, and they’re part of a loosely organized national network of anonymous anarchists.”
Regarding photographic evidence in another conversation with an editor.... Some have said pictures are inadmissible, I’d like you to note that I’ve not affixed any imagery to either black bloc or antifa articles. Mercury News is one of the sources listed at the top of this subsection that I found describing the antifa black bloc look.
I have been trying to gain consensus. On Aug 5 2018 an editor reverted my copy for the following reasons. (Non-neutral language. WP:TONE. Black bloc already has an article.)
“The Antifa activist look generally is a black characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles or black hoodies and sunglasses with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.”
The copy is neutral, Black bloc is not slang, and I used qualifiers (generally and some). Help me understand the problem?
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 22:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The Antifa activist look may include black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles. [1] The shadowy activists may wear black hoods and sunglasses [2], though not always. Some carry makeshift shields or weapons as well, or flags [3] The tactic is known as "black bloc" [4] a strategy that may hide their identity or show cohesion.
Dear Arms & Hearts, Please refrain from a personal attack (use of word heiniously). In truth. I had added the black bloc information to the lede as it is an integral part of the story. It belongs in the lede, but in the spirit of collaboration I was open to ideas. Instead it got buried.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a
Having said the above, I'm sure we can come to resolution on a simple set of sentences. I wonder why there is so much debate about the specific style of clothing for which is well documented.
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 01:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Today I added a citation to another editor's entry on "Domestic Terrorism." I also added a sentence about antifa in this regard tied to the Department of Homeland Security. Here is the transaction..
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared the activities of antifa as “domestic terrorist violence” in 2017. https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396
However as quickly as the edits and additions came there were reverts without collaboration efforts what-so-ever. Isn't there a three revert rule? I noted Drmies has reverted copy three times (below is the record). I just cut and paste for convenience to document the three changes:
3 (cur | prev) 04:28, 11 August 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) . . (48,042 bytes) (-100) . . (Reverted 1 edit by 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam: Last time for me. need an admin to look at this in the light of DS. again: the BBC ref (or the misplaced Newsweek ref) IN NO WAY support this. (TW)) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 04:25, 11 August 2018 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk | contribs) . . (48,142 bytes) (+100) . . (Undid revision 854409396 by Drmies (talk) Please explain how it's a ruse when the source supports this.) (Tag: Undo)
2 (cur | prev) 04:13, 11 August 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) . . (48,042 bytes) (-100) . . (Reverted to revision 854409096 by Drmies (talk): No, you also reinstated, without verification, the "domestic terrorism" ruse. be more careful please. (TW)) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 04:12, 11 August 2018 SDSU-Prepper (talk | contribs) . . (48,142 bytes) (+100) . . (Added citation https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396) (Tag: Undo)
1 (cur | prev) 04:10, 11 August 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) . . (48,042 bytes) (-100) . . (Reverted to revision 854407975 by Newimpartial (talk): No, the BBC ref doesn's say that at all. (TW)) (Tag: Undo)
As a reminder, no one person owns a Wikipedia article. I've worked hard to gain consensus on the talk page.
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 04:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Antifa (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Antifa should definitionally be referred to as a hate group as the actions and opinions of large swaths if not a majority of the group fulfill every requirement of the term. It is beyond reasonable doubt that rampant violent speech and actions against law enforcement and media members warrant this label. Consensus should not prevent this change, as facts exist separate from consensus, and when they are this abundantly clear, they should supersede consensus opinion.
Original: "The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant[2][3][4][5][6] groups in the United States" Proposed Change: "The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-proclaimed anti-fascist militant[2][3][4][5][6] hate groups in the United States" Tcevidanes ( talk) 03:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. This template specifically says it's for uncontroversial edits, or for edits supported by consensus. Your opinion that antifa is a hate group is not supported by reliable sources nor consensus, and is definitely controversial.
Grayfell (
talk) 04:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Please delete "opposition to the infiltration of Britain's punk scene by white power skinheads in the 1970s and 1980s, and ", which is not supported by the source, which just says "But in the ’70s and ’80s, neo-Nazi skinheads began to infiltrate Britain’s punk scene." It doesn't link it to antifa.
BTW, I think the source is in error anyway; the punk scene in the UK in the seventies was linked to Rock Against Racism, but that was non-violent; I don't think it was infiltrated by skinheads. Rather, the skinheads adopted some of the trappings of punk (see Oi!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDemeanour ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
MrDemeanour ( talk) 15:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Opening for discussion before making a protected edit request, I propose stripping out the Trevor Noah "vegan ISIS" joke from the responses to ANTIFA section. Noah is not a politician or an expert, and I would dispute that a comedian's joke is encyclopedic in character. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
"Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions."If we're going to use this, given the use of "current" in the quote we should mention the month of publication. And I wonder if we ought also to mention Bray and Reid Ross's respective specialisms, i.e. refer to them as "the geographer Alexander Reid Ross" (which seems to be right) and "the historian Mark Bray" respectively. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, following RS lead works for me. Will make more revisions tomorrow AM
Remove: Trevor Noah, host of the popular late-night television program The Daily Show jokingly referred to antifa as "Vegan ISIS".[79]
Insert: Antifa movements have provoked varying reactions within the academic community; Noam Chomsky described them as "a major gift to the right" [1] While historian Mark Bray said, "Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions." [2] Anti-fascist author and organizer, Alexander Reid Ross said that antifa groups represented, "one of the best models for channeling the popular reflexes and spontaneous movements towards confronting fascism in organized and focused ways." [3] Cornel West was present with Rev. Traci Blackmon attending a counter-protest to the Unite the Right rally. He said, "we would have been crushed like cockroaches if it were not for the anarchists and the anti-fascists," describing a situation where a group of 20 counter-protesters were surrounded by marchers who he described as, "neofascists." [4] Simonm223 ( talk) 17:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Down less than two days and we're getting persistent IPV6 vandalism. Asked for an increase in protection. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that will deal with that for now. With thanks. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Why are we shying away from identifying antifa as left wing activists? This article is a citation inserted by another editor which demostrates use of the description of antifa: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/
I'm taking a preemptive approach to open the dialog for consensus as virtually all of my valid research has been reverted and I'm concerned about the neutrality and accuracy.
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This sentence has an ambiguous use of the word Alt-right:
"During a Berkeley protest on August 27, 2017, an estimated one hundred antifa protesters joined a crowd of 2,000–4,000 counter-protesters to attack a reported "handful" of alt-right demonstrators and Trump supporters who showed up for a "Say No to Marxism" rally that had been cancelled by organizers due to security concerns.[59][70]"
By its own source the headline reads: Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.
No where does the citation say "alt-right" and the copy does not make use of the words right-wing and left wing referencing the article.
Proposed sentence for consensus. "During a Berkeley protest on Aug. 27, 2017, an estimated one hundred antifa activists joined a crowd of 2,000–4,000 left-wing protesters to attack right-wing participants and Trump supporters in the "Say No to Marxism" rally, which had been cancelled by organizers because of security concerns.[59][70]"
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 17:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Should the lead refer to antifa as "left wing" or "far-left"?"then give a mess of sources. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left. So they are saying most of them are far-left just not 100% which is to be expected. PackMecEng ( talk) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
'Left-wing' is a broadly-NPOV term. I don't think anyone has claimed that there are right-wing antifa. However the term 'far-left' has a meaning that depends on the political posture of the speaker; some right-wing americans (in particular) consider anyone on the left of european politics to be 'far-left'. I don't like the term 'far-left' at all; but if it has to be used, I think it should be reserved for those advocating violent revolution.
What unites antifa groups is their opposition to fascism, not some specific shade of left-wing-ness. Different antifa have different positions on the left-right axis. MrDemeanour ( talk) 11:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Most of what I've done has been grammar fixes, typos fixed and clarifications of text (particularly quotes - no changes to meaning or content of quotes) for readability.
One major edit is trying to track down all the instances of "antifa, AntiFa and Antifa" and - with the exception of historic naming exclusions to the consistency - have moved to the consistent "Antifa". I've also changed content from "Antifa activists" and "antifa protesters" or "Antifa members" to just "Antifa have done XXX" for consistency, as the Antifa is not autonomous and does not specifically define itself in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelastauroch ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Have also added in section re Antifa being listed as a domestic terrorist group by the DHS, with 3 citations. This seems to me to be pretty significant regarding an activism group, and I am surprised there was no mention of it. Possible bias prior to my edits?
Anyway, the page is *vastly* improved (I think!) with a lot more internal links, clarifications and overall a lot more readable. Cheers.
Oh, and I agree the page should be semi-protected. It's clearly a hot(ish) topic, and vandalism does nobody any favors. Cheers (again). Thelastauroch ( talk) 01:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)TheLastAuroch
Hi
There are problems with the bracketing of the titles. The link to the site is not compatible with certain coding. For instance: /info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States)
The brackets at the end interfere with the code and when you click on it you get a malformed link. For instance this code on reddit: [Go read about them]( /info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States)). translates to the following address because of the double brackets at the end: /info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States The bracket is removed.
Don't know how to fix it other than changing the bracket to something else in the address bar.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusSab ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Antifa_%28United_States%29
goes to the same target as
/info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States)
. But, as DanielRigal has said, it's really a problem with Reddit rather than a problem for Wikipedia to solve. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk) 17:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Between Thelastauroch removing it and Doug Weller adding it back as a better descriptor I am not sure either direct action or violence are the best answer. I have a bit more issue with direct action at the moment, that to Doug's point it is certainly a more broad term that covers things they do that violence does not. That said it seems overly broad which covers just showing up to protest all the way to assassination and insurrection. Would there be a better term to describe them or perhaps give direct action more of a definition as it relates to this group in the article itself? I see we do have a link to it when it's first used, but again it is a very broad term. PackMecEng ( talk) 12:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@simon223 - It *is* problematic, and I'm not sure which is better, because of course we want the page to remain as neutral and accurate as possible (at least, that is my goal). Perhaps referring to both direct action and violence, where appropriate, as Antifa seem to use both? I know it has the risk of making the page less readable, but I do believe that accuracy is more important than ultra-readability. Thelastauroch ( talk) 09:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch
Is there any evidence of sustained coverage of the White House petition beyond the one "and now they answered the petition but it doesn't matter" ref? Because I'm inclined to remove it completely unless it's able to meet that bar. Want to discuss here before acting unilaterally. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
"This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else"which seems to apply to this situation. But anyhow if it is notable everywhere else why would it not be here besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It would be odd to have it everywhere else as easily notable but not here on an article that is generally less notable than the other subjects of petitions. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a random troll's anonymous petition to ask the White House to do something they can't really do as being significant. It got picked up by Fox, an a bunch of Conservative online outlets. Then nothing happened. Then the White House said, "nothing will continue happening," and then the Verge said, "the White House isn't doing anything." It's a non-issue with no coverage aside from a bunch of signal boosts from the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The existence of other petitions elsewhere just goes to show that people are lax with WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED where Star Wars ephemera and such is involved. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we really want to give Fourchan the pleasure of a reference to their abysmal little trolling campaigns? This has been a bit of a pet issue of mine lately (see also the Sarah Jeong twitter controversy) but I really question the encyclopedic relevance of Twitter trolling campaigns. They're ephemeral by nature thanks to the platform; designed to flash in the pan. Google trends supports this interpretation. This is not something with any lasting relevance. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Independent and Political have Antifa labelled as a Domestic terrorist organization by FBI and DHS [1] [2]
Article should reflect this D3bug l0gic ( talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Thats a bit buried isnt it? D3bug l0gic ( talk) 01:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The Department of Homeland Security has labeled Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization as of September 2017. This is due to the organization attacking police and government institutions [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipherre ( talk • contribs) 06:06 18 October 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This
edit request to
Antifa (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Antifa should actually be called a "far left" activist group in the very firs line for clarity. 2607:FCC8:6083:7F00:FCA4:9501:B9B:258E ( talk) 19:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This has been discussed repeatedly on this talk page (review the archives and you'll see it many times). ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?) 22:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)So looks like there is some edit warring going on over "those whom they perceive to be" in "fascists, racists and right wing extremists" supported by
this source. My guess is "perceive to be" seems to be appropriate since the source says Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump
. Which is saying they are using their own definition of fascism, not the standard definition. So it would be who they perceive as fascist. The source also states Another concern is the misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries
straight up saying perceived fascist adversaries.
PackMecEng (
talk) 00:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
harassing those whom they identify as fascists, racists or right wing extremistsas well I suppose. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. Give me a moment and I will see if I can dig up more. Also no worries, happens a lot PackMecEng ( talk) 20:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused why there's so much effort to dance around the fact that the source states that it's unclear, even among members, what they believe these terms mean. It's so much more accurate to say "perceive to be" than to attempt to qualify every single attack. OnceASpy ( talk) 14:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It says it in the article. That's sourced info. Reading an article and citing it isn't Original Research. OnceASpy ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
"perceive to be" seems to be the best description, as stated in the source as well as here. Can we put this to rest? OnceASpy ( talk) 16:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
harassing those whom they identify as fascists, racists or right wing extremists.PackMecEng ( talk) 18:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I haven't had time to weigh in on this thus far but just wanted to offer a point that I don't think has been made above. The problem with "perceived to be", from my perspective, is separate from (or additional to) whether or not it's supported by the sources. The problem is that that phrasing actively reduces the meaningfulness of the sentence by introducing an unnecessary ambiguity. Whether something is "perceived to be" the case tells us nothing about whether it is the case, and conflates things that are obviously not true (some people perceive that the Earth is flat) with things that are obviously true (I perceive that it's dark outside). By way of comparison, we do not say that the French national football team perceived themselves to be playing Croatia in the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final, even though that would be true, because it's a functionally useless and unhelpful claim that obscures the fact that France did play Croatia in that match. If we can't affirmatively make the coherent and useful claim that antifa groups oppose fascists (I think we can, though I haven't had time to look at the sources in much depth), then we ought to find a replacement that is similarly useful, rather than settle on a wording that avoids actually telling the reader anything of any substance. I would suggest that such a replacement might be found by looking at the relevant scholarly literature (e.g. Mark Bray's book), rather than piecing things together from somewhat offhand comments in news media sources. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with your analogy is that there is empirical evidence of the soccer match and multiple sources confirm it. In this instance, we have sources that relay what the group says they do (which on Wikipedia, we don't allow self-reporting from subjects of an article), and sources that specifically state the incongruity of the definitions even among members. "perceive to be" is supported by the sources, and informs readers that this is the groups perception, regardless of the validity of their accusations. They, themselves, cannot agree on what the terms actually mean, but they assert them nonetheless. And again, this is supported by the source. The wording could be seen as vague, but that's because the group in itself is vague on these claims. OnceASpy ( talk) 19:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, to address @Dumuzid , I prefer "perceive" only because their claims of these terms seems to be situational, rather than simply a disagreement accross members. But I wouldn't object to "deem". OnceASpy ( talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Can we settle on "deem" OnceASpy ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
One recent IP edit changed the short description to "far-left militant hate group". The edit was 3 days old before I discovered and reverted it just now. Short descriptions are probably one of the first things people on WP mobile app will read. We need to be more vigilant on Wikidata as well.
I also changed it to "left-wing anti-fascist movement of militant groups in the United States" for more brevity and matching to the article lead. I hope this will be helpful. Thanks. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 01:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Antifa (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"harassing" should be changed to "ostracizing". Catfacts22 ( talk) 01:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
wp:notforum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Are y'all members of ANTIFA? Seems like a very sympathetic article to a terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C726:DAD1:BF78:960B:B396:C4A9 ( talk) 12:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with this accusation of favoritism. This article for the most part reflects a neutral point of view. It mentions the acts of violence committed by the movement, their radical beliefs, and some of their more controversial actions. As someone opposed to Antifa myself, I find the article to be quite fair and unbiased. Anasaitis ( talk) 21:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the unsigned comment and with KirnMagic and others that the article is not neutral as it stands. In my earnest attempt to help mitigate the problem in favor of neutrality I would like to remind all editors: WP:PA WP:BULLY WP:POV railroad WP:Civility /info/en/?search=Shadow_banning SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Well hello again Dumuzid. I believe that I have a consensus that the article isn't as neutral as it could be and that is why I highlighted several others who have had concern. Let's take it at that to agree to disagree. Peace out... SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 13:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
Antifa are fascist groups using the veil of anti-facist. Violence, threats of violence and stopping free speech are fascist characteristics. History shows that. Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018
This
edit request to
Antifa (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2605:6000:1702:C1B6:E0D2:6080:F41:6831 ( talk) 10:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I concur with the sentiment above that Antifa may themselves be fascist groups using the veil of anti-facist; however, my interest is in keeping the article as neutral as possible. I caution such commentary requires hard facts and citation. As Wikipedians we must follow the rules and gain consensus. There is no UserTalk to take this offline, so I thought I'd add the following. One can argue that fascism is a more of a left-wing ideology. In simplest terms, according to Macmillan for children (Simon & Schuster books), fascism is a political system led by a dictator in which all industry is controlled by the government. Fascism encourages extreme nationalism and does not allow people to have opposing political ideas.
For some reason, left-wing activists would like to put the blame on the right-wing for fascism. This angers someone in the right-wing when they few the left wing as the fascists trying to conflate. I express these things not to spur a political debate, but rather to have us all be mindful that labeling is a sensitive area and we must all remain as neutral as possible. SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 23:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
Just curious why my previous content was removed here for view? I'd like to remind editors that no one owns any article on Wikipedia and when content is continually removed and when there is no discussion then one feels there is a WP:BULLY ?! This is a talk page for heavens sake. Am I being silenced? Case in point is that the semi-protected page sub section should be removed if it's not content that's up for discussion. I'm concerned because removing this data allows anyone capable of editing a page the ability to shape the narrative about that subject by creating original criticism -- even talk pages! Again, I’m reaching out to the impassioned editors and I extend an olive branch.
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 00:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Where would the appropriate place be to include black bloc on the antifa page? Black bloc is an identifying marker of antifa and I don’t see any controversy with inclusion of my research. Since there seems to be some individual discussions with editors, I'm now looking for consensus or discussion on the antifa talk page.
Here is the research which connects the two: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/ https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 17:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
A proposal stands to insert a heading section for discussion on black bloc. Since the suggestion was a heading should not have just one sentence, I propose the following: "The Antifa activists generally wear black bloc, a look characterized by a combination of black hoodies, black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks, goggles or gloves. Some antifa activists bring red flags, shirts or shields and this may distinguish them from other kinds of black bloc activists, protesters or counter protesters. Dressing in black bloc promotes cohesion and unity with the other antifa members as it allows members privacy or anonymity. [1]" SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Please don’t minimize my research and this news source. The Mercury News is a nonpartisan source of local news and it’s the fifth largest daily newspaper in the United States. The Mercury News article best describes antifa, and is relevant to the Wikipedia content describing antifa: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/
The Mercury News Article article reads: “They wear black pants and sweatshirts, with either helmets or hoods over their heads, bandanas across their faces — and dark sunglasses, goggles or gas masks over their eyes. Many carry makeshift shields and flags, whose staffs can quickly become weapons. They call themselves “antifa,” short for anti-fascist, and they’re part of a loosely organized national network of anonymous anarchists.”
Regarding photographic evidence in another conversation with an editor.... Some have said pictures are inadmissible, I’d like you to note that I’ve not affixed any imagery to either black bloc or antifa articles. Mercury News is one of the sources listed at the top of this subsection that I found describing the antifa black bloc look.
I have been trying to gain consensus. On Aug 5 2018 an editor reverted my copy for the following reasons. (Non-neutral language. WP:TONE. Black bloc already has an article.)
“The Antifa activist look generally is a black characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles or black hoodies and sunglasses with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.”
The copy is neutral, Black bloc is not slang, and I used qualifiers (generally and some). Help me understand the problem?
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 22:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The Antifa activist look may include black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles. [1] The shadowy activists may wear black hoods and sunglasses [2], though not always. Some carry makeshift shields or weapons as well, or flags [3] The tactic is known as "black bloc" [4] a strategy that may hide their identity or show cohesion.
Dear Arms & Hearts, Please refrain from a personal attack (use of word heiniously). In truth. I had added the black bloc information to the lede as it is an integral part of the story. It belongs in the lede, but in the spirit of collaboration I was open to ideas. Instead it got buried.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a
Having said the above, I'm sure we can come to resolution on a simple set of sentences. I wonder why there is so much debate about the specific style of clothing for which is well documented.
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 01:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Today I added a citation to another editor's entry on "Domestic Terrorism." I also added a sentence about antifa in this regard tied to the Department of Homeland Security. Here is the transaction..
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared the activities of antifa as “domestic terrorist violence” in 2017. https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396
However as quickly as the edits and additions came there were reverts without collaboration efforts what-so-ever. Isn't there a three revert rule? I noted Drmies has reverted copy three times (below is the record). I just cut and paste for convenience to document the three changes:
3 (cur | prev) 04:28, 11 August 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) . . (48,042 bytes) (-100) . . (Reverted 1 edit by 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam: Last time for me. need an admin to look at this in the light of DS. again: the BBC ref (or the misplaced Newsweek ref) IN NO WAY support this. (TW)) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 04:25, 11 August 2018 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk | contribs) . . (48,142 bytes) (+100) . . (Undid revision 854409396 by Drmies (talk) Please explain how it's a ruse when the source supports this.) (Tag: Undo)
2 (cur | prev) 04:13, 11 August 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) . . (48,042 bytes) (-100) . . (Reverted to revision 854409096 by Drmies (talk): No, you also reinstated, without verification, the "domestic terrorism" ruse. be more careful please. (TW)) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 04:12, 11 August 2018 SDSU-Prepper (talk | contribs) . . (48,142 bytes) (+100) . . (Added citation https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396) (Tag: Undo)
1 (cur | prev) 04:10, 11 August 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) . . (48,042 bytes) (-100) . . (Reverted to revision 854407975 by Newimpartial (talk): No, the BBC ref doesn's say that at all. (TW)) (Tag: Undo)
As a reminder, no one person owns a Wikipedia article. I've worked hard to gain consensus on the talk page.
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 04:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Antifa (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Antifa should definitionally be referred to as a hate group as the actions and opinions of large swaths if not a majority of the group fulfill every requirement of the term. It is beyond reasonable doubt that rampant violent speech and actions against law enforcement and media members warrant this label. Consensus should not prevent this change, as facts exist separate from consensus, and when they are this abundantly clear, they should supersede consensus opinion.
Original: "The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant[2][3][4][5][6] groups in the United States" Proposed Change: "The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-proclaimed anti-fascist militant[2][3][4][5][6] hate groups in the United States" Tcevidanes ( talk) 03:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. This template specifically says it's for uncontroversial edits, or for edits supported by consensus. Your opinion that antifa is a hate group is not supported by reliable sources nor consensus, and is definitely controversial.
Grayfell (
talk) 04:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Please delete "opposition to the infiltration of Britain's punk scene by white power skinheads in the 1970s and 1980s, and ", which is not supported by the source, which just says "But in the ’70s and ’80s, neo-Nazi skinheads began to infiltrate Britain’s punk scene." It doesn't link it to antifa.
BTW, I think the source is in error anyway; the punk scene in the UK in the seventies was linked to Rock Against Racism, but that was non-violent; I don't think it was infiltrated by skinheads. Rather, the skinheads adopted some of the trappings of punk (see Oi!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDemeanour ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
MrDemeanour ( talk) 15:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Opening for discussion before making a protected edit request, I propose stripping out the Trevor Noah "vegan ISIS" joke from the responses to ANTIFA section. Noah is not a politician or an expert, and I would dispute that a comedian's joke is encyclopedic in character. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
"Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions."If we're going to use this, given the use of "current" in the quote we should mention the month of publication. And I wonder if we ought also to mention Bray and Reid Ross's respective specialisms, i.e. refer to them as "the geographer Alexander Reid Ross" (which seems to be right) and "the historian Mark Bray" respectively. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, following RS lead works for me. Will make more revisions tomorrow AM
Remove: Trevor Noah, host of the popular late-night television program The Daily Show jokingly referred to antifa as "Vegan ISIS".[79]
Insert: Antifa movements have provoked varying reactions within the academic community; Noam Chomsky described them as "a major gift to the right" [1] While historian Mark Bray said, "Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions." [2] Anti-fascist author and organizer, Alexander Reid Ross said that antifa groups represented, "one of the best models for channeling the popular reflexes and spontaneous movements towards confronting fascism in organized and focused ways." [3] Cornel West was present with Rev. Traci Blackmon attending a counter-protest to the Unite the Right rally. He said, "we would have been crushed like cockroaches if it were not for the anarchists and the anti-fascists," describing a situation where a group of 20 counter-protesters were surrounded by marchers who he described as, "neofascists." [4] Simonm223 ( talk) 17:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Down less than two days and we're getting persistent IPV6 vandalism. Asked for an increase in protection. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that will deal with that for now. With thanks. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Why are we shying away from identifying antifa as left wing activists? This article is a citation inserted by another editor which demostrates use of the description of antifa: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/
I'm taking a preemptive approach to open the dialog for consensus as virtually all of my valid research has been reverted and I'm concerned about the neutrality and accuracy.
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This sentence has an ambiguous use of the word Alt-right:
"During a Berkeley protest on August 27, 2017, an estimated one hundred antifa protesters joined a crowd of 2,000–4,000 counter-protesters to attack a reported "handful" of alt-right demonstrators and Trump supporters who showed up for a "Say No to Marxism" rally that had been cancelled by organizers due to security concerns.[59][70]"
By its own source the headline reads: Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.
No where does the citation say "alt-right" and the copy does not make use of the words right-wing and left wing referencing the article.
Proposed sentence for consensus. "During a Berkeley protest on Aug. 27, 2017, an estimated one hundred antifa activists joined a crowd of 2,000–4,000 left-wing protesters to attack right-wing participants and Trump supporters in the "Say No to Marxism" rally, which had been cancelled by organizers because of security concerns.[59][70]"
SDSU-Prepper ( talk) 17:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Should the lead refer to antifa as "left wing" or "far-left"?"then give a mess of sources. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left. So they are saying most of them are far-left just not 100% which is to be expected. PackMecEng ( talk) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
'Left-wing' is a broadly-NPOV term. I don't think anyone has claimed that there are right-wing antifa. However the term 'far-left' has a meaning that depends on the political posture of the speaker; some right-wing americans (in particular) consider anyone on the left of european politics to be 'far-left'. I don't like the term 'far-left' at all; but if it has to be used, I think it should be reserved for those advocating violent revolution.
What unites antifa groups is their opposition to fascism, not some specific shade of left-wing-ness. Different antifa have different positions on the left-right axis. MrDemeanour ( talk) 11:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Most of what I've done has been grammar fixes, typos fixed and clarifications of text (particularly quotes - no changes to meaning or content of quotes) for readability.
One major edit is trying to track down all the instances of "antifa, AntiFa and Antifa" and - with the exception of historic naming exclusions to the consistency - have moved to the consistent "Antifa". I've also changed content from "Antifa activists" and "antifa protesters" or "Antifa members" to just "Antifa have done XXX" for consistency, as the Antifa is not autonomous and does not specifically define itself in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelastauroch ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Have also added in section re Antifa being listed as a domestic terrorist group by the DHS, with 3 citations. This seems to me to be pretty significant regarding an activism group, and I am surprised there was no mention of it. Possible bias prior to my edits?
Anyway, the page is *vastly* improved (I think!) with a lot more internal links, clarifications and overall a lot more readable. Cheers.
Oh, and I agree the page should be semi-protected. It's clearly a hot(ish) topic, and vandalism does nobody any favors. Cheers (again). Thelastauroch ( talk) 01:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)TheLastAuroch
Hi
There are problems with the bracketing of the titles. The link to the site is not compatible with certain coding. For instance: /info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States)
The brackets at the end interfere with the code and when you click on it you get a malformed link. For instance this code on reddit: [Go read about them]( /info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States)). translates to the following address because of the double brackets at the end: /info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States The bracket is removed.
Don't know how to fix it other than changing the bracket to something else in the address bar.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusSab ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Antifa_%28United_States%29
goes to the same target as
/info/en/?search=Antifa_(United_States)
. But, as DanielRigal has said, it's really a problem with Reddit rather than a problem for Wikipedia to solve. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk) 17:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Between Thelastauroch removing it and Doug Weller adding it back as a better descriptor I am not sure either direct action or violence are the best answer. I have a bit more issue with direct action at the moment, that to Doug's point it is certainly a more broad term that covers things they do that violence does not. That said it seems overly broad which covers just showing up to protest all the way to assassination and insurrection. Would there be a better term to describe them or perhaps give direct action more of a definition as it relates to this group in the article itself? I see we do have a link to it when it's first used, but again it is a very broad term. PackMecEng ( talk) 12:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@simon223 - It *is* problematic, and I'm not sure which is better, because of course we want the page to remain as neutral and accurate as possible (at least, that is my goal). Perhaps referring to both direct action and violence, where appropriate, as Antifa seem to use both? I know it has the risk of making the page less readable, but I do believe that accuracy is more important than ultra-readability. Thelastauroch ( talk) 09:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch
Is there any evidence of sustained coverage of the White House petition beyond the one "and now they answered the petition but it doesn't matter" ref? Because I'm inclined to remove it completely unless it's able to meet that bar. Want to discuss here before acting unilaterally. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
"This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else"which seems to apply to this situation. But anyhow if it is notable everywhere else why would it not be here besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It would be odd to have it everywhere else as easily notable but not here on an article that is generally less notable than the other subjects of petitions. PackMecEng ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a random troll's anonymous petition to ask the White House to do something they can't really do as being significant. It got picked up by Fox, an a bunch of Conservative online outlets. Then nothing happened. Then the White House said, "nothing will continue happening," and then the Verge said, "the White House isn't doing anything." It's a non-issue with no coverage aside from a bunch of signal boosts from the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The existence of other petitions elsewhere just goes to show that people are lax with WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED where Star Wars ephemera and such is involved. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we really want to give Fourchan the pleasure of a reference to their abysmal little trolling campaigns? This has been a bit of a pet issue of mine lately (see also the Sarah Jeong twitter controversy) but I really question the encyclopedic relevance of Twitter trolling campaigns. They're ephemeral by nature thanks to the platform; designed to flash in the pan. Google trends supports this interpretation. This is not something with any lasting relevance. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Independent and Political have Antifa labelled as a Domestic terrorist organization by FBI and DHS [1] [2]
Article should reflect this D3bug l0gic ( talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Thats a bit buried isnt it? D3bug l0gic ( talk) 01:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The Department of Homeland Security has labeled Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization as of September 2017. This is due to the organization attacking police and government institutions [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipherre ( talk • contribs) 06:06 18 October 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This
edit request to
Antifa (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Antifa should actually be called a "far left" activist group in the very firs line for clarity. 2607:FCC8:6083:7F00:FCA4:9501:B9B:258E ( talk) 19:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This has been discussed repeatedly on this talk page (review the archives and you'll see it many times). ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?) 22:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)So looks like there is some edit warring going on over "those whom they perceive to be" in "fascists, racists and right wing extremists" supported by
this source. My guess is "perceive to be" seems to be appropriate since the source says Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump
. Which is saying they are using their own definition of fascism, not the standard definition. So it would be who they perceive as fascist. The source also states Another concern is the misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries
straight up saying perceived fascist adversaries.
PackMecEng (
talk) 00:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
harassing those whom they identify as fascists, racists or right wing extremistsas well I suppose. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. Give me a moment and I will see if I can dig up more. Also no worries, happens a lot PackMecEng ( talk) 20:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused why there's so much effort to dance around the fact that the source states that it's unclear, even among members, what they believe these terms mean. It's so much more accurate to say "perceive to be" than to attempt to qualify every single attack. OnceASpy ( talk) 14:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It says it in the article. That's sourced info. Reading an article and citing it isn't Original Research. OnceASpy ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
"perceive to be" seems to be the best description, as stated in the source as well as here. Can we put this to rest? OnceASpy ( talk) 16:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
harassing those whom they identify as fascists, racists or right wing extremists.PackMecEng ( talk) 18:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I haven't had time to weigh in on this thus far but just wanted to offer a point that I don't think has been made above. The problem with "perceived to be", from my perspective, is separate from (or additional to) whether or not it's supported by the sources. The problem is that that phrasing actively reduces the meaningfulness of the sentence by introducing an unnecessary ambiguity. Whether something is "perceived to be" the case tells us nothing about whether it is the case, and conflates things that are obviously not true (some people perceive that the Earth is flat) with things that are obviously true (I perceive that it's dark outside). By way of comparison, we do not say that the French national football team perceived themselves to be playing Croatia in the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final, even though that would be true, because it's a functionally useless and unhelpful claim that obscures the fact that France did play Croatia in that match. If we can't affirmatively make the coherent and useful claim that antifa groups oppose fascists (I think we can, though I haven't had time to look at the sources in much depth), then we ought to find a replacement that is similarly useful, rather than settle on a wording that avoids actually telling the reader anything of any substance. I would suggest that such a replacement might be found by looking at the relevant scholarly literature (e.g. Mark Bray's book), rather than piecing things together from somewhat offhand comments in news media sources. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with your analogy is that there is empirical evidence of the soccer match and multiple sources confirm it. In this instance, we have sources that relay what the group says they do (which on Wikipedia, we don't allow self-reporting from subjects of an article), and sources that specifically state the incongruity of the definitions even among members. "perceive to be" is supported by the sources, and informs readers that this is the groups perception, regardless of the validity of their accusations. They, themselves, cannot agree on what the terms actually mean, but they assert them nonetheless. And again, this is supported by the source. The wording could be seen as vague, but that's because the group in itself is vague on these claims. OnceASpy ( talk) 19:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, to address @Dumuzid , I prefer "perceive" only because their claims of these terms seems to be situational, rather than simply a disagreement accross members. But I wouldn't object to "deem". OnceASpy ( talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Can we settle on "deem" OnceASpy ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
One recent IP edit changed the short description to "far-left militant hate group". The edit was 3 days old before I discovered and reverted it just now. Short descriptions are probably one of the first things people on WP mobile app will read. We need to be more vigilant on Wikidata as well.
I also changed it to "left-wing anti-fascist movement of militant groups in the United States" for more brevity and matching to the article lead. I hope this will be helpful. Thanks. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 01:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Antifa (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"harassing" should be changed to "ostracizing". Catfacts22 ( talk) 01:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)