Talk:Antifa (United States)

Reason for revert?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1197320560 Hi @Objective3000: why did you revert this edit? FMSky (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I explained it in the revert -- despite the claim that you made otherwise. And please watch your edit summaries: i love how the most important thing was listed last to hide it a bit, this article is so disgusting and biased its insane . Suggesting that editors are including "insane" text, accusing editors of bad motivations, and snarky edit summaries ain't the way to collaborate. WP:AGF WP:CIV WP:REVTALK O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So why is the current version better than the one i proposed? --FMSky (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you quickly edited your initial response to remove some untoward text. Doesn't appear to be a good time for a discussion. My bedtime anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So basically you dont even know it yourself. I'll restore it then unless you can make a convincing argument --FMSky (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Another snark. The onus is on you to present your case for a change. Calling the article "insane" in an edit summary is not an argument. Good night. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, per WP:REVEXP you should explain your reason for your revert. You didn't do that --FMSky (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Violence was listed last because the next sentence reads Most antifa political activism is nonviolent, soibangla (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd object to the proposed re-ordering for that reason. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Good that you brought that up, i looked at the 3 sources and none even remotely stated that, and i have requested a citation. --FMSky (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. So, the local NBC news source certainly has nothing to back up the questioned language, but the other two sources do. Vox includes these sentences, which are the strongest support: Members of antifa groups do more conventional activism, flyer campaigns, and community organizing, on behalf of anti-racist and anti-white nationalist causes. This type of work, according to Bray, makes up the “vast majority” of antifa activity. So, point there. The Congressional Research Service includes this: Some members are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protest such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching. So, we have a good source (if one with a partisan valence) saying "most" and a source I consider quite good saying "much." I am kind of wobbling--I don't hate the language as it is now, but I think a case could be made for changing the 'most' to 'much.' Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Have a good weekend, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So the only thing we have to support "most" is this Bray guy it seems --FMSky (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a secondary scholarly source to the body referencing work by Bray and Vysotsky showing that antifa is mostly nonviolent. I would recommend dropping the analysis from the first paragraph so that it says:

Antifa political activism includes non-violent methods like involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing. Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage.

At the end of the third paragraph, where we're discussing scholarly views, I'd add "Some research suggests that most antifa action is nonviolent." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The most neutral version would be: Antifa political activism includes non-violent methods like involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing, but also doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage. --FMSky (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say we have enough for some sort of 'much' qualifier with the nonviolence, maybe a 'most,' but reasonable minds may certainly differ on the issue. Dumuzid (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with "Much of antifa political activism uses non-violent ...". I think both my proposal, amended with "much" or not, and FMSky's proposal are improvements over the status quo, but I'm wary of a Chesterton's fence situation with the whole "Some who identify" bit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

But the sources (which were removed from the lead after being requested!) specifically say "most" or words to that effect; just saying that it saying "includes" non-violent methods is misrepresenting them. I also disagree with characterizing it as "some research", which violates WP:NPOV, Avoid stating facts as opinions. If it were only Bray saying this it might make sense to use attribution, but we have several sources, including a peer-reviewed paper; just describing it as "some research" (which carries the uncited implication that there is other research that disagrees) is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Which sources say most? I know of ADL, Bray (in a few places), and Vysotsky saying so in their own voices, and other sources quoting them. I'm not sure which peer-reviewed paper you're referring to, but if it's Jaccoud et al., they are attributing to Bray and Vysotsky. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

These, to start:

• For sure, even if most of their “everyday anti-fascism” is non-violent, militant anti-fascists use violence in confronting targets. (Context makes it clear they are talking about antifa.)
• A rally organized by far-right political groups led to a violent clash with counter-protestors, including Antifa—a historically nonviolent movement that primarily takes collective action in opposition to fascist movements.

I'd have added more but adding citations from the body for a CN tag seemed simple enough. --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

First one is great. Second not so much, since "historically" doesn't mean "majority". Are you saying that you know of more? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

well there's these:

Most antifa counterprotesters tend to be nonviolent but several encounters with far-right groups have turned violent, according to the ADL.[1]

Broadly labeled antifa, for “antifascist,” such protesters are part of a loose affiliation of far-left groups and individuals who unite around a willingness to confront, sometimes violently, anyone they perceive to be an agent of racism, anti-Semitism or fascism...[2]

Most people who show up to counter or oppose white supremacist public events are peaceful demonstrators, but when militant antifa adherents show up, they can increase the chances that an event may turn violent. There have been instances where encounters between antifa supporters and the far-right have turned violent.[3]

But the antifa label is most often applied to smaller-scale groups of like-minded people who live in the same community, working to prevent fascists from threatening their targets and from attracting new followers. These groups are rarely militant or violent. Most of them engage in commonly accepted forms of political activism. For instance, anti-fascists often work to find out where fascist groups and people are active in an area, and then share that information with the wider community, bringing that activity to public attention.[4]

The FBI nevertheless assessed that criminals—not Antifa or other ideologically motivated individuals—perpetrated the vast majority of looting and violence.[5]

A review of recent cases and an interview Friday with senior FBI officials shows most of them, with a few exceptions, appear to be instances of people capitalizing on the chaos rather than those engaging in violence orchestrated by ideological groups. “Most of what we’re seeing is just that opportunistic individual that’s taking advantage of the peaceful protests, almost as cover as a way to conduct their criminal behavior,” said Jill Sanborn, assistant director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counterterrorism division.[6]

soibangla (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This also again shows the need to label them far-left outright, its definitely the most common descriptor --FMSky (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

but we're not talking about far-left, we're talking about violence, aren't we? soibangla (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, will you drop the stick already? One of those cites mentioned the far-left, and that's the only thing you could focus on, distracting from the point of this discussion. It's becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Unhelpful, toxic comment --FMSky (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Tbh i will probably not comment here anymore or make anymore edits to the article. Im tired to getting swarmed by a toxic mob everytime i express an opinion that differs from the accepted mainstream standard. I'll just let you guys live in your little echo chamber where you can pretend antifa is a "left-wing nonviolent group". no-one takes this site seriously anymore anyway. bye --FMSky (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any value to add besides being a bully? Knock it off please. PackMecEng (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no bullying, just frustration with someone POV-pushing. Since they've disengaged, so did I, until you dragged this back out. I'm done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've warned FMSky about their behavior here and an edit summary/. We expect a high standard of civility and good faith in CT areas. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller You are giving formal warnings to a user you are in a content dispute with?[7] That seems unwise. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@PackMecEng Nah, I just can't sanction them. Anyone can give a warning. They didn't reply, just reverted it. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller No, a formal warning is a threat of tool use and you know that. Period, full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. Anybody can warn. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not so much, a threat to use tools when involved in a content dispute, not great. Anyone can warn, that is not the problem. The problem is threatening tool use when involved. Like seriously, is that even a question for you? PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If your premise was correct, an administrator could never edit in a contentious topic. They just have to avoid using administrative tools. Administrators have no special status that you're trying to imply. It's not a threat, and there is no administrative involvement created by issuing a warning. . Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If I am involved with someone I can’t sanction but nowhere does it say I can’t warn, And even involved Admins can take people to ANI, AE, Arbitration, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

But that is not what you did is it? No.... You said Consider this a forema warning - this is a Contentious Topics area and you can be blocked or topic banned (if editing in the topic arda) if you continue in this vein anywhere. Of course you are welcome to bring them to any of those place, but you didn't. Also Acroterion, you completely wrong. The hyperbole of if you cant threaten tool use when involved means you cannot edit anything is just plan wrong. Again, the issue is threatening a block while involved. PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a warning that someone can impose a sanction, not the editor giving a warning. And your comment that The Hand was the bully in this thread is way off. FMSky could have received a logged warning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a standard warning anyone can give. The argument that this was a "threat" of action by Doug is something that's never been upheld in all my experience on Wikipedia. If you really thing Doug overstepped, take it to ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention WP:INVOLVED. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I added the bit about the ADL to the body. I think most of the other quotes are in the vicinity of what we're talking about here, but maybe not all the way i ? The "But the antifa label" one is Visotsky summarizing his book, which is now cited (indirectly) in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Incorrect Quoting

"Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."

Why is it worded like this? The article clearly says that they are highly decentralized and autonomous and the cited articles mention they are anonymous, but then uses word play to suggest that those who do perpetrate the bad acts aren't actually Antifa, but then says all antifa, and antifa members, all stand for the same thing and go about it the same way and if they don't they aren't necessarily antifa? The intent is questionable at best. You can't use such broad strokes and generalizations for all Antifa. The wording should be along the lines of "Some Antifa Members are known to protest using the following methods" or omit the word "some", you can't pick and choose what forms of protest are Antifa approved, there isn't some membership book that says who is and isn't antifa and retroactively revoke it when they do something that isnt "antifa approved" by a non-existent governing body. The preceding sentence states that (all) Antifa use *These Methods* but some people who identify as antifa use *These Methods*. I read the cited articles and none of them mention this facet, no paraphrasing or anything. It's a complete sentence making a bold and specific claim with no citation, or worse, an unrelated citation. HoadRog (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If there is no membership, then we cannot call anyone a member. United States anti-abortion movement#Violence says, "A small extremist element of the [pro-life] movement in the US supports, raises money for, and attempts to justify anti-abortion violence, including murders of abortion workers." Maybe the broader movement in both cases encourages violence and should be held responsible. But that's not for us to say. Instead, we report those claims with attribution to whomever made them. TFD (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This new editor has made 20 edits in all, the last edit being at Talk:Fake news 29 months ago. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

And who made the claim? there is no citation for this. The writing says almost verbatim that members of Antifa do this but that some people who identify antifa do this as-well, why is there this distinction? What is the source for saying Antifa members take action A but some people who identify as Antifa take action B instead? What is the justification for making it a stand-a-lone sentence that insinuates that people who take action B might not be antifa but that ALL antifa take action A? It should be grouped in the sentence that came directly before it.

As with what you said, why not make it say, "Some/small extremist elements of Antifa are known to protest using (List methods)." HoadRog (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The writing says almost verbatim that members of Antifa do this but that some people who identify antifa do this as-well, why is there this distinction?

Er, no, it doesn't. It doesn't make a distinction, it specifcially uses people who identify as antifa precisely because it's a voluntary label, not a formal membership. You're reading a distinction that isn't there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If membership is voluntary or self identifying, then why does the sentence that lists negative attributes prefaced with the self identifying moniker, but none of the preceding sentences are? Why is that not established earlier? It should be, "some people who identify as antifa take part in antifacist and antiracist political movements." If it's voluntary and self identifying, then I can easily provide anecdotal evidence that there are members of antifa that do not take part in antifacist and antiracist political movements by self identifying as Antifa. It's literally a no true Scotsman fallacy. Either give pretext for the entire article about this distinction clearly or don't do it at all. Shoe horning a disclaimer into a separate sentence listing negative actions taken by the group is disingenuous. The actions need to be added to the ones already listed, not made into their own without any independent main idea, the sentence exists only to say those actions are committed by some people who identify as antifa, hinting at them not actually being antifa. All the while the previous sentences make no mention of the self identifying characteristic of Antifa. If the group is self identifying, why is it only said in the fourth sentence, but the editor opted to not put it in the next or previous sentence about the exact same topic- actions taken by the group? Without a source, mind you. There should be a full complete sentence somewhere in the first paragraph noting this facet of Antifa, being that the group has no formal membership or that anyone can self identify voluntarily to be Antifa. And then remove the "Some people who identify as Antifa" part :) HoadRog (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If it’s self identifying, then the first half of the sentence is redundant. You can’t say there is only one group when you also say “antifa” and then “some people who identify as antifa” you made two distinct groups by adding that to the sentence unnecessarily. If you want to say “antifa=people who identify as antifa” that must be said very early on in the article, and then pick which term you want to use throughout the article, either antifa or people who identify as antifa. If you absolutely want to use them interchan geably, and I can’t ever imagine why in good faith you would, you need to establish that they are the same when talking about them before you do. HoadRog (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So which source specifically says that? I read through all the sources on the citation and none of them have any wording similar enough to warrant this kind of paraphrasing. actually, most of the articles included suggest membership is tangible. In-fact, a verbatim quote from the ADL source listed in citation no.6 says:

"While some antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces. They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence.

"Away from rallies, they also engage in “doxxing,” exposing their adversaries’ identities, addresses, jobs and other private information."

It needs to be re-worded. HoadRog (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a totally disingenuous read of those citations. Nothing about that suggests membership is tangible.

Also, resurrecting a section that's been dead for over 2 months is not a good look. WP:DEADHORSE applies here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, i'm just bringing attention to the ongoing isuse. Even if you think membership isn't tangible, why did the paraphrasing from the ADL source include a part that the ADL did not mention? it's like a reverse omission to include it. The ADL word-for-word is "antifa members do this." not "some who identify as antifa members do this." Someone who made that intro took some "creative liberties" on the paraphrasing is all im saying. I'll leave it at that and hope another individual comes along and has an interest in the subject like, say, Mr. @The Four Deuces who was the first to reply on the topic. I will leave it there if you wish? HoadRog (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the ADL is, as a source, appropriately due for statements in Wiki voice regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided links so editors don't have to find the version of the article you are referring to or the ADL article used. TFD (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20180401085658/https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa

This is the source they used in the second to last sentence of the introduction. If you go to the 2nd and 3rd to last paragraphs of the ADL article it states that antifa members use doxing and violence among a few other tactics - not people who identify as antifa do.

ADL says: "While some antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces. They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence."

"Away from rallies, they also engage in “doxxing,” exposing their adversaries’ identities, addresses, jobs and other private information. This can lead to their opponents being harassed or losing their jobs, among other consequences. Members of the alt right and other right wing extremists have responded with their own doxxing campaigns, and by perpetuating hateful and violent narratives using fake “antifa” social media accounts."

The Wikipedia entry says:

"Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."

It's just odd to include the "Who identify as" part when the rest of the intro doesn't make that distinction. The preceding sentence and the proceeding sentence do not do so, and they deal in absolutes about what antifa stands for and does. HoadRog (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pacific Beach Events

Is the Pacific Beach "antifa trial" being covered anywhere on Wikipedia?

So many sources: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/03/17/san-diego-antifa-trial-also-scrutinizes-right-wing-media-andy-ngo/11482238002/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2024/mar/05/stringers-antifa-asks-for-names-of-embedded-cops-in-pacific-beach-violence/ https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2024/05/03/two-men-convicted-conspiracy-riot-violent-2021-pacific-beach-protest https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/04/02/antifa-trial-pacific-beach-proud-boys-rally/73184411007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/05/03/antifa-trial-in-san-diego/73563573007/ https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2024-05-03/antifa-trial-verdict-san-diego https://www.kpbs.org/news/public-safety/2023/11/03/defense-attorney-asks-judge-to-remove-san-diego-district-attorney-from-antifa-conspiracy-case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im6plFhjC_4 https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-for-two-men-allegedly-involved-in-pacific-beach-protest-that-turned-violent/ https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-begins-deliberations-in-san-diego-antifa-conspiracy-case/ https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2023-11-17/san-diego-district-attorney-stephans-antifa-conspiracy-disqualification-ruling Kire1975 (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully not. Wikipedia isn't a news site. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)