Talk:Rose City Antifa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Refs

If you don't want to use harv refs I'll format them, but please don't change the style used currently Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a talk entry to discuss reference style. Can you talk a little more about why you chose this style? It seems inconsistent with the way Harvard Referencing is typically done eg. in-text (Author DATE) or (Author Date pg.). I'm not an expert, but it looks like if you replace "sfn" macros with "harv" macros, you can get a result that looks more like Harvard Referencing. I know this is the way shortened footnotes are supposed to work, but I think the style looks broken: clicking on the reference hyperlink opens up a partial reference, which must be clicked on again to get to the full reference in a nested popup.

More importantly, can you talk about why Harvard Referencing is appropriate here, in an article of this size? It seems like the advantages of Harvard referencing it that it makes access to the reference information easier for the reader to access, but with hypertext linked footnotes, this seems like a much less useful feature. Since the article is so small, jumping to the bottom of the article and back again isn't that big a deal anyway.

I know Wikipedia doesn't officially have a house style, but the default use of <ref> tags seems pretty well established. An explanation would be an excellent addition to the nice work you did establishing a consistent style across all of the references.

Paraphrasis (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

1999 “Battle of Seattle” protests against the World Trade Organization

I believe anarchist elements in Portland that later became Rose City Antifa played a key role in the WTO protests[1]. It would be good to have a section on the background and history of this group as well as a section on their current activities, IMO C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Images

Might want to look at commons:Category:Patriot Prayer and counterprotest in Portland (9 December 2017). RCA was reported to have been at that event.

Also, I went to the Impeachment March today and took some photos (commons:Category:March for Impeachment in Portland, Oregon (20 January 2018)) - a group called "Rose City Black Guards" was mentioned as part of that event but I'm not sure whether they are related. MB298 (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

None of the images from the rally say the counter protesters are RCA, for us to do so would be OR Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: File:Patriot Prayer vs Antifa protests. Dec-09-2017. Portland. Photo 1 of 14 (38966264051).jpg says "The right-wing Patriot Prayer group rallied in downtown Portland to protest the acquittal of an undocumented immigrant in the shooting death of Californian, Kate Steinles. Anti-fascist group Rose City Antifa showed up to counter protest. The two groups started out yelling across adjacent blocks. There was a minor skirmish or two. Later they marched down to the waterfront while yelling insults at each other. There was a bloody nose, some mace spraying and one arrest. Above is a very Portland scene. Counter protestor on each side of the street and some riot clad police - with a Subaru in the middle." MB298 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that one, not a great image though Darkness Shines (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggest a name change to better fit with sources

Suggest: "Portland Antifa (Rose City) or some variation of it.

Rose City Antifa is merely a sub-set of the larger Antifa movement in Portland from what the sources seem to indicate with groups like the antifascist groups 'Oregon Students Empowered and Direct Action Alliance' and others that co-ordinate through websites like itsgoingdown.org/ and www.rosecityantifa.org/ to develop reactions to conservative and alt-right protests and marches. With a more general name of 'Portland Antifa' it will be far easier to expand the article and have 'Rose City' as a sub-section in the article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest first adding some content under the section "Other Portland Antifa groups" or similar. If it looks like the content is heavily weighted towards these other group, then it may make sense to move the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to proceed, I find more sources for 'Portland' Antifa and Rose City, so it seems like some type of merger between to two would help to allow this article to expand in a less confined space. Thanks - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What the source says

The Portland Police Bureau said it later received reports of individuals throwing “milkshakes” with a substance mixed in that was similar to a quick-drying cement - the Independent. The police said "they received reports," not that they have verified that such a thing actually happened. The source also does not say who was responsible or who was the target. You cannot simply make up and assume things not in sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 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? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Even Fox News qualifies the claim as "said to be", and DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING about who was claimed to throw them - it simply says "demonstrators" and notes that people on both sides were detained for violence. Some of the demonstrators turned violent, throwing milkshakes said to be mixed with quick-drying cement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Quote removed regarding RCA's endorsement of property destruction

Arms & Hearts can you explain to me how it is not significant that RCA endorses property destruction? This seems clearly notable to me. Mbsyl (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I've made any claims about what is or is not "significant" in relation to this article. If this is in relation to this edit then I think the edit summary is quite clear, though I'm happy to clarify any specific points. Perhaps you could explain why you think the material I removed belongs in the article? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I need to make it clear that its WP:DUE that a political group publicly, in print, endorses property destruction as a political tactic? That's such a shocking question that I am left without words and must ask that you just tell me why you think it doesn't belong in the article.Mbsyl (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, unless a reliable source writes about it, we don't assign particular significance to a statement by subject about itself. What you need to include the quote from RCA is an accompanying source that analyzes how RCA uses property damage as a tactic. Then you can add the quote to show that, yes, they really did say that. Vexations (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Vexations It is my understanding that primary sources are sometimes allowed though. "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works Mbsyl (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, well, that's what I just tried to explain. You can use a primary source to show that the subject did indeed say that. But you need a secondary source who provides analysis to support a claim that something (property damage, for example) is a defining characteristic of a subject. Vexations (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am pretty new to editing. Can you tell me where WP says you can't so much as add more from the same sentence than is quoted in the RS? Because we need a secondary source to tell us that it is DUE when a political group that is involved in starting many riots in their city publicly endorses property destruction? Mbsyl (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, I think you may find Wikipedia:No original research helpful. Vexations (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source" -from the page you linked me to. i don't see why anyone would challenge what i added as it is clearly noteworthy information and is taken directly from RCA's website. Mbsyl (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, It was challenged. And if it wasn't sufficiently challenged to convince you that it was challenged, I will challenge it now. It must be supported by reliable sources. (more on that later). Vexations (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Original research might be the reason Mbsyl mentions riots, as our article doesn't mention them starting even one, let alone many. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Vexations "The movement’s profile has surged since Antifa activists engaged in a wave of property destruction during Donald Trump’s Inauguration" https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-intimate-history-of-antifa "Yeah, property destruction is certainly part of the repertoire of what some of these groups will do to achieve their goals." - Mark Bray (expert on antifa according to wiki article) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/antifa-violence-ethical-author-explains-why-n796106 Mbsyl (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

so if people stop responding after i show them that they are wrong, does that mean i get to restore my edit? Mbsyl (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

:No, it means that nobody has accepted your argument. Acroterion (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, I had hoped to show you that you had not acted in accordance with our policies and guidelines, and that your argument for inclusion does not have consensus. I'm sorry that I have been insufficiently clear. I hope that you can read my comments with charity and see the spirit, rather than the letter of our policies and guidelines clearer than I have been able to convey.

I'll address the specific sources you cited.

[2] says: The movement’s profile has surged since Antifa activists engaged in a wave of property destruction during Donald Trump’s Inauguration—when one masked figure famously punched the white supremacist Richard Spencer in the face—and ahead of a planned appearance, in February, by Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, which was cancelled. The phrase "during Donald Trump’s Inauguration" links to this article which doesn't mention antifa, but does state that it seemed clear on the day of the protest that the vandalism and property damage were committed by a small number of people and describes the difficulties of attributing the violence to a group. In other words, the violence cannot be attributed directly to "antifa".

Your second source, [3], does directly talk about property destruction in relation to the 2017 Berkeley protests. That article already mentions that "The interrupting protesters, which included Antifa activists and some who identified themselves as members of the left-wing group By Any Means Necessary set fires, damaged property, threw fireworks, attacked members of the crowd, and threw rocks at the police". Citing "we are not opposed to the tactic of property destruction" from the Rose City Antifa strategy page about their June 4 rally, while that article actually discourages people from engaging in it does not do anything to improve our article.

I hope that helps, Vexations (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Vexations Thanks for your patience and I assure you I really do try to see the 'spirit' of what people are saying. There may be 'difficulties attributing violence to the group' but the New Yorker does such in the quote that I gave, and Mark Bray, the antifa expert, does such in the 2nd quote I gave. Not only do they say that, but the New Yorker says that their profile surged since they started engaging in property destruction, making it a very important aspect of the movement. I fail to see how an article that New Yorker links to that says that it is difficult to attribute violence to antifa counters my 2 RS saying they do it, as well as RCA's Own Website saying they support the tactic. I also don't understand what you mean by the 2nd article discouraging people from engaging in property destruction somehow making the RCA quote not worthy of adding to the RCA article.Mbsyl (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, Well, let's try to sort this out. The New Yorker says: The movement’s profile has surged since Antifa activists engaged in a wave of property destruction during Donald Trump’s Inauguration and then links to another article, that article provides the context for the statement, but doesn't mention antifa, all we have is: "Antifa activists engaged in a wave of property destruction during Donald Trump’s Inauguration". That's not a great quote to use. It certainly does not establish that RCA engages in property damage.

Bray did say: You also mentioned property destruction. Yeah, property destruction is certainly part of the repertoire of what some of these groups will do to achieve their goals. Some say it’s violence, some say it’s not because it’s not against human beings, that’s a matter of opinion. He wasn't talking about Rose City Antifa specifically, but about antifa more broadly. The question NBC asked referred to the Berkeley protests though, in which RCA had no involvement, as far as we know.

with regards to RCA's Own Website saying they support the tactic: they say While we are not opposed to the tactic of property destruction, we would encourage other individuals and groups to seriously consider the strategic value of their chosen actions at this event. This is in accordance with the St. Paul principles. They're not supporting property destruction but applying the anarchist ethic of voluntary association and accountability. What they're saying is that militant tactics should not endanger people who did not consent to putting themselves at risk. Engaging in vandalism (their term) puts them at risk for mass arrests for very little tangible victory. They claim that vandalism has little impact beyond the symbolic. So per their own statement, they think that engaging in vandalism is a strategy that has little benefit and puts people who chose not to engage in it at risk. If you want to write about what strategies RCA uses, then by all means do so, but focusing solely on property damage or vandalism as a very important aspect of the movement is undue. You can't just pick one line from their strategy document and omit the context. Vexations (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, as "we are not opposed to the tactic of property destruction, we would encourage other individuals and groups to seriously consider the strategic value of their chosen actions at this event" seems pretty clear to me, and it is clearly not, as you say, them thinking "that engaging in vandalism is a strategy that has little benefit and puts people who chose not to engage in it at risk." If they were opposed to it, they would say something like what you said, but they aren't, so they said they aren't opposed to it, but be smart about how you do it.

Why does the source have to be about RCA? The sources are saying that antifa engages in property destruction, RCA is saying they are 'not opposed' to it. Isn't it a bit extreme in this circumstance to require RS to report directly on RCA's endorsement of or engagement in these tactics, given those 2 facts?

From the article you cited and that my New Yorker articled linked to: "In March, they obtained a warrant to search the home of a man described as a protest organizer and to take computers, cell phones, tablets, and any material documenting the planning of a “riot or ‘Black Bloc’ march” or the planned destruction of property." Black block is an antifa tactic.Mbsyl (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, Their words,not mine: Putting ourselves at risk for mass arrests for very little tangible victory is not a sustainable model It that an endorsement of vandalism?

In all seriousness: which, do you think, are the strategies and tactics that RCA employs? Which ones deserve mention? Vexations (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vexations The only way I can see to interpret your last quote from RCA is that they are saying don't destroy property in a way that puts the group at risk for mass arrests. That's the only way it makes sense next to their saying they are not opposed to property destruction. If they said they aren't opposed to murdering political rivals, but murders often put the group at risk of increased surveillance and arrest, would you say its not noteworthy that they publicly claimed that they aren't against murder? I don't want to get too into what I think of their tactics, as I don't see how that helps, but I think violent/destructive tactics, which they publicly endorse and which set them apart from virtually all other political groups, deserve mention - as they seem to be defining characteristics.Mbsyl (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, I don't think we have to worry too much about antifa or left-wing extremist announcing that they're going to be endorsing murder. See https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018#the-perpetrators.

Perhaps you can think about what I asked you earlier: Which strategies and tactics does RCA employ? Which ones deserve mention? For example: what we could focus on is their use of direct action as a form of self-defence against fascism that includes anonymous physical confrontations with fascists as something that distinguishes them from other anti-fascist groups. Vexations (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vexations I see supporters of antifa on Twitter, reddit, and other places endorsing murder of 'Nazis' all the time. All you have to do is read "Nazis" as "Trump Supporters" and you are ready for Years of Lead or worse. We know its nearly impossible to prove which strategies and tactics they employ, as they conceal their identities. The best we can do is look at what happens with antifa in general in Portland and look at what RCA says they do and see that there's a major overlap. And to say that RCA is fighting 'fascists' is a very extreme interpretation of events, in my opinion. Patriot Prayer are not much more than Trump Supporters who stand up against antifa, which ties nicely back into my point about how "Nazi" or "fascist" is code for "Trump Supporter" and antifa seems to be hellbent on taking us into a civil war.Mbsyl (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, your POV is showing. I'm happy to discuss how to improve the article, which is the purpose of this page, but this is not a forum, and not for general discussion about the subject of the article.

Back to the issue we were discussing. If I understand you correctly you're saying that its nearly impossible to prove which strategies and tactics they employ but you would like to mention at least one specific tactic, property destruction (vandalism). Is that correct? Vexations (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a strange way to summarize what I have said Vexations. You ignore my already mentioned reasoning "I think violent/destructive tactics, which they publicly endorse and which set them apart from virtually all other political groups, deserve mention - as they seem to be defining characteristics." "The best we can do is look at what happens with antifa in general in Portland and look at what RCA says they do and see that there's a major overlap." You showed POV when you said RCA is fighting fascists, but thanks for focusing on my POV.Mbsyl (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, Well, I did my best to articulate what you seemed to propose in my own words. If that misrepresents what you think we should do, I'm sorry I was unable re-express your position clearly and fairly. I saw an contradiction in your claim that I thought you might want to resolve.

I'll clarify what I think: Rose City Antifa engages in something that they call community defence against fascism. It's worth explaining to our readers what that means. What do they do (tactics) to achieve which goals (strategy)? If you think that it is not possible to do that, fair enough, but then please explain why we should make an exception for "endorsing property destruction".

As to your concerns about my POV or ability to write neutrally about a subject; you need not worry. I have no conflict of interest with the subject. I have a bias like most people, but I am firmly committed to Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and verifiability. I shouldn't have to do this, but I'll say that I abhor the use of violence, and think it is not just strategically, but also morally wrong. Yes, I am opposed to fascism (there's my bias), but I don't use the term pejoratively to label ideologies I dislike, and instead rely on definitions of fascism such as we discuss in Definitions of fascism.

Frankly I'd like to end this thread. The two of us are taking up a lot of space on this talk page. I'd like to invite you to propose the exact wording you'd want to include in the article, and then see if there is consensus for your proposal. Sound good? Vexations (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Organization?

If RCA is an organization, shall we add "WikiProject Organizations" and organization-related categories, such as Category:Organizations based in Portland, Oregon? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be putting the cart before the horse, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus that it is an organisation, nor (as far as I can tell from a cursory ctrl+f) do any of the sources cited in the article refer to it as such. (The discussion at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 3#Organisation categories might be relevant, though of course the issue is slightly different — it's more reasonable to call RCA an organisation than antifa as a whole, but still unlikely to find much support.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa is a self-proclaimed “political organization” according to their self-made Facebook profile.

Rose City Antifa is a self-proclaimed “political organization” according to their self-made Facebook profile. Here is their Facebook “About” link: https://www.facebook.com/pg/sometimesantisocialalwaysantifascist/about/?ref=page_internal

It is vital that this be pointed out in any reference to Rose City Antifa due to the special significance in the fact that an Antifa “group” considered itself a “Political Organization”, which has dramatic ramifications related to accountability for left-wing violence perpetrated by Antifa in Portland.

Please add that Rose City Antifa is a “Political Organization”. This is not controversial, it is fact and it is the result of Rose City Antifa’s self-proclamation, not by the standards of anti-Antifa; Instead purely by Rose City Antifa’s own standards.

We are adults, and we deserve the truth. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:ab10:7ef0:ed52:be7a:158:39f1 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't add information based on what categories someone placed their Facebook page are in. We reflect what reliable secondary sources have said. In some cases we can mention what official statments include, but Facebook categories are not one of them. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is also not a good venue for pursuing "accountability for left-wing violence perpetrated by Antifa". Editors who want to right great wrongs are seldom successful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"it calls itself a political organization" would be reasonable. if it's what their confirmed official facebook says so Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

antifa moniker

One of the sources said the movement/ideology has been around for a long time, but the RCA was the first to use the tagline "antifa" in its name. Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC) "Historical Context Arguably, antifascism goes back to the origins of fascism in interwar Italy and Germany. American antiracist groups— such as Anti-Racist Action (ARA)—that took up the ideology in the late 1980s embraced the international movement’s provocative and occasionally criminal—even violent—tactics. In 2013, activists rebranded ARA into the Torch Network, a loose coalition of about a dozen antifa groups. Founded in 2007, The Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, OR, is the oldest U.S. group to use “antifa” in its moniker. RCA joined the Torch Network in 2016. It had been part of ARA between 2007 and 2013." from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10839/2 So what makes them the first is only the use of the tag "antifa". Graywalls (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to read about antifa in the US. There has been a lot of mention of it in the news in 2020, yet this is the only article about US antifa groups or 'the US antifa' that I could find in Wikipeda! Either there are more groups or there should be a mention that (much of ) the talk of antifa is about a chimera.Kdammers (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, now the disambig page for antifa DOES show the US antifa. I guess it was either a glitch in either the Internet or Wikipedia or a problem with my eyes. Kdammers (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Interview – external link?

There's an interesting interview with (one or more individuals associated with) Rose City Antifa on the website of the Brighton (UK) Antifascists, which goes into some depth on RCA's background, political principles, their understanding of the groups they oppose, etc. This isn't a reliable source and we shouldn't cite it in the article, but per WP:ELMAYBE "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" can sometimes be appropriate external links." I think it would be a useful addition to this article, but would be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is useful, and could probably be used in the text with attribution BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added it as an external link. The problem with it as a source is, in my understanding, that it's a self-published source published neither by an expert or by the subject of the article. So if we had an article on Brighton Antifascists we could use it there, or if it had been published on RCA's own blog we could use it here, but as it is the distance from the subject is too great. None of which, of course, is to say that it isn't a reliable source in a non-Wikipedia sense or that it's likely to contain any inaccuracies or fabrications. I'd be interested to know others' thoughts. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I vote OMIT, per WP:SPS and #11 under WP:ELNO Graywalls (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is a personal blog. It is the main website of Brighton Antifascists, which is hosted on Wordpress and updated regularly (most recently in May 2020). It is clearly the "official" website of the group, as linked to from its Facebook page followed by 9000 people[4] and its Twitter account followed by 5000 people.[5] I think the best solution would be to include the interview in Further reading not External links BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: WP:SPS doesn't apply as the interview isn't being used as a source. Unreliable sources are explicitly permissible as external links in certain circumstances per WP:ELMAYBE (see above). WP:ELNO #11 may apply, but "normally to be avoided" doesn't equate to "shalt never be used" – it means it's a judgement call, and something other than rattling off the relevant guidelines is necessary. (And re "the discussion was just one person nodding along", see WP:SILENCE. And I've no idea why you think a vote is being held.) I'm happy for the link to be under "Further reading" rather than "External links" though, if that makes a difference. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In that judgment, I interpret it that ELMAYBE's intent is not to get around SPS to include links to self published material such as trying to link transcription of your acquaintance's interview with parliament member of Great Britain of United Kingdom you put on your Weebly/Wix site or some anonymous interviewing some another anonymous; and posted on website of highly questionable credibility (i.e. most radicals' websites) Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is completely incoherent. Could you try again? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying the intentions of WP:ELMAYBE isn't for getting around WP:ELNO item #11 in order to include poor quality websites that wouldn't come anything close to passing WP:RS. Graywalls (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: There's no "getting around" anything. Wikipedia guidelines are inevitably inconclusive on certain issues, as they ought to be. In this case we have one part of a guideline suggesting a source like this is inadvisable, and another suggesting it's permissible. What this means is that, rather than citing the guideline as though it gives the full picture when it clearly doesn't, or picking and choosing which bits we like and setting aside those we don't, we ought to weigh up for ourselves whether the link is useful to the reader, whether there's any reason to doubt its veracity, and any other pertinent issues. But if you don't have anything to say on those issues it might be better to raise the issue at WP:ELN and get some broader input. What do you think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts:, it's at ELN now. Graywalls (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

INCLUDE per my stated position on the ELN -- motevets (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley:, I did notice "This user conducts antifa." icon within your user page. Do you have a potential conflict-of-interest with BrightonAntifascists? Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Short answer: no. I have no involvement whatsoever with Brighton Antifascists. They are a specific group in a city where I don'tlive. I just happen to be an individual with a commitment to lower case anti-fascism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Redundancy

In my view the sentences reading It is the oldest active antifa group in the United States. RCA is the oldest group in the United States to adopt the moniker 'antifa'. say more or less say the same thing twice, and we should use one or the other rather than repeating ourselves. To all intents and purposes, being an antifa group and having antifa in the group's name are the same thing. It would be very surprising if the oldest antifa group didn't use the word in its name, or if the oldest group to use the word in its name weren't also the oldest antifa group. I removed the second claim a few weeks ago; Graywalls, you restored it. Could you clarify why you think both claims are necessary? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There is really no rush. I see the same area of the prose has changed around in mere 8 hours and I'm barely getting chance to look again just now. Also, the reference to 1980s which you removed is very relevant and I oppose to the removal. The anti-fascist movement has been around since the 1980, as said in highly credible source. RCA was the first organization to use the specific word "antifa" engage; and it is still active today, thus making it the oldest group using the term "antifa" in its name. We can work on phrasing that we all find agreeable. Propose it here. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A first step towards finding phrasing that we all find agreeable would involve you answering the question I asked above. Why do you think the two claims are necessary? It's not a rhetorical question. The "dates back to the 1980s" wording is a separate matter. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources for both claims are books which aren't online. Any chance of the actual quotations? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Bray, p. 107, says: Similar challenges faced what is currently the oldest existing antifa group in the United States: Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon. Founded in 2007 out of an organizing drive against the neo-Nazi skinhead festival Hammerfest, RCA was heavily influenced by the high number of Europeans in their group, reflected in the fact that they were the first American group to name itself “antifa.” (There's a PDF on Libcom, though I probably shouldn't link to it.) The other sources aren't books, they're USA Today, which says Some of the groups, such as the 13-year-old Rose City Antifa in Portland, Oregon, the oldest in the U.S., are particularly well-organized and active online and on Facebook, while its members are individually anonymous and the Congressional Research Service report, which says: Founded in 2007, The Rose City Antifa in Portland, OR, is the oldest U.S. group to use “antifa” in its moniker. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Change to match citation and correct inaccurate description

Requests

Please change the second sentence under History in this article from, "According to one of its leaders, the group concentrates on 'outing' people whom they believe to be neo-Nazis" to "According to some antifa activists, the movement operates without any centralized leadership and its activists concentrate on 'outing' people whom they believe to be neo-Nazis."

Please edit the article to remove references to antifa as a group ororganization and make it clear that antifa has no centralized leadership and is a movement or ideology.

Explanation and Sources

The second sentence under History in this article reads, "According to one of its leaders, the group concentrates on 'outing' people whom they believe to be neo-Nazis." That sentence is in direct conflict with one of the cited sources and is unsupported by the other.

The cited CNN story begins its ninth paragraph with, "Antifa activists, who operate without any centralized leadership, told CNN that their goal is peace and inclusivity." The article therefore inaccurately says "According to one of its leaders" and explicitly contradicts the source by even implying that antifa has leaders.

The entire article is inaccurate in referring to antifa in general as a group and should make clear that any local collective of activists in Portland or any other city is not acting in the name of any kind of national organization. The currently appointed and confirmed Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, testified to Congress that antifa is not an organization: "'It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.'" AP News, September 17,2020 Infinitelee (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't fully follow the argument here – while antifa is not a group, RCA is, at least more so; and I can't see how this article treats "antifa in general as a group" – but I think the actual request here is probably fair enough. The CNN article does indeed seem to contradict itself on the question of leaders, which suggests to me we ought to find a different wording. That might be the wording proposed above, or simply leaving out the "according to" part altogether. I'd like to know what others think before making that change though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Infinitelee: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -ink&fables «talk» 03:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)