Open main menu

Consider revising colloquial termEdit

"we go where they [right-wingers] go. That hate sp"

"right-wingers" is colloquial; "wingers" is not a word. "right-leaning gatherings" or similar may be preferable.
65.255.181.151 (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
It's the word used by CNN in the source cited. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The Oxford English dictionary begs to differ. right-winger, n. A member of the right wing of a political group or party; a person who advocates or supports conservative views or principles. OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2019. Web. 28 September 2019. Vexations (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2019Edit

Please correct the grammatical error of "Activists involved in the movement tend to be anti-capitalists[21] and subscribe to a range of ideologies..." to the correct usage of ..and *ascribe to a range of... A person subscribes to a magazine or a YouTube channel. And a person ascribes to an ideology. Thank you. Tygon13 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. "Subscribe" can mean "express or feel agreement with". "Ascribe" means to believe that something is caused by something else. Nblund talk 22:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Harassment sourcingEdit

I don't feel we can use the ADL to say that harassment is one of Antifa's main activities; as a source, they're generally considered a biased or opinionated source, so they shouldn't be used without in-line citations for something potentially controversial like this, and on a quick check I couldn't find it in any of the other sources there right now (though I may have missed something.) Given that we have many more neutral, fact-usable sources that go into depth on other things without mentioning it, and given that nothing in the article currently discusses this aspect, I don't feel it can go in the list right now - we'd need better sources and, probably, attribution before saying it's one of their defining features. --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I must disagree, the source is fine and it is a defining feature. Looks like another source has already been added so I assume we are good now? PackMecEng (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems that certain posters have decided any source that paints Antifa is an accurate light which is negative, is not acceptiible. What about the elederly couple one ia walker attacked by Antifa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.161.76 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hard to imagine you're a new editor, but just in case, you need to assume good faith. If I didn't I'd think you might be a sock.:-) Anyway, this article is about Antifa in the United States. And I see no source that proves who the masked person was at the Mohawk College demonstration. This video[1] does show several protestors blocking her from entering, no indication that they are Antifa. The story's been twisted to make this appear to have taken place in the US and to clearly involve Antifa. Oh, and they weren't attacked, just shouted at - not very nicely, but not an attack. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story? Doug Weller talk 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, genuinely curious here: what in your opinion would count as evidence that some people "are Antifa"? Do they have to literally say "we're Antifa!" or hold a sign to that effect? Or what? Also related: is it possible for there to be some evidence that some people "are Antifa" if the evidence isn't conclusive? Because I'd have thought that there was at least some evidence here, if not conclusive evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, all kinds of things could be used as evidence. An investigation by the police followed by an arrest and subsequent court case would likely unearth a mountain of testimony as well as documentary and physical evidence. If in support of the assertion that antifa did something, the only evidence presented is that someone looks like antifa, that is not enough for us to state that claim in Wikipedia's voice. Vexations (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
There's almost never a court case. Is there a more common sort of evidence by which they can be identified? Because if it takes a court case, we can almost never identify them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, you may have misunderstood me: A court case is not evidence, evidence is presented at court. There have been plenty of court cases. As far as I can tell, and I've been following the cases of people who have been accused of criminal acts related to antifa, the press seems to give more attention to people getting charged with crimes than people getting convicted. Vexations (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not misunderstanding. You're saying we need something like a court case before we can identify someone as antifa. In my view it is obvious that, if that's what it takes, we will very rarely be able to identify anyone as Antifa. I regard that result as absurd. Are you comfortable identifying people as "apparent antifa supporters" in the article and ascribing notable acts to them? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not complicated, we rely on reliable sources. Anything else i original research. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't find a problem with the source. The ADL article says, "Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life."[2] While that could be re-worded in a neutral tone, the essence is correct: antifa counter-demonstrate far right demonstrations and argue with the far right online. I note too that the ADL calls the objects of harassment "right-wing extremists," while this articles refers to them as those whom antifa identify as such. We should accept the ADL description. TFD (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

LeadEdit

@MaximumIdeas: the lead has been stable for months until until you altered it without consensus; please discuss here before making any further changes. QuestFour (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What is your rationale for reverting it? PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
QuestFour all I did was make the text match sources. Then Aquillon helpfully added a source. And Aquillon also made other contributions, which I suggested tweaks to -- I believe we were having collaborative page improvement; there is no need for your complete reversion which 1) did not go to a stable version and 2) which threw out some additions I made I imagine nobody could object to (like a WaPo source) I added. I would ask that you un-revert my tweaks and we can continue the collaborative discussion. These are hardly significant changes to begin with; marginal improvements. Thank you :) MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
It's clear that there's disagreement over your additions, so you should talk them out rather than trying to revert-war them in; if we can't reach an agreement on that aspect, I'd suggest going back to the most recent stable version as QuestFour suggests. Certainly the revert-heavy recent history suggests a lot of this lacks consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
No, what is clear is people are removing them with no explanation. Restoring status quo is not a valid reason to revert. The new version is an improvement and better sources. What are your disagreements about it? PackMecEng (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the sentence says one thing but introducing that subclause changes the intent.
"Activists typically organize protests via social media, with discussions focusing on the ideas of confronting racism and protecting minority communities, often through use of physical force"
With the way the commas are set currently, that sentence reads "activists typically organise protests via social media often through the use of physical force", where the subordinate clause is the method of discussing their focus points. This obviously doesn't make grammatical sense and makes the sentence hard to read
If "often through the use of physical force" is meant to be there, then it should be in its own sentence. Such as:
"Activists typically organize protests via social media, with discussions focusing on the ideas of confronting racism and protecting minority communities. Tactics such as the use of physical force are..."
It's the crowbar attempt at forcing stuff into sentences out of context that editors like MaximumIdeas cause prolonged disputes, where his suggestions carry water however it often requires finding the right location for his input to sit, which can require either an entirely new paragraph or a real effort at restructuring the sentences. Koncorde (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, physical force is not the focus of the source used there; in fact, it mentions it only to say that Antifa uses fewer appeals to physical force and more appeals to protect people (the two are directly contrasted), especially compared to the Proud Boys. The contested version PackMecEng is trying to revert-war in completely misrepresents this, presenting the "protecting minority communities" as being what physical force is used for, when the source says the exact opposite (ie. they spend more time talking about protecting minority communities than about using physical force - contrasted with the Proud Boys, who spend more time talking about physical force.) We do talk about physical force elsewhere in the article, where appropriate, but the efforts to crowbar it in here are entirely inappropriate and do not reflect the tone, focus, or content of the source that's being used. (Aside: By my reading, PackManEng's most recent revert is a WP:1RR violation. We need to go back to a stable version, as QuestFour suggested, and actually discuss what it should say rather than revert-warring. Obviously some recent changes are uncontroversial, and some are more controversial, but if we're going to include the less-controversial changes people need to back down on the contested ones at least temporarily so we can reach some sort of consensus.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Antifa has been labeled as a terrorist organization by the FBI. It has been responsible for millions of dollars of damage in vandalism, throwing Molotov cocktails to shut down Milo Annapolis's speech, and has a record of hundreds of cases of physical assault. The previous/following information on this article holds a deep political bias, and paints Antifa as a law abiding, civil and integral group striving for a better society, in actuality, they have caused countless instances of damage to property, rioting, fire-bombing, physical assault, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipass1492 (talkcontribs) 23:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

1. The FBI haven't. Several political figures asked the FBI to do so. The FBI have categorised Antifa as an "ideology" rather than a group. 2. The rest of your statements are included in the article. Koncorde (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Antifa (United States)" page.