Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

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