Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29

Removal of my additions, especially regarding effectiveness

Regarding this revert, there was some agreement to expand on that section and Graywalls also removed other additions of mine. My view is that those should be better worded, summarised and paraphrased (my edit summary was "expand section about Effectiveness; creates one about Means and ends; all of this can be better summarised and paraphrased, but it is a start."), not outright removed. Perhaps many users may fiund the criticism and comments by Conor Friedersdorf and Peter Beinart as undue but I added it as balance. Why not even trying in doing that (i.e. better summarise them) and just revert it outright? No one reverted them until Graywalls did, so I was hoping they were fine and just need adjustment; again, I wished someone would have actually copy edited them by better paraphrasing and summarising them, not reverting even less controversial additions. Davide King (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding things just for the sake of balance doesn't exactly make it pertinent. Per the discussion on your talk page, you were seeking discussion prior to removal and I have in turn requested the same from you prior to addition. I don't believe it is fair that justification is needed for removal but not the other way around and this is fully supported by WP:ONUS. The effectiveness section has become more of "some people say..." instead of reliable research that conducts effectiveness. It looks more like a "reception section" full of journalist commentaries, anecdotes but no formal scientific study. Graywalls (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I merely added quotes, which I would have hoped someone would summarise and better paraphrase, from the sources about effectiveness and added a few more from Bray (Bray added that "[i]t's important to understand that antifa politics, and antifa’s methods, are designed to stop white supremacists, fascists, and neo-Nazis as easily as possible."[38] For Bray, "[t]he vast majority of their activities are nonviolent. They function in some ways like private investigators; they track neo-Nazi organizing across multiple social-media platforms."[38] About doxing, Bray says that it is about "telling people that they have a Nazi living down the street, or telling employers that they're employing white supremacists", adding that "after Charlottesville, a lot of the repercussions that these khaki-wearing, tiki-torch white supremacists faced were their employers firing them and their families repudiating what they do."[38]) and Vysotsky (author of American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism) and a distinction between means and ends that distinguishes antifa from far-right, supremacist groups.

I would note that Crossroads did not revert my edits and did a minor copy editing. I agree "[i]t looks more like a 'reception section' full of journalist commentaries, anecdotes but no formal scientific study" but it can and should be improved. I wish other users did that for me because I believe they would have done a better job but I tried anyway. I actually advocate more scholarly sources and academic commentators such as Mudde (among others listed above by bobfrombrockley) but I already imagine how they are going to be criticised as being somehow 'pro-antifa' for not comforming to the popular but misleading view. Either way, we should probably follow bobfrombrockley's suggestion that "which ones are noteworthy? Surely those cited regularly by reliable sources and/or have some specific expertise in antifa which makes them authorative (rather than vague generic expertise in society-related fields." Davide King (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't always agree with your editorial decision in what to include, and how much emphasis is placed on contents. Perhaps it maybe relevant that you singularly represent 33.1% authorship on the article and next one down, a distant second is Arms&Hearts at 8.6% and the your proportion of added text is about the same on this extremely controversial article. Keeping in mind that a lot of quotes are cherry picked by you. Compared to other articles absurd amount of lengthy direct quotes. WP:DUE says article should represent general representation and not lend strong weight to particular source. This includes Bray. You objected to my removal of existing contents. So we came to a mutual understanding that going forward, you and I will take the steps to discuss before adding/removing substantial amount of contents. Did we not? This edit was one of the largest addition this article has seen, yet it was not discussed. So I believe the removal of the most recent undiscussed addition was reasonable. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of ownership, that is nonsense as many times I simply added what was discussed here. In addition, I followed BRD. I was simply trying to implement what was discussed at the Effectiveness thread above. I also disagree with you stating I "cherry picked" them; those were quotes that were discussing antifa's effectiveness; if I missed anything, you were free to fix that. I also find curious that you are accusing me of "[a]dding things just for the sake of balance" when that is exactly what you did by comparing this article to the Proud Boys or your insistence in supporting any little crime committed by any, related or not, 'antifa' individuals, which seems to be at odds with your reading that sources have not showed any conclusive verification of Reinohel's ties to antifa. At least that is my impression but I could be wrong.

I do not disagree with "the removal of the most recent undiscussed addition was reasonable." I simply believe at least one attempt could have been made at copy editing the quotes and better paraphrase them, even adding or substituting some sources with scholarly ones before reverting all of it (I just do not understand why you did not even tried to do that when a tag was put, not by me, to expand the section, which is what I tried to do). I actually thought my edits would have been reverted the same day and I was surprised to find not only that they were not but they have been there for a few days and Crossroads did not revert it. So I simply thought that the issue was mainly about better wording it, how to summarises that, add more scholarly sources, etc. as I suggested in my edit summary. I believe myself gave too much weight to non-experts like Beinart and Friedersdorf but I tried anyway and I was actually trying to be accommodating to users like you who seem to believe, whether you are right or wrong, this article is too positive or not negative enough about antifa, is not my reading correct? Again, this is my reading of your comments on this talk page but I could be wrong and you are free to clarify this.

Either way, it was just one attempt based on sources mentioned by Aquillion. I did not cherry picked sources either; I used those gently provided by Aquillion. Finally, your comment about Bray has been already refuted here by Arms & Hearts. It is curious you correctly propose "formal scientific study" when Bray himself is a scholar and expert of the movement extensively quoted by reliable sources but apparently he is not good enough for you. The solution was to summarise, paraphrasing and copy editing quotes into encyclopedic content and style, eventually removing those who were undue or whatever. At least that is what I would have tried to do before reverting. Davide King (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You might have followed BRD, but we have a sort of an understanding wrt to pre-discussing my removal, and your addition. The previous discussion on Bray is a separate matter. There's hardly any dissent on things like the temperature at which water melts, but philosophies and humanities are hardly like that even among well cited experts. By undue coverage isn't just about one expert. So we're on the same page that Bray is not neutral. Now, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." from WP:UNDUE. Do you believe that Bray's views represent the majority view point in expertise disciplines? (such as political science, organized crime, philosophy) I'm leaving out journalist comments form relevance, because those are usually about as relevant as what Selena Gomez think of an issue that is not relevant to her expertise. Graywalls (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As a way forward, maybe Davide King could propose an abridged version of the text in question? Being sure, of course, that trimming is done proportionately from both points of view. To be honest I did think it was a bit long, but didn't feel so strongly that I was going to bother changing it. Over the longer term, let's all look for things to trim from the article as a whole in the form of redundancy or excessive detail of specific events that readers are unlikely to find interesting. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I actually wished you and other users would have done that (i.e. an abridged and improved version of the text in question) by copy editing my additions, better paraphrasing them, even changing some sources to give more weight to scholarly ones, but it was simply reverted and that was my main disagreement. Davide King (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, I only wished that you would have tried to copy edit it (including removing parts you felt were undue and adding parts that where more due; or even substituting opinion pieces with scholarly sources) before reverting it (you did not reply on this if you tried to do it, so I simply assume you did not try and simply reverted it, even if you thought copy editing would not make it worth it). Not everything must be discussed to add something but it must be discussed whether something should be added or removed. So I tried to add this, you removed it and now we are discussing; if you are saying that I should have discussed my additions first, that is fair but I did not edit war and there were no new comments about the effectiveness thread, so I just went for it and you were free to revert it.

I am also not sure about your question on whether "Bray's views represent the majority view point in expertise disciplines? (such as political science, organized crime, philosophy)." Reliable sources consider him an expert and have extensively quoted or interviewed him, so I would argue that he certainly holds more weight than, say, Beinart. An expert on left-wing movements, or in this case antifa, holds more weight than someone who is an expert in political science or philosophy, so I do not get your point.

As for Bray not being neutral, I redirect you to Arms & Hearts' comment that this is "based on a misunderstanding of how academic research works. The purpose of published research is to argue a case; the fact that Bray has reached a certain conclusion, based on his research, on this subject in no way casts any doubt on the validity of his conclusions. Serious scholarly sources do not feign neutrality, they make arguments based on evidence." Davide King (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it is clearly an aspect of Antifa that has received substantial coverage in high-quality sources (including secondary coverage in news sources and stuff by experts, not just opinion pieces.) Compare / contrast the fairly massive amount of text we devote to a single contributor piece by Beinart in the Atlantic and I think it's hard to argue that this is WP:UNDUE comparatively (Beinart is only a tangentially-connected expert - "political science" is a huge field, and we devote far less text to people with much more specific expertise or whose opinions received more secondary coverage.) But more generally I think that the appropriate way to handle these things like this is to avoid the giant "here's what a bunch of talking heads think" sections we end up with and instead summarize the broad lines of thoughts, listing the people who hold each broad view rather than quoting each at length. Part of my concern is that such sections can become bloated as people drop in snappy but ultimately not very important individual quotes in order to argue by proxy - Beinart is the most obvious example (he is relevant enough to mention him as one of the people who holds those positions, but I'm not understanding why he his quoted at such length.) Some of the additions, of course, could fall under the same category and could be trimmed down, but I think the basic goal of having a broad summary of each of the topics people discuss is more useful than the current vague "here's what a bunch of random academics have said, all lumped together with a bunch of quotes editors thought were snappy enough to include." In case it isn't obvious, I do feel we have to make fairly drastic cuts to Beinart in particular - when I went over the article to weigh how much different opinions were given, I noticed that he's given fairly shocking amounts of focus (I believe he has more quotes and text on the page cited to him at the moment than anyone else, despite, again, not being that noteworthy and having only tangential expertise compared to some of the sources we give less weight to. Also, as a contributor piece, I'd classify his Atlantic piece as as an opinion piece - we shouldn't be citing it for statements of fact when other people are available. Right now it is cited eleven times, including a fairly large paragraph that devotes multiple extensive quotes to his opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, I agree and I suggest that you try to expand on that. I think you would word it much better than I did, also fixing any undue weight you highlighted and which I agree with. I only wished that an attempt would have been made at copyediting it (including removing undue opinions and adding better, more scholarly sources) rather than reverting it at once. Davide King (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Beinart should not be cut at all. Currently, without the expansion of the "effectiveness" section, he is quoted only three times, none of which are all that long; the other cites seem redundant. He is an expert in a relevant field - political science. It is not the case that someone's sole research focus has to be antifa for them be a reliable source or to be due. At articles on Donald Trump are we only allowed to cite scholars who solely study Trumpism? Obviously not. And I will note that removal of Beinart results in shifting the article towards a particular POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, WP:LINKSINACHAIN and the entire supplemental guide in which it belongs to is worth reading through. Primary and secondary sources are often misunderstood. Just because something is in NYT or LA times doesn't instantly mean "secondary". If you're writing about veganism and extremely weigh towards the use of academics and books focused on veganism but fail to fairly include the prevailing scholarly view by the general health/dietician circle, that would also be UNDUE. Columnist commentaries simply have no place; and excess reliance on biased sources would still cause the inclusion to become undue. Graywalls (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls unilaterally reverted me again, without even trying to keep some copy editing I may have done or some additions that are worth preserving. Speaking of preserving, I suggest we follow Wikipedia:Preserve. Crossroads again did not revert me, even though they had the chance to do so; therefore, unless other users also think those edits should be unilaterally reverted, I believe we should try to follow PRESERVE. Davide King (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You unilaterally added the contents again for which consensus apears murky. What your presenting appears to present that addition should be easier than removal. You assert PRESERVE (which is understandable for long standing contents) to cling onto the recent additions while I believe they haven't satisfied WP:ONUS, well because it's newly added. From reading the discussion, it doesn't look like what and how much to add was unanimously agreed. You didn't post the exact text to be added here to discuss as you are wanting me to do to remove existing cotnents. As per our discussion you were insistent on discussion before I remove existing contents, but you would reciprocate and go thorugh the same threshold before new additions, given that this is an article with controversy. The procedures to go through for addition should not be easier for addition than it is for removal. What ONUS says is that achieving consensus falls on those adding. You assert that Crossroads did NOT revert you, but they did not add back your edit either. Graywalls (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:, I'd be glad to discuss removal of long standing contents prior to removal, but reciprocally, please propose your specific major additions here and paste what you are wanting to add so that we can discuss it. Then, perhaps it would be better to let someone else read the consensus and do the adding. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The objection seems to be more about process, but what is the objection to the content itself and as a whole? I've read it over both times and it seems mostly fine. Some redundancy could be trimmed (I had forgotten to fix that this time the "kinetic beauty" stuff about punching Richard Spencer was in there twice). Other problems can be fixed through editing or by focusing in on them. In the article as a whole, other redundancy of points made, or excessive detail, can also be fixed. But I think we should focus more on the content policies (WP:DUE, etc.). Note too that both additions and removals can be done boldly without pre-permission at first, per WP:BRD. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The contents in a nut shell are still variants of scholar A thinks.... scholar B thinks.... journalist A said... journalsit B blogged that just go on, rather than adequately summarize and my opinion is that their most recent addition is an expansion of political soapbox like talking about new diet pills. Since it's being disputed, we should discuss it first. The "pre-permission" thing was an informal agreement betweenDavide King (talk · contribs) and I after they complained about my removal without discussion. The encyclopedic merit of the most recent addition is questionable. @Aquillion and Bobfrombrockley: Graywalls (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote here, I believe a solution would have been to follow WP:PRESERVE and "go with the flow", i.e. tag and trying to improve the additions together and directly, improve wording to better summarise and paraphrase them, substitute one source for another. Was this really not even worthy trying? Could not at least an attempt be made, give it a week or so, and then if nothing good came out of it, remove it and return to discuss it? I note that this time I removed overly long quotes from the text flow, I tried to better distribute them and I did do it in several edits rather than in one big one, yet you reverted it all? Is there really was nothing to save? Is Bray's discussion of doxing not relevant? Is the analysis of sociologist Stanislav Vysotsky, who has actually written a book about antifa, not relevant? You rightly lament that my edits are still variants of scholar A thinks, etc. and say that we should adequately summarise them. Then maybe it is about time we use Bray's Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook and Vysotsky's Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook as main sources and backbones of the article. Surely those are exactly the type of sources we need to summarise the main topic and establish weight and relevancy. Davide King (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think using quotes of major points made by the authors is fine. Trying to summarize and reword them will lead to endless wrangling over which wording is less distorted in meaning, etc. It's a controversial topic and we have to make it easier on each other and on readers. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I think you are free to re-add my edits and we try to follow preserve for some time to see if it can be further improved, if you agree. Davide King (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

While I strongly opppose... bobfrombrockley, any input? anyone else? Graywalls (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC) And also, Wikieditor19920, as you've recently made edits, do you have any feelings about the contents under dispute? (about 12,000 bytes of addition by Davide King that I've reverted)? Graywalls (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a pattern by Davide King, who opened this thread to complain about being reverted, of mass reverting others claiming they are "enforcing the status quo" and challenging others for "unilateral changes," but then doing the same thing. Regardless of this underlying content, this is disruptive to consensus building and obviously hypocritical. Davide King isn't the only one, but he's opened a thread about it here. I think that a substantial addition of 12,000 words, without even reviewing the content, is worthy of a discussion beforehand. I think that minor changes less than 3000 characters can be inserted, then challenged and discussed. I would like to know more about what the proposal was here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree and I again suggest you tone down. We have several users agreeing with my reverts below and that following BRD was the right move. I think my comparison was fine, fair and that it is an example of false equivalence because (a) my bold edits were to the body, I was careful to summarise them in on sentence in the lead and had at least support from one user (Crossroads) and other users may have disagreed or expressed doubts, but they have yet to write whether it should have been outright reverted as Graywalls did, or whether PRESERVE, tagging, etc. should have been followed as Crossroads and I suggested; (b) your bold edits were to a long-standing lead (as noted by Crossroads, "the longstanding lead which I and others have carefully modified over time") and Aquillion et al. explained very clearly the problems with your edits, so I suggest that you drop down the "y'all are just saying my edits are problematic without explaining why." You write that your edits should be "inserted, then challenged and discussed" but that is exactly what we are doing and I see no consensus for your edits, so we should keep the long-standing lead until we get consensus for your edits. We can not follow PRESERVE for the lead, especially when several users expressed your opposition for your edits, whereas Graywalls expressed oppossition and Crossroads support for mine; and we need more users to clarify if we should follow PRESERVE, which part they may support and which part they may oppose. Ironically, my additions (first attempt and second attempt) included comments more critical of antifa; and even though I believe too much weight was given to Beinart and others, I think it was fine and that it could have been improved. Your edits did not just trim; they changed the meaning and pushed a POV not supported in the body to a long-standing lead as extensively written by Aquillion et al. Of course, you are free to disagree but I believe we have given our explanations and that my revert was not a "mass revert" but it was following BRD. Davide King (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: You need to actually follow the letter of the policy WP:PRESERVE if you're going to cite it, not a self-serving interpretation of it where, for some obscure, illogical reason, it doesn't apply to your changes but it applies to others. When you blindly mass revert, it is in violation of WP:PRESERVE. Your changes do not have consensus and were substantial. My changes to the lead were comparatively minor, and yet you raise the same stink about it that you complain about when you reverted. I would suggest if you want to add 12,000 characters to the article, then you make your proposal here first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There was actually some support to have a section or discussion about Effectiveness in the article, for effectiveness of antifa has been discussed in secondary sources as provided by Aquillion, so I tried doing just that. So far, only Graywalls has explicitly supported removal of everything I added; other users may agree with Graywalls, or they may agree to preserve all or some, or they may support inclusion of some and removal of other, but they have yet to weight in or make their position on the issue more clear, so we have one oppose (Graywalls) and one support (Crossroads). You edited a long-standing lead and stating those were "comparatively minor" edits does not mean they were actually "minor". For one, others and I have disputed those were just minor edits and explaining why they changed the meaning, pushed a POV, did not reflect the body and were not an improvement. I do not see how we can follow PRESERVE for your edits, when you are the only one to support them. You wrote "[y]our changes do not have consensus and were substantial" but this applies equally well to your edits, for reasons I just explained. Davide King (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, as a compromise, do you want to try writing a 6,000-7,500 byte version of the material? Doing it too piecemeal won't help, because NPOV will be hard without room. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I would have hoped you could help me in doing that, but I can try. I can probably remove the Notes. I think my edits may give too much weight to Beinart and others, as I believe we should give more weight to experts about antifa or left-wing movements, but I think we can give it a week or two to copy edit and see what are the results. I wish Aquillion and bobfrombrockley would also add some of their proposed scholarly analysis and sources they found to the article, wait for a week or two to see what other improvements could be done, then open a discussion to see whether they should be kept for more and whether they should be removed, but also which parts are more worth to be kept and which ones are more problematic, and no other attempts made. I can also try to add them in small edits, wait a few days to see if they are reverted (does Graywalls think any additions of mine should be removed or does they think some additions were more fine than others and could be kept? I think this approach could help in clarifying that); and then add some more in one small edits and follow the same approach. Either way, I think more books about antifa such as Bray's would help us in the future to check which is due, notable and which is not, but for the time being I would be fine if we try to follow the path I outlined. Davide King (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Increasing contents size isn't necessarily an improvement. Adding a bunch of "person A says... "person B says..." "person C says..." as well as numerous blow-by-blow accounts currently in article don't provide meaningful information. It's as if you're talking about effectiveness of supplements by quoting different "nutrition specialists" using "some people say..." format. Adding contents like "Ms. Johnson RN says taking Vitamin C during these situations help alleviate...", but "Ms. Flabberstone says taking more than recommended dose have no useful effect". You can go on and on, but without actual study, I think including speculative effectiveness (in what context? what does it achieve?) is just rambling. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree and believe this is a very fair criticism. But that is why I repeatedly asked to be helped in copy editing the content so that it actually does not read like that and we discuss which parts of it are undue and which ones are not. However, I would note that Crossroads wrote "[t]he objection seems to be more about process, but what is the objection to the content itself and as a whole? I've read it over both times and it seems mostly fine." This seems a good summary and then goes on to suggest trimming and copy editing, which is exactly what I proposed and repeatedly asked for. I just did not do it myself because I wanted to hear other users' input and because I would not know exactly how to better summarise and paraphrase it myself, or which parts are more due and which others may not be. Davide King (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

Combine the following sentences in the first paragraph:

It is composed of a number of autonomous groups and individuals that use violence, which they describe as direct action, to achieve political goals. A highly decentralized movement, antifa political activists describe themselves as anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists.

Change to:

A highly decentralized movement composed of autonomous groups and individuals, antifa political activists describe themselves as anti-racists who engage in direct action and protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists.

References

Rationale: The first sentence is clearly worded to parallel a common definition of a terrorist group as a "group that uses violence to achieve political goals", thereby framing Antifa as a terrorist movement. This is not supported by the cited sources and violates Wikipedia's core WP:NPOV policy. The sentence is also vague and redundant, as the rest of the paragraph already describes the group's aims and activities, both violent and nonviolent.

This proposed edit incorporates the useful information from the first sentence into the following sentence, while fixing the neutrality, accuracy, and vagueness issues. I moved the refs to the second sentence, apart from one magazine interview of a single author which I omitted as not sufficiently reliable. 143.244.37.83 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that change was problematic. This was changed Wikieditor1990 but I reverted it because it included too many changes for a lead that has been part of a long-standing consensus, although it can still be improved and indeed recently we made several changes such as a trimming and rewording proposed by Aquillion. Wikieditor1990 also removed any reference to non-violence that is extensively covered in the body and added weasel words such as "that describe itself as anti-fascist", when sources, especially scholarly ones, do not generally dispute that they are anti-fascists, even if they may disagree with their tactics, etc. Davide King (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

On August 20, 2020, Patriot Prayer member Aaron Danielson was murdered by Antifa activist Michael Forest Reinoehl following a Patriot Prayer rally in Portland, Oregon. Reinoehl was later killed by police as they were attempting to arrest him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasobserver (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Veritasobserver, this is already mentioned at Analysis and studies. Graywalls, do you have any more reliable sources that verify that? You wrote "[h]is self-proclaimed antifa affiliation needs verification. Only thing we know for certain is he says media says he says he's 100% antifa. I'm not satisifed about inclusion until something beyond he says, she says shows connection." Davide King (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@143.244.37.83: If you're going to raise "vagueness issues," I suggest being more specific about your criticisms. Your idea that the edits are meant to suggest "terrorism" are wrong as a matter of assuming good faith and wrong as a matter of what the available sources suggest. The Atlantic, for one, explicitly describes the "direct action" to achieve goals as violence. @Davide Kinge: repeatedly asserts content as "long standing" as a reason to continue mass-reverting any changes to it, depriving the word "long-standing" of any meaning and without substantively defending the changes or closely reviewing what they are reverting. Congressional research reports and other sources do not unequivocally describe them as "anti-fascists." Some do, but this is clearly a self-described-territory moniker in many instances. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your statement that the Congressional Research does not unequivocally describe them as "anti-fascists" is false as the report does not cast the doubt you think it does and writes how "antifascism goes back to the origins of fascism in interwar Italy and Germany." The report also describes the ARA as an one of "American antiracist group"; no self-declared or any other qualifier is added. Same thing for antifa, "shorthand for 'antifascist.'" Davide King (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: No, that's exactly what the report says. Some Americans describe themselves and their ideological outlooks as “antifa,” shorthand for “antifascist.” You are not paying attention to detail in reading sources or making reversions and "correcting" others, and that's a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a non-issue. The current lead says "anti-fascist action" which links to Post-World War II anti-fascism rather than anti-fascism, not "anti-fascism", which is linked when we write "[i]ndividuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, and anti-state views. "Anti-fascist action" is already a self-description and is the exact term used to refer to antifa groups, so there is no need for your wording proposal. Davide King (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: You are repeatedly referencing one aspect of numerous changes I made to the lead, the antifa qualifier, which is in fact supported in several sources, and then claiming consensus. You clearly reacted to one change and decided to react all of my reverts. Again, this combative approach to editing violates WP:PRESERVE.

These changes removed and merged numerous sentences that were repetitive. The references to "protest tactics" and "direct action" can be merged. The controversies can be mentioned with the preceding sentence "there have been controversies" or something to that effect. The "autonomous groups" line can be merged with the first or second sentence. You need to actually read and contest my changes individually before making mass reverts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Those were bold edits that I reverted, so we should follow BRD. Ironically, I used PRESERVE to keep the other edits I did, but Graywalls reverted me both times. Either way, why can you not even wait for other users to weight in and gain consensus for your proposed changes? Davide King (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Stop complaining about another editor reverting you as a justification for your own wholesale, mass reverts of others. Tit-for-tat is not a justification, especially for you to use it in creating other disputes with editors by making mass reverts, restoring verbose, repetitive paragraphs. This is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I'll ask again, and please spare me the juvenile response about what another editor did to you and respond substantively: Why are you opposing trimming the first paragraph, even to convey the same information in fewer words? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you calm down and assume good faith. I was merely noting that PRESERVE was not followed for my edits, which were bold additions to the body, whereas yours were bold edits to a long-standing lead version. That you describe part of your edits as "trimming the first paragraph, even to convey the same information in fewer words" is one issue. The first sentence has been widely discussed and it has been like that for a long time; no serious attempts have been made to gain consensus for a change, so maybe you may be the first one and I command you for this. I object that this was a trimming as it altered the meaning of the sentence to push a POV; that you think sources support it, it is your view and I would like to hear from other users before deciding your reading is the correct one; maybe you are right, maybe I am right, but we need other users to weight in to find out and get some consensus. Why did you remove the mention of "antifa political activists are anti-racists" and "neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists"? Why did you remove "through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform"? Why did you remove "comprising an array of autonomous groups and individuals"? This is supported by two academic journals and is not just trimming; it also changes the meaning as antifa is leaderless that merely stating "highly decentralized" does not clear it, especially when so many conspiracy theory have been made about its alleged organisational nature. This wording has been in the lead for a long time and no alternatives gained consensus, although we did some small changes and trimming already in other parts of the lead. Your comment here has also been discussed many times but you are free to open a thread about it. Davide King (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been "thanked" for my revert by Volunteer Marek. Unless it was done by mistake, I hope they can clarify and comment to state their thoughts. What we need is more users weighting in rather than going back and forth when we obviously disagree. Davide King (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I simply agreed with your edit and probably would have made the same edit if you hadn't beat me to it. Wikieditor19920's removal of reliably sourced material was unjustified and very one sided. I also regard this comment of theirs as problematic, particularly since it appears to be encouraging anonymous troll accounts. Additionally, it casts vague aspersions and insinuations although it doesn't quite manage to work up the courage to actually name any specific editors. Volunteer Marek 08:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, clearly neither of you read closely my edits. I'll lay out my specific changes here:

• A highly decentralized movement, antifa political activists are anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists. This may involve digital activism, harassment, physical violence, and property damage against those whom they identify as belonging to the far right.
• These two sentences are functionally repetitive. My changes merged these two sentences, and Davide King restored it. The apparent reasoning here seems to be to simply repeat "problematic" over and over and reference only the first portion of my edits. It is not "problematic" to strive for concision, assess which sentences serve what purpose, and condense information.
• Antifa actions have been both criticized and defended. The lead then goes on to describe criticisms and defenses. This is more unnecessary writing. We can simply come right out and state what those criticisms and defenses are, we don't need to preface that with empty filler like this.
• Some scholars argue that antifa is a legitimate response to the rise of the far right and that antifa's violence such as milkshaking is not equivalent to right-wing violence. Scholars tend to reject the equivalence between antifa and white supremacism. Again, the views of scholars, like the views of the news media, can be summarized in a single sentence in the interest of concision. Further, the latter sentence cites a piece from the Guardian which does not actually state this. Davide King's response seems to suggest it is actually relying on material later in the article for attribution. That's fine, but it shouldn't follow a source.

If either of you, Davide King or Volunteer Marek, could articulate a response to these specific changes rather than harping on the very first of my changes that you apparently have a problem with, which was to add the self-described qualifer in the lead (which is reflected in sources like the cited CRS report), then we could have a real discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

1) Those two sentences are not repetitive. The first one describes WHO they are against, the second one describes HOW their activism is carried out. 2) A short sentence introducing a paragraph/idea is just good writing. 3) Without the "Some scholars argue..." sentence the following sentence doesn't make sense, lacks context and comes of as a non-sequitur.

But the problem with your edit is not just rewording the above. As clearly explained in Davide's edit summary you also made other changes, such as changing "is an anti-fascist action" to "describes itself as anti-fascist action" (which is not how sources write it). You removed the fact that these are autonomous groups and individuals (also removed a whole bunch of sources here). You also removed what the group is against: "fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists". All of these edits of yours raise serious POV issues and are a lot more than just a "clean up" or "copy edit".

Your rhetoric, such as here and here (calling another editor "juvenile") is also not helpful. Volunteer Marek 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: To keep saying that "there are other problems with your edit" misses the point. WP:PRESERVE counsels reviewing edits piece-by-piece, not a one apple spoils the bunch philosophy.

• On the "self-described moniker," I'm not going to continue debating it. I've asked to focus on the rest of my edits and am conceding that point for now, not because I think the current version is correct in my opinion, but because I'm agreeing to disagree.
• I never suggested my edit was a "clean up" or "copy edit." I have no idea why those are in quotes in your comment, but don't imply that I said that to misrepresent my edit.
• I agree with your description of portions of the second and third sentences, but they clearly overlap in describing protest tactics, and then the first and second sentences again overlap in describing the loose structure of the group. Part of my changes was to trim this repetition.

Again, I think that if you reviewed these changes carefully and objectively, you might actually find that some of them are reasonable. Claiming the entire swath of edits were "POV" doesn't give much guidance. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I said this in more detail below, but just to be sure it's clear - here, you removed seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists, which removed all mention of neo-Nazis, white supremacism, the far-right, or combating racism from the lead, even though all of these are major themes throughout the body; and your edit summary for this removal was long, wordy, and repetitive, plainly an edit summary implying it was mere uncontroversial copyediting (and, as I said, is incorrect in that that removal stripped out several key points not mentioned elsewhere in the lead.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Please do not characterize my edit summaries, and try focusing on parsing the substance of my edit. Long, wordy, and repetitive is exactly what I meant to say, and that's exactly what I'm saying here. The lead does not need to be a laundry list of every opponent of antifa. The edited lead retained white supremacists and fascists, umbrella terms presumably covering everything you just mentioned. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anything in your proposed changes stating that Antifa seeks to fight fascists or white-supremacists; the only mention is the MOS:DOUBTful describes itself as anti-fascist, which is not the same at all and does not reflect the unambiguous nature of the source you removed or the relevant parts of the article. There is no mention, in your edited version, that they seek to fight white supremacy at all. Nor do I agree with the removal of the opposition to racism, neo-Nazis, or the far right; these are major parts of the article, Antifa's opposition to them is a core part of the topic, and, therefore, unambiguously stating that opposition in the lead is absolutely essential. And you have provided no justification whatsoever for your removal of its autonomous nature, which, again, is both well-sourced and a major part of the body. Furthermore, regarding the edit summary - while I'm happy to WP:AGF and accept that that was at least your proximate rationale for removing the text you opposed in that edit, surely you recognize that it creates at least an awkward appearance to have you editing the lead to cast doubt on Antifa's opposition to fascism by adding a "self-described" expression of doubt, then immediately removing the well-cited part of the lead that unambiguously describes them seeking to oppose fascism, while stating that your objection to that second part is merely that it is "overly-long and wordy." --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: If you want to WP:AGF, I think that sounds great. I look forward to a non-frivolous discussion about my edit summary and perhaps one focused on the actual content of my changes. I think a good step in that direction would be for you to more carefully read the version that included my changes, which explicitly notes: 1) anti-racism, 2) anti white nationalism, 3) opposition to fascism, 4) opposition to the far-right, and does so in half as many words. You can also take a look at the repetitive overlap concerning sentences 1-3 that I described above. Further, I never said that all of the content I trimmed or removed was "un-cited." I trust that most of the content, except for one or two sentences, is attributable or cited directly. It's a matter of concision and unnecessary repetition. This is perfectly appropriate and not "unjustifiable" and egregious as you seem to suggest, which is way too hysterical if we're going to reasonably discuss how to taper down the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement that individuals involved in the movement tend to hold... certain views is not at all the same thing as the unambiguous statement that the purpose of Antifa's activities involves seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists; likewise, the final sentence of the first paragraph, focused on peaceful activities, is a more specific subset of the overarching Antifa purpose defined in the bit you removed. The part you removed is a concise, accurate summary of a key part of the topic's focus; removing it simply doesn't make sense, especially not if your goal is ultimately to have a more concise lead overall. I stand by my statement that it is an unjustifiable removal - that is to say, more specifically, I do not think there is anything you could say that could adequately justify taking it out. Making that clear is important because you said, above, that nobody was raising specific objections to individual parts of your edit (focusing instead on the most-controversial aspect, which was the edit to the first sentence), and have repeatedly tried to get people to agree that it was a "reasonable" change; I wanted to make it clear-cut that I felt that that particular change made the lead significantly worse and was therefore broadly not a reasonable way forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your reading of the paragraph is wrong. It conveys exactly the same information in either form. Your complaint would be addressed easily by simply adding "neo-nazi" to the list of things they oppose. I am fine with that, but there is no conceptual difference between being "anti" something and "seeking to combat" it. It's sort of curious to be lectured over concision by someone who spends about 4 sentences to basically say "I disagree," which is what you are saying by "unjustified removal" that "couldn't be justified by anything you say." This kind of dogmatic approach and refusal to listen to others is what makes consensus difficult. And further, you should not be throwing around suggestions of "POV" so frivolously and suggest I should be concerned about my "appearances" for edits to the lead. ::::::::I've been hesitant to point this out, but almost every dispute on the margins here seems to resolve in favor of glossing over unfavorable information, using flowery, more sympathetic language, and generally using a tone that is more supportive than impartial. On a case-by-case basis, the effect is negligable, but in the aggregate, we have a page with a serious NPOV problem in terms of language, presentation, and what's omitted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's best that we set aside the discussion about the edits as a whole. I support going back to the longstanding lead which I and others have carefully modified over time. Are there any lead changes that you think would be good but have not been specifically criticized on the talk page? Let's discuss changes one at a time to keep it simple. Maybe with a new section below. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe Aquillion and others made further clear what were the problems with your edits, so I suggest that you stop saying "there are other problems with your edit" misses the point. I do not think we should follow PRESERVE when this is a long-standing lead, something that you have disputed, even though Crossroads is right that this is "the longstanding lead which [they] and others have carefully modified over time." I do not think PRESERVE would apply to such a case, especially when several users clearly explained the various issues and there is no consensus for them yet. Your edits should be restored only if there is consensus for it. Until then, we should follow BRD. Davide King (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: The "objections" are based on a single aspect of the changes--the addition of the self-described qualifier--not any other aspect of it. That's why the discussion has halted. WP:PRESERVE applies to all edits and changes, and your knee-jerk reaction to a broad set of changes based on the first word is what's problematic. You rant about your own changes as unassailable and yet believe that changes you disagree with don't deserve the same deference. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I replied here. Davide King (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:, I haven't bothered to look into it, but if all we have is his own statement, we should leave it out. If a reliable source ties him to being Antifa in their own voice rather than "subject says" he's antifa.. then let's include it. Otherwise no. On the same token, I also think "multi racial family" antifa camping hoax ought to be removed, because the allegation that they were trolled/harassed etc is all based on they were accused of being antifa "family says..." "family says..." "family says...". Graywalls (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure that is a good analogy. All three sources say "multiracial" as a fact, with one saying "Authorities say a multiracial family", so I do not see any "family says". Did I miss anything? Davide King (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Welp. I meant to say "police said..." https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-campers-accused-ties-antifa-menaced-gunmen-police/story?id=71110600 look at how many times they say "police said...". The police gets the information from the report filed. So, they're basiaclly saying what they were told by the family. No independent verification has been done. The tie is not really close enough to merit inclusion of this particular instance, I think. Graywalls (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense. I believe one argument may be there is no reason to dispute the family was not multiracial and unless there are sources disagreeing, we should assume it is "true", while this may not apply to Reinhoel because it is something more controversial and related to crime, so in the case of Reinoehl we would need actual verification. At Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl, we write "a far-left anti-fascist activist and antifa supporter", without making any unverified assumption he had ties with antifa other than apparently supporting their actions. One counter-argument may be that this is applying a double standard but it could be argued this is based on the different nature of the two events. It seems to be you still believe "[h]is self-proclaimed antifa affiliation needs verification. Only thing we know for certain is he says media says he says he's 100% antifa." I agree with this. So how would you describe or characterise Reinoehl, following what reliable sources have reported? Davide King (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If weaselry such as that describes itself as anti-fascist is to be introduced to the lead, then there needs to be content explaining the supposed contradiction in the article body. A few Proud Boys saying "Antifa are the real fascists" doesn't make for a contradiction. FDW777 (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: More inaccuracies, a result of the persistent favorable bias that is continually present and unchecked on this talk page. I don't think you understand what WP:WEASEL words are, and it's not "a few proud boys" who have applied the self-described label. Reliable sources like The Atlantic have done so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to ping me to draw attention to your post, you might want to make sure it's accurate. The uses of "antifa" in your reference are Some self-styled “antifa” activists. A self-described member of Rose City Antifa and who had read internet rumors that antifa groups were coming to his town. The only uses of any variant of "fascist" are in the quotation “when fascists come to our cities to attack people, we are going to put our bodies between fascists and the people they want to attack.” That reference does not support your assertion that antifa only self-describe as anti-fascist. In fact the uses of self-described and self-styled are more to do with the lack of formal membership than addressing the contradiction you allege exists. FDW777 (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Strenuously oppose that change; there are too many sources that flatly call them anti-fascist to justify MOS:DOUBT, especially the highest-quality academic ones, eg. [1][2][3][4]; several of these are already in the article. [5] is particularly interesting, in that it details efforts to misuse antifa as a term in the right-wing media; it might be worth a sentence or two in the article. The change also clearly falls afoul of MOS:DOUBT, in that it casts doubt on a descriptor used by the overwhelming majority of sources - the sourcing, overall, supports the idea that this is a widely-accepted fact. This removal likewise seems indefensible -the description there is extensively sourced and summarizes relevant parts of the article; and, contrary to the edit summary, most of it was not present elsewhere in the lead, eg. it removed all mention of anti-racism or fighting neo-Nazis, both of which are present throughout the body, removing seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists. It's especially striking that such a drastic removal of well-sourced content from the lead, which uniquely summarizes things from the body, was explained by a vague and unhelpful summary of long, wordy, and repetitive; while the massive number of sources removed took up a lot of text in the editor, these amounted to only a few words in visible text. In context that makes the edit summary here a bit misleading, especially considering that it seems hard to avoid concluding that the targeted text was removed because it went against the POV of uncited MOS:DOUBT introduced to the first sentence, ie. it specifically states that Antifa seeks to fight fascism. Fundamentally (and this applies to all these edits) if you're going to explain an edit as just trimming or wordy, you ought to focus on aspects that will be uncontroversial, not on aspects that are plainly the locus of a major longstanding dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's also not clear what changes are proposed; several editors have piggy-backed on the original request and this discussion is now completely garbled. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Term

Bold text to be changed:
There have been multiple efforts to discredit antifa groups via hoaxes on social media, many of them false flag attacks originating from alt-right and 4chan users posing as antifa backers on Twitter.

• "operations" should be used instead of "attacks" because it is a more accurate term, and doesn't potentially mislead readers that the hoaxes were physical attacks. The three references attached to the statement do not pertain to physical attacks.

Ehs88 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, that anyone mistakes internet "attacks" for physical attacks. It is clear from context that these are not physical and attack has many definitions, e.g., "Attack noun 2:a belligerent or antagonistic action" (Merriam-Webster dictionary) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Academic source to anchor some discussion

There has been some back-and-forth about what specific events should be included. Because Antifa is decentralized, all events are by nature quite local, so it's hard to tease out what is significant. In particular, this has been heated regarding violent events. I think a few folks have suggested that identifying what events are mentioned in academic summaries might be a useful barometer. If so, perhaps this source would be useful: [6]. It comes from the Center for Strategic and International Studies and its lead author is Seth G. Jones, so I think the background is quite respectable. Are these authors and this institution suitable? Is this useful? Jlevi (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This seems to be an excellent-quality source. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what it adds. It has two short paragraphs about antifa in a piece largely about other topics, which mostly includes material already in this article, with a total of three footnotes. There is nothing to indicate any of the authors have any specific expertise on this subject; indeed the two paragraphs could've been written by someone who simply read this Wikipedia article. I'mnot even sure "academic" is the right word: it's published by a thinktank and its authors[7][8] are not academics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't add much. But it's hard to say without knowing what claims it might be used to support. I've suggested using academic sources to determine what belongs in the lede in the past, but would also stress that "academic sources" isn't a monolith and that some are clearly better than others; this would rank quite low on that scale. (It has led me to discover, though, that we have an article called 2016 Sacramento riot which ascribes a central role to antifa, but that event isn't mentioned in this article – this feels like something to rectify one way or the other.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, your comment makes sense, both regarding academic sources (they are not all equal) and the 2016 Sacramento riot. The event should probably be mentioned, if 'antifa' indeed played a central role. The TWP considered the action a success because "six Antifas have been hospitalized in critical condition, with many more being treated for lesser injuries" while they "only suffered one significant casualty". Weird how only those attacked by 'antifa' are routinely asked to be added, even when in the case of Reinhoel (which we mention) it has not be conclusively found any link to antifa, but things like those are not even discussed. Davide King (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Another possobile academic source: https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/counterterrorism/perspective-why-branding-antifa-a-terror-group-is-a-diversion/ Similar areas of expertise to the previous suggestion. Not sure if it adds anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that adds to our current article, except to further support things like (quotes from your article): "there is no equivalency between Antifa and those against whom they protest", "Antifa is not, however, a terrorist group. At the most basic level, it is not even an organized group but rather a set of ideas and behaviors coalescing into a social movement." "there is also no formal structure that links these groups to each other or to other individuals who participate in violent counter-protests." etc. The author, Anne Speckhard, is probably reliable enough as an expert on terrorism. But I'm not sure what the article adds except to add even more references to what we already have. --Jayron32 11:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the assertions that Seth Jones and the CSIS rank low on the scale of quality of academic sources. A while ago there was a discussion over how the article should handle the CSIS's terrorism database. The underlying consensus of the discussion was that the CSIS is a high-quality source whose statements relating to Antifa belong in the article. Hence the inclusion of a paragraph devoted to the CSIS's terrorism database, and hence the inclusion of a citation regarding the CSIS's terrorism database in the lead. The second paragraph of the Center for Strategic and International Studies article in particular provides a convincing case that the CSIS is a reliable, high-quality, highly respected think tank, especially in matters relating to terrorism.

I noticed three things that the CSIS study mentions that aren't well-covered in the Wikipedia article:

• It asserts that "Antifa groups" often "use improvised explosive devices and other homemade weapons"
• It mentions the 2016 Sacramento Riot
• It mentions the 2019 Tacoma attack and describes its perpetrator as "a self-proclaimed Antifa"

I believe the first and third bullet points merit inclusion in the article. If User:Davide King or someone else can back up with reliable sources that the Antifa affiliation was relevant to the 2016 Sacramento Riot and that that affiliation received substantial coverage from reliable sources, I can also support including that incident in the article. (I'm having trouble demonstrating that myself, but I'm not going to rule it out just because I personally have been unable to demonstrate that it merits inclusion.)

In relation to the first bullet point, this is the sort of generalization that the Wikipedia article should include. The word "explosive" does not appear once in the Wikipedia article, and the description of usage of weapons is minimal. Given that we have a high-quality source generalizing Antifa actions in such a direct manner, I believe the article should mention it within the body. (We can also mention the "vandalism" part, but I believe the mention of "property damage" in the lead covers this sufficiently.)

As for the 2019 Tacoma attack, I believe it should be included on the grounds that the CSIS viewed it as relevant enough to mention in an article about terrorism and within a set of paragraphs specifically about Antifa terrorism. I should also note that this is not the only source to highlight the perpetrator's identification with Antifa; for example, this NPR article called the attack "the nation's only deadly antifa attack recorded in the past four years" and went as far as to say that "antifa groups see a martyr" in the perpetrator. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hadger, thanks for your comments. I hope other users can weight in. Regarding the Tacoma attack, I am still not sure it should be added at Notable actions, which is what I am assuming you are proposing. It should be mentioned, and indeed it already is, but I am still not sure if it should be mentioned there because I found The Four Deuces' comment that it is not clear whether he was engaging in an antifa action (they are free to correct me if I did not summarise or paraphrase their argument well, or if they changed their mind in light of new evidences or reports) or simply an action based on his opposition to ICE; I would not that he was described as "a self-proclaimed Antifa", i.e. with a qualifier and not as a fact; and same thing for Reinohel. They should be mentioned because they are mentioned in analysis and studies about antifa but I am not sure whether we should describe the act itself as part of a notable action when it seems it was more of a lonewolf attack. The 2016 Sacramento riot makes more sense since it seems to be it was indeed an antifa group action. Of course, I am willing to change my mind based on reliable sources and consensus. Davide King (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. My view is that it's not our job to draw an arbitrary line between lone wolf attacks and group action; that would be original research. Instead, we should follow the approach taken by reliable sources. The CSIS viewed this attack as significant enough to warrant mention in a discussion of Antifa's contribution to left-wing terrorism. On that basis, I believe it is notable enough for inclusion in the "Notable actions" section. The NPR source also decides for us whether the perpetrator "was engaged in an antifa action", as it calls the attack an "antifa attack." As for "self-proclaimed Antifa", I agree that any mention of this incident in the article should refer to the perpetrator in a similar manner. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• I definitely don't agree that the Center for Strategic and International Studies is a good source; it's a think tank, which means that (by default) its purpose is to advance the goals, perspective and politics of its funders rather than to report things accurately and with suitable fact-checking. While RSP hasn't considered this think tank in particular in depth, it's repeatedly determined that think tanks in general are not suitable for controversial claims in political articles, precisely because of the issues I mentioned combined with the fact that people keep trying to use them for strident claims; see eg. [9][10][11]. The only comment I could find mentioning this one specifically was in this discussion where it is specifically noted as unreliable on Middle Eastern topics due to being funded by Saudi Arabia and UAE; while obviously this isn't directly connected it doesn't particularly imply that it has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy an WP:RS would require. ---Aquillion (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The source probably doesn't meet rs as a partisan think tank and in any case it just mentions antifa in passing. Also, the source diverts from mainstream scholarship by conflating Anarchist terrorism and Left-wing terrorism. They differ in a number of ways. The first type for example seeks to overthrow government without replacing it and proponents are more likely to act alone and not not claim responsibility. Human casualties tend to be higher. That is fine of course when one is comparing right-wing terrorism with other types of terrorism but becomes problematic when discussing antifa. TFD (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

while obviously this isn't directly connected it doesn't particularly imply that it has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy an WP:RS would require. -- Obviously this source of funding indicates that editors should be cautious about citing its statements regarding Middle Eastern politics, but it's not an indication that the CSIS has had issues regarding fact-checking and accuracy, or that it's unreliable in the area of domestic terrorism. (Also, I'm not sure if this is what you meant to say, but it should be noted that the CSIS is not funded exclusively by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.)

partisan think tank -- In what way is it partisan? US News listed it as a centrist think tank. The Guardian also described it as a "centrist think tank", a characterization which is repeated in this Wikipedia article.

conflating Anarchist terrorism and Left-wing terrorism -- It treats anarchists as a subset of the far-left, which is not inconsistent with mainstream scholarship (see Anarchism#Thought). It never asserts that anarchist terrorism and left-wing terrorism are one in the same.

The Guardian has cited the CSIS's studies regarding terrorism without presenting skepticism toward their findings; see [12], [13] (the former concerns the study linked above). Additionally, the University of Pennsylvania's Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program designated the CSIS the "Defense and National Security Center of Excellence" in 2019, indicating a top ranking in this category globally among think tanks for multiple years. (It has also ranked in highly in other categories, as can be seen in the document.) So we have a reliable secondary news source and a program at a university led by a professor in international studies both treating this as a reliable source.

In any case, if this think tank is unreliable, then this article shouldn't devote the majority of a paragraph to one of its studies and cite an article about that study in the lead. If the CSIS is unreliable, should we remove both of these (the sentences in "Analyses and studies" and the citation)? (I think both should be kept per my arguments regarding reliability above, and I stand by my suggestion regarding information to add to the article. But I also believe that this Wikipedia article should be consistent in its treatment of the CSIS as either a reliable or unreliable source.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Still believe it is reliable. It has WP:UBO (use by others) and in any case, we can't arbitrarily say it's reliable for statements we like but not for ones we don't like. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I second this. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Given User:Davide King's acknowledgment of my response here, I believe it would be appropriate to add information regarding the "use [of] improvised explosive devices and other homemade weapons" and details about the Tacoma attack to the body of the article. (I can also support the addition of the 2016 Sacramento Riots if people can present sources establishing weight and relevance to the article.) Any thought on how we should go about this? I'm generally much more involved in discussing content additions on this talk page than adding content to the article, so I would appreciate your thoughts on this (as well as others'). I'm thinking info on the Tacoma attack should be added to "Notable actions", while info on improvised explosives/homemade weapons can be added to "Activities". Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hadger, yes, you can go ahead and add those matters. I am too busy to do it but I am sure you can find a good way. I think you should find a way to then also mention the 2016 Sacramento Riot - it should be linked here somehow due to its relevance, and it is better for NPOV lest it look like we are shying away from covering when they fight people that essentially nobody would disagree are fascists. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hadger, you can add your proposal of a specific wording here, but before adding it I would wait a response from other users too such as Aquillion, Arms & Hearts, bobfrombrockley, The Four Deuces and Jayron32, just to avoid edit warring and making sure we agree. Also, could someone verify if Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook and American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism make any mention of that or something like that? Because if they do, then it is surely due for Activities. However, if it is only the CSIS, then it should probably go under Analysis and studies at best, especially since you wrote "the CSIS study", so it is more relevant there. Davide King (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I await a concrete proposal before making any assessment of it. --Jayron32 12:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Effectiveness

Regarding this removal, while we could find more / better sources, I think that that text is generally worth preserving in some form; the questions of of "how effective is Antifa?" and "is this a reasonable response?" are reasonably sourceable and has fairly high-quality voices on both sides, so we ought to at least note it exists. Some other sources that could be used for it include:

• (It’s a good time to offer an observation: on the terms it set itself, antifascist organizing in the United States has worked.)
• - skeptical, but it quotes Natasha Lennard directly (in a context that takes it seriously), indicating that her article had an impact on the left and is therefore worth a passing mention here.
• - already in the article, but it also cites the Natasha Lennard piece in a way that plainly takes it seriously.
• - not as directly about effectiveness, but broadly related to the topic.

References

Based on the last two we ought to at least include the Lennard piece, since it has significant secondary coverage, and based on the first two we ought to probably at least make it clear that the more general debate on the left over antifa's effectiveness has two sides. (Also, FWIW The Intercept is green on WP:RSP. I broadly agree that we shouldn't lean too heavily on opinionated stuff from WP:BIASED sources, but this is one from a high-quality source as far as those go, and it has substantial secondary coverage indicating its importance, so I don't see a reason to avoid having a brief mention at the end of a paragraph midway through the article; it seems at least as significant as most of the other quotes in the section, and the sources above - not to mention, again, the fact that the Intercept is a high-quality source for that particular perspective - show that it does represent a significant line of thought.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, thank you. That was exactly what I was trying to do and while I agree it can be improved, I believe it is worth preserving. I was sure I have read about its "effectiveness" in other green sources (I guess The Atlantic or The Nation you linked below), but I could not remember it, so I added what I found and I believe it was fine. Davide King (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, Lennard's comments have now been cited even in a book published by Routledge. Davide King (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If the argument was comparing disagreements between professor of political science #1, and professor #2 of same caliber, I would say it's fair game. However, it has no meaningful purpose to include what "some journalists argue" (or what Beyonce... or Kim Kardashian think) as those simply reflect their own position rather than the general public opinion. Graywalls (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, if that was the issue, I have removed that wording. I agree it was not probably a good choice. I hope it is fine, or at least better, now. Davide King (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Wording was the issue. I can't comment further until I have had the time to really go through the sources. Graywalls (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Beinart has significant scholarly creds. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=%22Peter+Beinart%22&btnG=

Natasha Lennard does not. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=%22Natasha+Lennard%22&btnG=

Her profile says "Natasha Lennard is a columnist for The Intercept. Her work has appeared in The Nation, Bookforum and the New York Times, among others. She teaches critical journalism at the New School for Social Research in New York." So, this would be as if quoting a sociologist's argument against a doctor's position on the effectiveness of medical procedures. Graywalls (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, Lennard is not responding specifically to Beinard, but to the argument, also echoed by Noam Chomsky and others, that antifa is "a gift to the far-right". This argument has been reported by reliable sources, including a Routledge book, so it seems to be relevant and due as also argued by Aquillion. We should present both views as both views have been reported and are due. As argued by Aquillion, "the questions of of 'how effective is Antifa?' and 'is this a reasonable response?' are reasonably sourceable and has fairly high-quality voices on both sides, so we ought to at least note it exists." Lennard's comments have been viewed relevant enough to be reported in secondary and other quality sources. So I do not understand what you are arguing, that we should remove it because "quoting a sociologist's argument against a doctor's position on the effectiveness of medical procedures"? Even though that is a strawman and a misunderstanding that Lennard is responding specifically to Beinart, whom you deem a higher authority, which may be true, but this does not address the fact that she is not responding specifically to him but to the "gift to the far-right" argument and that this has been reported by secondary and reliable sources that discuss antifa's effectiveness. Davide King (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

So the 12,000 or so bytes are added again. It isn't whether something should be cut or not, but whether they should have been inserted in the first place. @Davide King:, you didn't want existing contents getting gutted without discussion. In return, considerable addition gets discussed and WP:ONUS established similarly. I haven't seen any discussion in a while and I haven't felt that a consensus took place to add what was just added. What does everyone else think? Graywalls (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote here, you did not even try to follow Wikipedia:Preserve and you have been the only user to revert me so far, so perhaps other users may prefer we follow PRESERVE and improve, reword, or substitute the additions rather than outright removing them. Even I do not agree with some of my additions, which may give too much weight to Beinart, but Crossroads may disagree and I tried to balance it. I would have hoped that PRESERVE would have fixed that, either by adding secondary sources or substituting Beinart and others with better scholarly sources. Davide King (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/ this is a good example of what inclusion worth talk of "effectiveness" is. It isn't missionary A, bishop A and church lady C says certain things and atheists A, B and C says other things. The current contents sought for inclusion is opinions and reflections. Graywalls (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not dispute this, but I think Crossroads hit the nail in coffin when they wrote "[t]he objection seems to be more about process, but what is the objection to the content itself and as a whole? I've read it over both times and it seems mostly fine. Some redundancy could be trimmed [...]. Other problems can be fixed through editing or by focusing in on them." I hope Aquillion could get us their feedback because I think they may find a wording and structuring solution as they did in trimming one paragraph of the lead. Davide King (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no deadline. If need to be, we can always do a full blown RfC. Graywalls (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I agree, there is no hurry. However, what did you oppose the most from my edit? I suppose the expansion of Effectiveness, but do you think there was literally nothing to be saved from it? Because I agree that we should summarise but to do that we would need to rely much more on Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook and American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism. If something is not mentioned in either book or tertiary sources, then it is likely undue, no? Davide King (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please improve NPOV?

Reading the first sentences, I’m concerned that the definition is sounding very biased, especially as the label has been used more and more broadly to denigrate Or dehumanize anyone protesting against violence.

I believe calling someone Antifa is used as an insult more often than as a self-identifier.

Could we move up the line “The [Anti-Defamation League] states that the label antifa should be limited to "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries" and not be misapplied to include all anti-fascist counter-protesters.[15]

Also, I do not believe In the current opening lines, that it is suitable or factual to say that people labelled as Antifa are in fact against work on policy, and prefer conflict. The label is being used on people even more than being claimed by people. I am anti-facism and believe changes in policy are a critical piece of progress. I do not identify as “Antifa” because I do not want to be in conflict with others.

My two cents. I’d make the changes myself but from an iPad I cannot edit pages without making a mess. And I’m not unbiased on this.

Thank you to whomever reads this and replies. I’m not on often, but am grateful for your work and consideration. Your work is more critical this year than it has ever been, so thank you for all the work you do, even in these extreme times.

DrMel (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I do not believe In the current opening lines, that it is suitable or factual to say that people labelled as Antifa are in fact against work on policy, and prefer conflict.

I'm sorry, I just can't parse what you're asking us to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Specific suggestion: in the lead change "that aim to achieve their objectives through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform." to "that aim to achieve their objectives through direct action, including violence, rather than through policy reform."

This simplifies the statement and emphasizes the direct action attribute of antifa. Stating that they use both non-violent and violent methods is true, but the non-violent mention is not necessary and distracts from delivering the main points that distinguish antifa from other movements; which are, that antifa activists use direct action and in some cases are aggressive to the point of violence.

This suggestion is a genuine good faith attempt to improve the NPOV of one focused statement in the article. Jared.h.wood (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to Davide King, FDW777, Crossroads to discuss. Jared.h.wood (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jared.h.wood: So your suggestion is to remove the consensus wording, that's reliably sourced, to emphasize violence... because you feel this a defining characteristic of the group, and more importantly, that having a mention of non-violent action there "distracts" from this point being made? This is despite you acknowledging that it's accurate, and knowing that it's consistently reported by the majority of our sources? I'm sorry, but how is this NPOV? That seems instead like editorializing, and selective use of source material, to make a point. I'll assume good faith, but I fail to see how this is even remotely in line with policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that being a new editor, you might think NPOV means something other than it does on Wikipedia, and therein lies some explanation as to why I was so baffled by your edit request. As a policy, WP:NPOV means reporting what reliable sources say, in a neutrally worded and encyclopedic way, without selectively interpreting the source material, or phrasing it in a way that either provides a false balance for fringe views, or mischaracterizes what the majority of sources say. Your edit request was proposing something that seemed, to me, to actually violate NPOV. At least as the term is used on Wikipedia. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, I agree and I believe you gave a reasonal and convincing argument. Bray says the "vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent" but is it their willing to use violent direct action (he actually does not use 'violent' or 'direct action', he says "their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists.") and in general I see no issue with the current wording. Indeed, one may argue, citing Bray, that nonviolence is not emphasised enough and that we should add a qualifier such as 'sometimes violent' since Bray, an expert of the movement routinely quoted and cited by reliable sources, says that the vast majority of antifa organasing is "nonviolent." Davide King (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Rather than mass reverting, it would be helpful if you would look at my changes piece by piece. There are segments of the lead that can be cut to make it more concise. It is significantly repetitive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your notion that this was a "mass reverting" when this was a long-standing lead, so I suggest that you make an edit request instead. I already stated you removed any mention of nonviolence and your use of weasley wording to imply that they are not really anti-fascists but only "describe itself as anti-fascist." You also removed any mention of scholars, among others, in rejecting a false equivalence between antifa and the far-right such as white supremacists et al. which is reported in body and that was simply a summary of it. Davide King (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You also removed mention of their anti-racist activism and that it is "an array of autonomous", i.e. leaderless, groups and individuals, which is extensively discussed in the body and is a summary of it. You also changed "A highly decentralized movement, antifa political activists are anti-racists[12] who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists" to "Antifa activists often form counter protests against those they identify as belonging to the far right." The long-standing wording is more clarifying in describing those whom they oppose and is also in line with the body with mentions several white-supremacists groups and protests that were indeed initiated by white supremacists or far-right extremists. While antifa may not have a 100% accuracy rate, Notable actions include many events that were indeed organised by the far-right. Davide King (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@David Kinge: These reverts undid every single change I made to the lead. Yours was a mass revert. You seemingly clearly didn't even closely read the lead, which you assert is "long standing," or my edits, because the current iteration regurgitates the same information in different words in every other sentence. You are not the enforcer at this article and there is no protection requiring "edit requests." There are also not sources confirming that their only presence is in response to right-wing protests. This assertion is made up out of whole cloth. Sources confirm that they are also involved in protesting police, government facilities, and various other types of events. The same applies for the group's involvement in violence. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Then so were Graywalls' reverts of my edits, yet they were right to do so, even though I believe we could have followed Wikipedia:Preserve. On the other hand, you are editing a long-standing lead and several of your changes were problematic, so it would be better to discusses each change separately with an edit request. I also suggest that you actually respond to the issues I raised (such as sources in body do not using a qualifier for 'anti-fascist' or sources in body opposing the false equivalence between antifa and right-wing terrorism) and that you back down from accusing me I am "the enforcer at this article", when I merely followed BRD and that your edits do not have consensus yet. You write "[s]ources confirm that they are also involved in protesting police, government facilities, and various other types of events. The same applies for the group's involvement in violence." Then please, provide sources. The body does not currently make enough mention of that and Bray and others clearly disagree that 'violence' is their main tactic. In short, your edits are not supported by the body and in some cases are even in contradiction to what majority of reliable and scholarly sources say. Davide King (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I also do not understand what you mean when you wrote "[y]ou seemingly clearly didn't even closely read the lead, which you assert is 'long standing,'" when that is true, as shown by Graywall's reversal of my edits, with the lead staying the same, apart from one sentence I added as summary from my additions to the body. Most of the current wording has been part of a long-standing version and consensus. It can always be improved but I do not think your edits were an improvement and in some cases they made it worse. Davide King (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: You suggest "several" of my claims were "problematic," without specifying which, and offer that as a justification for a mass reversion. I don't care what another editor did earlier -- that is disruptive and in violation of WP:PRESERVE. This is not a consensus-required article, and "long-standing" means nothing when bad, in-concise writing is repeatedly restored through edit-warring by editors who don't abide WP:PRESERVE and quickly dismiss others' contributions.

The distinction you describe above between "direct action" and "violence" is headache-inducing hairsplitting. There is no difference. The sources use them interchangeably. "Direct action" clearly means physical violence. You are simply advocating for the term that the group prefers to use over that which objective sources more frequently use. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have explained why several of your edits were problematic. Sources in body do not support the 'anti-fascist' qualifier you added and 'anti-fascist' has been there for a long time, you are arguing against a long-standing consensus is saying "anti-fascist" rather than your proposed "describe itself as anti-fascist." The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and your changes to the lead are not reflected in the body; as an example, there is currently no example of a police or government facilities protests. Similarly, "A highly decentralized movement, antifa political activists are anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists" has been there for a while, so the onus is on you to gain consensus for your proposed changes. I also explained why "seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists" is more clarifying and a better summary of given source which use this wording, rather than your proposal of "against those they identify as belonging to the far right." This was also already discussed many times in the Archives. That you think "direct action" and "violence" are the same thing seems to be your personal view. Bray does not seem to say this at Direct action we discuss both violent and non-violent direct action, so I believe your conflation of the two is false. We are obviously going to disagree, so it would be better and useful if more users could weight it and see if you can get consensus for your proposed changes. Davide King (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, I believe that ironically DrMel, who are free to correct me if wrong, are actually saying the lead emphasises too much that antifa is 'violent' or that it seeks 'conflict.' In other words, my understanding of their comment is that they would disagree with your proposal "the non-violent mention is not necessary" or distracting; they disagree that "the main points that distinguish antifa from other movements; which are, that antifa activists use direct action and in some cases are aggressive to the point of violence", stating that it is not true "Antifa are in fact against work on policy, and prefer conflict." Davide King (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus and Davide King, my suggestion is an attempt to bring the first sentence of the lead closer to representing the source material. I checked the quoted sources for the first sentence (listed as [8][9][10][11]) and, [11] is the only one that comes close to stating anything about nonviolent methods. That was a quote from Mr. Bray: Many antifa organizers also participate in more peaceful forms of community organizing. This is immediately followed with but violence is justifiable. I do not believe that the current wording: aim to achieve their objectives through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action" is a good representation of any of the quoted sources. They use language closer to my suggestion. For example:

Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence[8]

For starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn’t perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do[9]

they believe that using violence is justified[11]

Please consider these quotes from additional sources:

Antifa is open to violence, arguing that fascism thrives under liberal tolerance [14]

Ross said much of antifa sees nonviolence as an ineffective tactic against fascists [15]

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 [16]

As I read the sources, they all make the following points 1. Antifa is not an officially organized group 2. Antifa is a response to fascist violence 3. Antifa is willing to commit crime, some violent 4. It is a fallacy to compare Antifa violence to white extremist violence. I would like to see all of these points represented in the lead and in the article. I do not believe that saying, Antifa uses both nonviolent and violent direct action accurately expresses the third point. I am advocating wording with language closer to what is found in the sources. I do not want wording suggesting the POV that the violence is unjustified, unwarranted, or comparable to far-right violence. Symmachus Auxiliarus, I am an inexperienced editor and can easily be misinterpreting NPOV principles. My intent is not to emphasize Antifa violence, but rather to represent it as I find it in the majority of acceptable sources. I believe that peaceful Antifa is a reality and that it should be represented in the article, but I stand by my original suggestion as a better representation of the sources. Jared.h.wood (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think those four points are a good summary and I am fine to represent them. The problem in my view is that your previously proposed wording did not do a good enough job of summarising all four. How would you summarise them? I do not think the current lead emphasises or even mention that "antifa is a response to fascist violence" and it only supports the other three points, although the third point may be worded a bit differently and that it is its willingless to use violence that differences it from other anti-fascists; actually, Bray says "liberal anti-racists." If we can summarise all those four points in one or few sentences, it would be a good thing. Davide King (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I am reading and comparing sources, and making a collection of direct quotes on what they say the Antifa movement is. When I am finished, I will write a summary and post it here. It may take another day or so. Jared.h.wood (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Checking back and grateful for your considered discussion! I am, as Jared said, advocating for changes to the lead paragraph that focus on the uses of the word Antifa, instead of defining what someone called Antifa believes. Not everyone who has been given the label Antifa. For example, some of my Trump-supporting friends refer to all non-supporters of Trump like myself as Antifa, even though we are not part of any organized Antifa group.

Antifa has become a label used not just by people who’ve adopted it for themselves, but as a way of othering and dehumanizing people who are against fascism. aka Anti-Fascist. So the language I’d recommend we use in the first -at Agra-how would address the multiple uses of the label now, instead of a specific stance toward violence or against policy work. That may be true of any group that calls themselves Antifa, but is certainly not the case with someone like myself. I do identify as Anti-fascist (and hope you all do too), but I am much much more focused on peaceful negotiated changes, not violence. And I have been labeled by Trump-supporting friends as Antifa.

In updating the lead paragraph, I found a couple citations that might be useful. Again, I’m logged in from an I-ad so editing the article is very difficult to do without making a mess. Grateful to anyone here for whatever improvements you can make. I think this matters a lot - people get their definitions from Wikipedia, and this is definitely a rough way to be defined when it’s used by someone else to Label you.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-antifa/ looks like a very current and well written source. These lines in particular:

The term "antifa" is short for anti-fascist; it's used both by its adherents and its foes. In general, people who identify as antifa are known not for what they support, but what they oppose: Fascism, nationalism, far-right ideologies, white supremacy, authoritarianism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia. Some antifa activists also denounce capitalism and the government overall.

Also noted that en.wiki.x.io/Anti-fascism is also running alongside this in search results. Could we link and manage them together better?

And Holy WOW! I just looked at the page view stats. After massive spike when protests started, this is still getting almost 20k views per day.

This article is the first result when people Google Antifa, and how people around the world are getting our definitions. I’m guessing y’all would agree - labels frequently used to describe “others” need to be very carefully explained in our articles. Currently this lead paragraph does not seem to meet criteria for NPOV. And scares me - too many people already in conflict - if people searching for the definition assume anyone against racism is prone toward violence we increase the fear factors. Again, with such a high view count, the lead paragraph here literally scares me.

(note: when you/we see yourself/ourselves using the pronoun “they” - you/we are identifying as Not part of the group you are describing. Check that. It’s interesting how often we accidentally “other” people.)

I’m not on often - please ping me on my talk page if you’d like a quicker reply. Thank you again!

DrMel (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

DrMel, the source you mentioned could be added at Etymology and quoted there. We do say "[t]he Anti-Defamation League states that the label antifa should be limited to 'those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries' and not be misapplied to include all anti-fascist counter-protesters." Other than this, it is not much clear what are your proposed change. Are you saying we emphasise too much 'violence'? I agree, in the sense that mainstream media emphasise violent actions, over non-violent ones, because it is the first that make the news, that is why we need more scholarly analysis like Bray's and other academic and scholars. And we have both Bray and the Congressional Research Service agreeing that much of antifa activism is nonviolent.

I suppose the first sentence should better represent this statement by Bray that "vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists" rather than say "both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform", which seems to be what you are opposing when you wrote "I do not believe In the current opening lines, that it is suitable or factual to say that people labelled as Antifa are in fact against work on policy, and prefer conflict." Davide King (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead

There is a significant amount of repetition, over-explanation, and over-citing in the lead. I have made a number of seemingly broad changes, but I ultimately feel this makes it more concise and straightforward. See [17]. The overall theme is to trim language, trim sources, and reduce length without removing key information. I expect that there will be feedback and likely some challenges, so this may be a good place to have that discussion. Reply below, and remember WP:PRESERVE is just as important as WP:BRD in ensuring that articles are slowly improved over time. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, at least this time you opened a thread. I think this one was a bit better, but those were still bold edits to a long-standing lead version and it would be better if we discuss it and reach a consensus first. You also removed "Much of antifa's activism is nonviolent, involving poster and flyer campaigns, delivering speeches, marching in protest, and community organizing on behalf of anti-racist and anti-white nationalist causes." The previous sentence gave examples of 'violent' actions; this one of 'non-violent'. Both of which are extensively discussed in the body. This removal pushed a POV. In addition, it is over-cited the same way Boogaloo movement and Proud Boys are. Since many users and IPs ask us to change things to the lead without providing any sources or simply presenting their POV, I suppose that is why we did that. Davide King (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edit removed 5,627 bytes, including text properly supported by the body, reliable sources, etc. I disagree this was just some "trimming." At the very least, you need to gain consensus for it. Davide King (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I just noted you added 'liberal' to scholars rejecting equivalences between antifa and the far-right and white supremacism, or that antifa is a legitimate response to the rise of the far-right. Those are by no means 'liberal' scholars and it is a POV-pushing edits to imply only 'liberal' scholars think this. Davide King (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In response to this, that is nonsense. That is not the single issue. All those users above explained you why your edits were problematic, so "the self-described qualifier" was just one aspect of it. I am still not sure PRESERVE applies to a long-standing lead of a controversial article, when several users objected to your edits, which so far only you seem to support and thus fail CONSENSUS. I also note that PRESERVE says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." This fits the second part. In addition, the solution would be to tag them and it would be problematic to do that for the lead since it is supposed to be a summary of the body, hence removal until CONSENSUS says otherwise is the solution. Either way, your proposed edits thus far fail CONSENSUS, so your points are moot. Davide King (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

My response below:

• Repetition You claim references to "non-violence" were removed. This is untrue. The edited lead referenced both violent and non-violent action generically, along with the group's stated goals of "confronting" those they identify as belonging to any one of the opposing extremist groups. Expanded reference to non-violent action was indeed removed, and you'll note that there is a similarly limited description of the group's violent action. The current version spends about three lines on non-violent action with language lifted from basically a single source. This discrepancy is concerning when the group's self-stated goal, as the article reads, is confrontation, "combatting," and "direct action." It is undue to place emphasis on a limited number of non-violent activities, when the majority of sources, and the group's own members, claim to embrace violence instead, by their own account.
• Continued on repetition It is repetitive to state that the group is composed of "anti-racists," which is puzzlingly cited to a source that does not use that term, and then say that they seek to "combat racists." Think of how that reads. They are anti-racists seeking to combat racists. This is tautological, and you restored it on the basis of such an edit being "POV" pushing. When you make these kinds of charges, I wonder if you actually read or comprehend the edits. It is also redundant to state that antifa, which is described as an anti-fascist organization, supports "anti-fascist views." This is yet again another tautology that you restored and remains in the lead.
• Overcitation Citation should be limited to claims likely to be disputed. There are currently about 5-6 citations to every sentence. It is simply not plausible that there is this much heavily disputed content in every sentence, and this interferes with readability. Your WP:OSE arguments about far-right extremist pages being similar is not a justification for this clear editorial problem.
• Scholars Two sentences reference scholars, but at least 2/3 citations provided are to news pieces. WP:BIAS does not exclude a source from use, but it can be noted. Adam Klein, one such professor, repeatedly refers to "defensive rhetoric" by antifa (phraseology commonly used by the members themselves) to refer to tweets by self-described members and antifa activists promoting physical violence. Those tweets form the basis of his study. His writing on the group belies an obvious bias, one that is favorable to the group. Chelsey Kivland, the other scholar, writes favorably about activist groups and openly describes her writing on antifa as a "defense" of the group. This is fine and does not mean her analysis is unreliable, but she is not even purporting to be objective. She's not required to be objective, but we are, and that doesn't mean that we don't acknowledge potential bias in sources.
• Extent of changes "Bytes" is a blatantly inaccurate measure to assess the extent of changes. I'd like to assume you know better. In fact, my changes reduced the length of the first paragraph by a mere 16 words. The "bytes" were the result of the removal of sources. Do not mischaracterize my edits.

@Davide King: I'm glad you recognize the attempt to move forward with this thread. I'm disappointed you're, again, falling back on baseless accusations of POV-pushing for any edit that doesn't comply with a carefully crafted narrative, failing to look closely at the edits, and arguing "mootness" and "lack of consensus" repeatedly. I suggest you review WP:DRNC and stop WP:STONEWALLING in every discussion. My changes or similar ones are necessary to restore NPOV and improve the clarity/concision of the lead, which is frankly a mess right now. There is much potential for improvement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am glad too, but I disagree those are "baseless accusations" since other users also noted the same thing. In addition, that you think your "changes or similar ones [were] necessary to restore NPOV" implies the current lead, which was the work of discussion of many edits through many months, is not NPOV. Again, you did not explain why you removed "Much of antifa's activism is nonviolent, involving poster and flyer campaigns, delivering speeches, marching in protest, and community organizing on behalf of anti-racist and anti-white nationalist causes" as other users noted. We rightly give examples of 'violent' actions and then give examples of 'non-violent' ones. This is NPOV, not reporting only one thing.As for scholars, that antifa is not equivalent to the far-right is also supported by the centrist CSIS and other editors already explained you why the use of 'liberal' to refer to scholars is problematic. Finally, I think the main issue is that you are trying to edit a lead that was discussed and the work of many months and that it was not improving in many aspects, per arguments by other users below. That you dismiss them does not mean they should be. Davide King (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why Antifa activist's [sic] protest tactics include digital activism, harassment, physical violence, and property damage was left in (after being badly edited to its current form) while Much of antifa's activism is nonviolent, involving poster and flyer campaigns, delivering speeches, marching in protest, and community organizing on behalf of anti-racist and anti-white nationalist causes was removed. Why retain a breakdown of violent direct action while removing a similar breakdown for non-violent direction action? I share the unease about the addition of "liberal" as well. This should not be assumed to be a full list of objections I may or may not have to the amended lead. FDW777 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Also not a full list of objections to the changes, besides the objections above, which I endorse, I also object to the changes that removed the phrasing "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold..." to replace it with "The movement tends to support". The former phrasing is more precise and more accurate, and better reflects reality. The use of liberal in the context used in the proposed changes is also problematic. It's a usage that is unfamiliar in actual scholarly usage, but reflects a pejorative use restricted to the American right-wing political commentary. There's legions more wrong with the changes, but these are a few that I noticed and thought needed bringing up. --Jayron32 18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: "I object for no reason in particular to any attempted changes" is a disruptive approach. Also, the first line regarding "direct action" summarizes both violent and non-violent actions, based on the body of sources. The other sentence is based on a single source and not reflected in the broader body of sources. That's called WP:UNDUE weight, and that was the basis for the edit. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I'm not clear on why individuals is the preferred pronoun here rather than the movement itself. Specificity does not equal accuracy. Do you have a source to confirm that "individuals" rather than the movement itself tending to support those views is "reality," or is that just your impression? It is also wrong to suggest that scholars who engage in open advocacy for liberal causes are not in fact "liberal" and that recognizing as much is "limited to American right-wing political commentary." We acknowledge any potential bias when using such sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No, you're using liberal here not in the sense of Liberalism, i.e. " liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law." but as a pejorative term used by American right wing media to mean "Everyone who disagrees with us". It also often gets confused with "leftist", but liberal is not equivalent of leftist, which is how you seem to be using it here. Furthermore, the "movement" is an abstract concept, and does not have beliefs or views. It has no brain, no body, holds no opinions, etc. Individuals have those. --Jayron32 19:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't ever put things I never said in quotation marks and pretend I said them. The reason for my partial critique, with qualifier, is that you have previously attempted to claim I only objected to part of your edit. Not the case, I just focused on one objection at that particular time. Your "single source" claim is specious. All three sources cited deal with both non-violent and violent direct action. FDW777 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I mean "liberal" as in a placement on the liberal-conservative spectrum, which translates into left-right. The two cited scholars in the article obviously are evaluating the group from a very politically liberal standpoint. Klein is more subtle but repeatedly uses language mirroring the group's messaging; the Dartmouth professor is engaging in open advocacy, which they admit to. Again, neither of these sources are unusable, but I think it's worth noting potential political biases when discussing scholarship on political groups in particular.

@FDW777:, the language about "protesting" and "flyering" is basically lifted word-for-word from a single source, a CRS report. Check the page again. It's still up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've told you before, if you're going to ping me to draw your attention to your post, make sure it's accurate. The Vox reference cited says 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. Miss that did you? FDW777 (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It only translates to "left-right" among American conservative political commentary. Reliable sources of political theory don't use that terminology. --Jayron32 12:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, but at this point you know people object to many of these changes; even if you disagree with the objections, it's still revert-warring over the lead to keep making WP:BOLD edits after people have expressed objections. Going point-by-point:

• Here, the removed bit about who those actions target is a core part of the source's context and cannot be removed without removing the entire sentence; it is not sufficient to mention their general ideology elsewhere in the lead, because that leaves it less clear who these actions target in order to achieve their goals. Its decentralized nature is also more thoroughly cited in the body.
• Here, you combined Scholars tend to reject the equivalence between antifa and white supremacism, which was cited to several academic sources, into the previous sentence, then added an in-line statement that the sources you left were liberal. (Also, it is bizarre to state that the opposition comes from the left, then characterize Bray and Burroughs as liberal, which inverts the meaning of those terms even if you were correct, though I'm not understanding why you characterized Burroughs as liberal or leftist either way.) But if you feel that those sources are 'liberal', why did you combine it in a way that removed the others?
• Adam Klein, one such professor, repeatedly refers to "defensive rhetoric" by antifa (phraseology commonly used by the members themselves) to refer to tweets by self-described members and antifa activists promoting physical violence. Those tweets form the basis of his study. His writing on the group belies an obvious bias, one that is favorable to the group. Chelsey Kivland, the other scholar, writes favorably about activist groups and openly describes her writing on antifa as a "defense" of the group. This is patiently WP:OR; moreover, it's self-justifying logic, in that you are saying that any scholar whose conclusions portray antifa positively or which uses language similar to theirs is axiomatically biased - you are essentially saying "I disagree with Klein's argument, therefore he is biased." Similarly, there is nothing biased about writing a defense of a subject, group, or topic in an academic setting; it is quite normal for academics to state a position they intend to defend. By your logic here, it would never be possible to write objectively about anything; your argument boils down to saying that anyone who writes positively of antifa is (in your inaccurate political terminology) a "liberal" and therefore any defenses of the group must be characterized as biased.
• "Individuals involved in the movement" and "the movement" are not identical statements and you can't just switch between them. I think I specifically pointed this out above when explaining why those parts were not redundant.
• You also switched from "violent direct action" to "encouraging violence", which I believe someone specifically objected to after your prior round of edits.
• Here, you weakened the language stating that their stated goals are to fight fascists. Again, this was a suggestion that was specifically discussed and rejected above (it misrepresents the sources, which are more unequivocal), so I'm not sure why you think it would make sense to attempt it in the lead without getting consensus for it - stated goals are not the same as the part you tried to remove.
• Here, this removal was specifically objected to above for the reasons mentioned a bit above (the views of the members are not the same as its stated goals and deserve reiteration when the sources discuss them separately.)

I don't agree at all with your assertion that the parts you've focused on represent unnecessary repetition or over-explanation, and I want to make it particularly clear (since your second round of bold changes to the lead implies I wasn't clear enough last time) that I strongly disagree with revising it based on that rationale - I don't see significant repetition there, and the parts you are focusing in, in particular, all seem important to me. Please don't make any more significant reductions to the lead until you've demonstrated a consensus that the problem you say you've identified is actually a problem. I'm particularly bothered by the way you removed several cites and then added an in-line citation characterizing the ones you left in - obviously if you feel the need to add the (inaccurate and uncited) label of liberal for Bray and Burroughs, you've undermined your justification for removing the other sources, which made it clear that that characterization was more widespread. More generally, it would probably be more useful to try and reach a consensus before changing the lead of a highly-controversial article, especially when you're trying to tweak or even entirely remove many sentences that have been the subject of extensive discussions and disputes in the past (some of which I'm fairly sure you participated in, so you know the underlying disputes and surely recognize that these are not uncontroversial changes.) WP:BOLD editing is one thing, but this is the lead of a high-profile, complex, controversial subject, so some degree of caution is called for. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Aquillion's points, these recent edits look like blatant POV pushing. I do agree that there's some serious cite overkill going on in this article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I disagree with a number of your points, but editors are allowed to disagree. I will clarify which. On others, you have just completely misrepresented my arguments.

• Potential for bias In about a paragraph, you suggest that I believe an author are biased because I "disagree" with their conclusions. Sorry but you have it completely backwards. I have not said a word about the merits of their conclusions -- they may be right or they may be wrong. WP:BIAS has nothing to do with WP:TRUTH. I am not criticizing their conclusions, I am explaining that their assumptions may indicate a bias that may affect those conclusions.
• "Weak language" You suggest that qualifying the description of opponents or targets of antifa as "those they identify" is "weak language." I have no idea where this notion of "weak" language comes from, but that sounds like editorializing, which is what we should be avoiding. And by the way, the "those they identify" language is already used in the lead in reference to some of their opponents, those identifed as "far right"-- why is it appropriate for some and not others?
• Repetition Again, this is one of the most obvious errors with the article. How is it not repetitive to first say that the group is "anti-racist," and then state that they "seek to combat racists? Further, the cited source does not use the phrase "anti-racist." Why is that source cited as supporting the proposition where it apparently does not? Why is the other sentence not enough? Your responses have not answered any of these fairly simple questions and fall back on suggestions of "POV."
• Removal of some citations I removed a large amount of cites from the article. There was no intentional design to keep some and not others. Maybe this was somewhat arbitrary, but you need to stop making insinuations or suggestions of bad faith. If you believe some are warranted, I think it's pretty easy to restore some, but not all, of the citations.

These are just a few points of my responses. There are others, but on the whole I think there is a resistance to any form of change on this page that has become unreasonable. Other than the removal of citations, my last round of changes resulted in a net loss of about 15 words to the entire first paragraph, which is over 7 sentences. There is significant room to improve on this paragraph. @Aquillion:'s calls for consensus are appreciated. I hope that we can find some common ground on at least one or two proposals to trim the lead and craft something more neutral and concise, rather than running headfirst into an intractible debate with the removal of every syllable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assessment of whether you feel a source was biased focused on the use of language you took issue with; therefore, it was founded on you disagreeing with the conclusions that led them to use that language. Perhaps, to you, your opinion that eg. "defensive rhetoric" betrays some sort of bias is a neutral, objective assessment; but to me it looks like you are essentially saying "well they concluded that this is defensive rhetoric and, since this is a conclusion that makes Antifa look good, they are therefore WP:BIASED." That logic is circular - even if it is not your intent, it means that no source whose conclusions put Antifa in a positive light will ever be acceptable to you. Regarding the way you attempted to weaken the language, I was, yes, objecting that you were editorializing by doing so - we must reflect the sources; when you add disclaimers and expressions of doubt, you are, yes, inserting your own editorializing into the text. There is no doubt about what their stated goals are, so this was pure editorializing your part - inserting your own POV, whether you realized it or not. And, similarly, you yourself are the one who removed several sources, then complained that the remaining ones were biased - what am I supposed to make of this? Obviously, if you still have issues with the sources (and think it would be productive to discuss them), we should go over all the ones used currently and figure out which the best are, as a first step, rather than removing several via an unclear selection criteria and then focusing, arbitrarily, on whatever is left. I am willing to assume good faith, and can totally accept that it was an accident on your part on account of making so many rapid changes at once, but that cannot change the fact that the results of your proposed changes had clear issues. Regardless, regarding your most recent edit, I still object to removing against those whom they identify as belonging to the far right, which is vital context to the sentence on tactics and violence that is not necessarily obvious from the prior statements about their opponents. (I also object to the loss of "much...", and generally believe nonviolence deserves its own sentence, since it is given its own treatment in many sources, but I can't recall if we discussed that part. I know we discussed the against those whom they identify as belonging to the far right part, though.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

He's edit warring, gaming the system.

• 25th Nov - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&curid=54803678&diff=990687183&oldid=990610633
• 23rd Nov - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=990135161
• 19th Nov - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Antifa_%28United_States%29&type=revision&diff=989452230&oldid=989213776

Been added to his spurious and vexatious report against me here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#He's_been_editwarring_himself

Bacondrum (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Hey all, I think we should cull the massive number of the citations in the lede as per WP:TOOMANYREFS and MOS:CITELEAD. What do others think? Bacondrum (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Yes, ledes don't have to have footnotes since they're supposed to be summarizing a well-referenced main text, but on contentious topics, citations in the intro can contribute to stability. XOR'easter (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

When comments such at The other sentence is based on a single source and not reflected in the broader body of sources are being made to justify the removal of certain content, it seems sensible to retain references. FDW777 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the lede is usually not the appropriate place for reference bombing. Graywalls (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Citations should only be used sparingly in the lead for content likely to be challenged or contentious claims. MOS:LEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be an insane amount of citations, IMO. It also clearly violates the relevant guideline WP:TOOMANYREFS and manual of style MOS:CITELEAD. I urge editors to read the relevant guides. Several sentences have more than five citations, as per guidelines (bold text is my emphasis): "A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:, Agreed. Just ONE user has disproportionate level of authorship, edits and texts added. You'll see that just one editor has higher authorship than 191 editors not included in the top 10 list. Graywalls (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the citation overkill, which I have not actually reverted? So much for me being the sole author. This just read like some accusation. Davide King (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've bundled some excess cites. I haven't removed them, but I reckon they should be thinned significantly...for now though at least it isn't cluttered and easier to read. Bacondrum (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with FDW777 and XOR'easter. In addition, it created a mess because many references are duplicated since we used to put them with ref name at References. Davide King (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As much as I really hate the clumsiness editor unfriendliness (hard to access the sources while in edit mode), this is probably why some articles use the {{sfn}} citation. Graywalls (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That also avoids having to bundle sources and makes it easier to edit when the text have short templates and all references are in the apposite section. More articles should start using them from the start, as that will avoid us doing the time-consuming transition, especially since most of good and featured articles use sfns. Davide King (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool, so I'm happy to go ahead and transition to use the {{sfn}}, if there's no objections. Bacondrum (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2020

change "anti-fascist" to "fascist" 2604:6000:130D:887A:2DE8:826B:6743:D8B8 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done FDW777 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)