Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Antifa far-left?

@Arms & Hearts: can you point me to the relevant discussion about Anfita being far-left (or not)? Seems the consensus you suggest is at odds with the relevant category tree. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 1#Far left is neither accurate nor the same as anarchist, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 2#Left vs far left, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 4#far left movement, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 5#Left Wing / Right Wing and, most recently, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 6#Far-left, one more time. There may be other discussions I've missed. Consensus of course isn't immutable—the point isn't that this is set in stone forever, but rather that further discussion would be needed in order to change the status quo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

based on how RS cover the topic I would say it is far left, and seems to have members who identify with left leaning policies (although the loose organization would be hard to attribute it to anything). But left can have a multitude of meanings so its not like that means much tbh Bgrus22 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Unlike far-right ideologues, most of us on the far left would rather not be mistaken for centrists. Antifascism is a broad coalition, and it does certainly include a lot of people who are anarchists and communists (IE: far left) but it also includes plenty of moderate leftist democratic socialists and social democrats. TL;DR: while far-left captures part of who makes up the modern antifascist movement, it doesn't capture the breadth of the movement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that it's a broad coalition, much to broad for a simplistic level and certainly for "far-left" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Far left usually implies wanting to overthrow the state and indeed having a political ideology. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean every person has an ideology inasfar as every person has beliefs about how the world should be in some way, shape or form. But yeah, the far-left encompasses specific ideologies. Generally Anarchism, Socialism, Communism, Syndicalism and associated variants are considered far-left ideologies. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

One would hope that there are people not on the far-left who are anti-fascist. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: one would also hope everyone supports democracy, the people, and republics... but how many people support the DPRK? A name means nothing, as we have seen, also in the United States (which this page focuses on) the antifa movement references a very specific movement that has through its members supported specific ideological positions generally considered to be within the American Far-Left. If not please show me an RS showing people saying that the movement is center left (if not center within the left). Bgrus22 (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: your comment about the DPRK is not at all helpful. I'm sure you know what Objective3000 means. Our article on far-left politics says "The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism". Now while I'm sure there are supporters who adhere to some of these ideologies, there's no way that we can claim that they all do. I don't think anyone here is trying to add some "center left" lable and I have no idea what that would mean. Doug Weller talk 07:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In short - just because you oppose the far right doesn't make you the far left. Meanwhile it is well established that the American political scale is broken, with literal statements made by Republicans to conflate any position that isn't theirs with communism and the far left (even with policies that historically where their own under Reagan for instance). There will always be people accusing Antifa of being "far left" because it suits an ideological argument. Koncorde (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: youre right that the scale is broken and a lot of the labels are just done for rhetorical purposes. But Doug, I think you know full well equating the United States Antifa movement with just a broad coalition of people opposed to fascism is factually incorrect. The lack of an organization means you cant have any central ideology be directly attributable... instead we can only go off of RS if I am to understand wiki guides, and the RS coverage tends to focus on Antifa either as using their own internal definition of fascism (which is hard enough to define since its such an opportunistic thing with no clear cut ideology) to oppose dissenting views or ratings booster which is whether their use of violence is justifiable or not. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: I haven't made that equation, you've misunderstand me. Yes, we need reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgruss22: it's not entirely accurate to say that Fascism has no clear cut ideology. It has a permeable ideology, so the boundaries are left deliberately vague. But if you have an aesthetics-obsessed right-authoritarian movement with a cult of the hero, a charismatic leader and a tendency toward corporate syndicalism, the edge details don't obscure the clear ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Fascism cuts across all stripes. Even if it was left wing fascism, then Antifa would oppose it - and that is somewhat integral to the concept of Antifa (US right wing popular media will try to position Antifa to the left, but they would position Bush Jr to the left and / or part of the swamp if suited the narrative). Antifa is about opposing the concept of populist fascistic policies, the supporters of such policies and their demagogues. There is no ideological limit to opposing fascism. Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean you're entirely wrong, but OK. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you believe is wrong to help clarify. Koncorde (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Your definition of fascism, and assertion that left wing fascism is something that can exist, is just plain wrong. It's also not in line with the principle scholarship on the matter. As such, all assertions you make that stem from that definition of fascism are also entirely incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

...to clarify, by "left wing fascism" I am referring to the idea that people or organisations that are recognised as traditionally left wing (such as a workers Union, or the Labour Party of the UK) may have individuals, actions or policies that are fascistic; such as dictatorial control resulting in the suppression of dissent and all those many other fine features we would associate with fascist governments. There is nothing about Antifa that would preclude it from opposing dictatorial control, or even policies perceived as being on the slippery slope from any stripe of the political spectrum (contrary to the suggestion that they would only oppose it coming from the Far Right). Koncorde (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Benjamin M.L Peters: Please bring your edits/concerns here to discuss the use of "far". Also, please note the 1 revert per 24 hours restriction on this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is categorized under Category:Anarchism in the United States, which is a sub-cat of Category:Far-left politics in the United States. The categorization delineates Antifa in the US as far-left. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it's in both of those categories, parent and child. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Category was created 2013, assigned 2017 when this article was created, warred over, I doubt anyone has actually ever checked what are parent and child cats too well. For instance Category:Anti-fascism isn't associated with any of them, or this article. Koncorde (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde:, this article is indeed categorized as Category:Anti-fascism in the United States, which rolls up to Category:Anti-fascism two levels up. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Doh; I was looking at an old revision. Koncorde (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Anarchism in the United States doesn't only contain articles that are exclusively about anarchism (e.g. it contains 1999 Seattle WTO protests, Industrial Workers of the World and Occupy Wall Street, all of which saw involvement by anarchists but also by people of other political orientations), so to include this article in that category is not to describe antifa as straightforwardly or primarily anarchist. I've removed Category:Far-left politics in the United States as I don't think it's supported by the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, it's good that you removed the category, since it's a parent category of two others categories here on this article, Category:Anarchism in the United States and Category:Communism in the United States. But note that our category tree here defines "Anarchism in the United States" and "Communism in the United States" as elements of "Far-left politics in the United States". The lead of the article states than antifa is "militant" and that it includes "anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrats." Can we agree that anarchists, socialists and communists are far-left? What portion of antifa do those factions comprise? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jweiss11 -- we're sort of verging perilously close to WP:SYNTH territory. Do we have sources referring to antifa as "far left?" That would be the simplest thing. I looked again very briefly, but didn't find much. I, for one, would find that much more persuasive. But perhaps others differ! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

USA Today refers to antifa as far-left here. The Anti-Defamation League says "Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks.". Mother Jones refers to antifa as far-left here. LA Times does here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing that I run into as well: lots of caveats and unclearness (as is endemic to the topic). For instance, the phrase "far-left antifa group(s)" from USA Today seems to imply (maybe?) that "far left" is a subset of "antifa." Likewise, the ADL source is qualified by its temporal clause. Mother Jones mentions the far left in the headline, but define antifa as "a diffuse group of leftists and anarchists," which seems to me that again, far left is a subset. Finally, the LA times mentions an "...assault on an antifa member that became a rallying cry for the city’s far-left." Here maybe antifa is a subset of far left? I'll put my cards on the table--"far left" feels sort of right in my gut, as it were, but I have a hard time articulating the argument, and I find the sources maddeningly vague. That, again, is probably just the nature of the beast. As it stands here, I'm not terribly opposed to the "far left" descriptor, but I also am not convinced. I'm not helping am I? My apologies! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jweiss11, perhaps it would help to point out that this is about the political views of the people who participate in antifa actions. For lack of a better term: it's members. Antifa is not a political party, it does not have a program and the political views within antifa vary wildly. As the ADL source you cited acknowledge, antifa people often, but not exclusively have backgrounds that are commonly described as far-left. Personally, I think that the terms far-left and far-right are too reductive to usefully describe a political position, and should be avoided whenever possible. Vexations (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, I'm aware of the amorphousness nature of antifa. While there are always exceptions, isn't fair to say that antifa participants largely identify with far-left politics, i.e. ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, and anti-capitalism? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There is also the problem that the term far left only has meaning once context is known. American conservatives refer to moderate Democrats as far left, while Soviet Communists referred to Trotskyists as far left. TFD (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's really hard to argue that Communists are far left compared to the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and Maoist parties around, including in the US. They control, democratically, whole states in India and are respectable parties in other countries working through the democratic process. Anarchists usually are but not always. Anti-capitalism is far too broad a term to call everyone who is against capitalism far-left. The line I always draw is do they want to overthrow the government through violence. If they do, they are far left. Antifa sources are certainly mostly on the left and I'm sure some are far left. Note that we never should consider headlines to be accurate or reflect the article they are drawing attention to, they are rarely written by the author of the article. Having said that I think Mother Jones is right on the money about them being a diffused (they say group but I think they mean the supporters, not an organised group) of leftists and anarchists. I'll also add that what the real far left groups may be doing (deliberately but not publicly) is infiltrating to use Antifa actions for their own ends. That's been there classical behavior for decades. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Calls to define Antifa as a terrorist organization

Calls have been made to define Antifa as a terrorist organization. A section discussing this needs to be added to the article in order to maintain NPOV. See e.g. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/455025-trump-considering-labeling-antifa-a-terrorist-organization and https://www.salon.com/2019/07/23/ted-cruz-ignoring-surge-of-far-right-violence-introduces-bill-labeling-antifa-a-terrorist-group/ for example. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know bout a whole section, but a passage somewhere perhaps. Certainly, reasonable to discuss inclusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad-nauseam and the decision was it was undue. See here [1] Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Also here [2]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And here [3] Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This was a story for a couple of days. That's a hard no from me. Reasonable minds can differ. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And [4][5][6]. So Jweiss11 insisting we bring up this tired discussion yet again is very close to disruptive editing. And I suggest you don't try to revive this dead horse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, your shutting down a reasonable point of discussion (per Dumuzid) is disruptive. You're projecting your bad behavior onto others. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely how many times must we discuss the same trivial non-issue? And, again, for the second time today, please mind WP:NPA Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How many times are you going to attack other editors and then yell "WP:NPA" when they respond? Are you here to build an encyclopedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If I may offer a thought, I think you are both right. We all know that consensus can change, but we also know it is unhelpful and unpleasant to bludgeon a talk page with repeated requests. Since the onus is on those proposing inclusion to show that there is consensus, I suggest we leave this open briefly to see if there's a reasonable chance thereof. If it doesn't appear so after a short time (a few hours, to my mind), then we hat it. That would be my approach, at least--but I am often wrong. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's quite evident that I am. I'm just short on patience for people whose repeated attempts to insert a POV such that antifascists are about to be designated terrorists interferes with making forward progress on article improvement. That said, I would be amenable to Dumuzid's compromise proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Come on folks, we were doing pretty well remaining civil. I was actually rather impressed with everybody so far. Please make an effort. How about we reconsider the inclusion of the non-binding resolution once something actually changes? For example, when it is adopted. Until then, it's old news, (it's merely requesting that the Senate gives its opinion on something it cannot legislate on) and we agree not to try to overturn existing consensus. Here's the status of the resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs I'm going on vacation, please be kind to each other. Vexations (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate has passed 167 simple resolutions this year, so even if this one were to be adopted (which seems unlikely) I don't think it would need to be mentioned in this article. It could perhaps be discussed in Cruz's article and/or Cassidy's, but it doesn't strike me as a significant event in the history of antifa. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A brief quote from the source, "But the Republican senators' resolution is little more than a political stunt." If we start including all of those (political stunts) in wikipedia, or even spending time arguing about them we shall do little else. And there actually is real work to do. That is a NO. Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that it does not seem to be a significant event and I thank User:Vexations for showing us the current status, ie that it was referred to committee two months ago. Even if it was passed, it's mainly soundbytes. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the response section should mention attempts by the U.S. Right to create a false equivalency between antifa and the far right. But rather than saying "on Sept. 3, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz said "blah blah blah,"" it should summarize what people like him are doing, why they are doing it and why experts see it as disingenuous. TFD (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all true. But, unless it's heavily documented, we're not the source of "truth". Mind you, I agree that would be a good addition if adequately sourced. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bongino undue

I would not consider an ex-cop who got a job ranting on Fox to be someone whose opinion on the etymology of 20th century neologisms we need to mention. Pursuant to that significant question of WP:DUE including the WP:FRINGE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues that underpin it, I've removed his statement. His opinions on antifascism may be due on his own page, but not here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. While I agree that Bongino's comments are insignificant, there's an argument to be made that Kellyanne Conway's comments, made while employed by the Trump administration, are more worthy of a mention, and that "anti first amendment" is a fairly common false etymology which we can mention and debunk using reliable sources while staying true to WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE (which doesn't say never to mention fringe theories, but to contextualise them and not ascribe them undue weight). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

What I removed was not contextualized. If we can create something that contextualizes those fringe sources as being a common false etymology that'd be a different matter. But the statement sitting there on its own... no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Willem van Spronsen attack on ICE detention center

I'm disappointed that the Antifa article does not include a paragraph about Willem Van Spronsen's attack on an ICE detention facility in Tacoma. Van Spronsen identified himself, "I am Antifa," in his written manifesto. Seattle Antifascist Action described Van Spronsen a "good friend and comrade" who "took a stand against the fascist detention center in Tacoma" and "became a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism. ... He was kind and deeply loved by many communities; we cannot let his death go unanswered," the group wrote in a Facebook post. "... [T]oday we stand strong in our support for yet another martyr in the struggle against fascism. May his death serve as a call to protest and direct action." This man was Antifa. He self-identified as Antifa. Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/19/ice-detention-center-attacker-killed-by-police-was-an-avowed-anarchist-authorities-say/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-man-killed-at-ice-detention-center-manifesto

I'm sure that a neutral, factual paragraph about Van Spronsen can, and should, be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.76.99 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and there was no consensus to include such a paragraph: see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 9#Willem Van Spronsen. Consensus can change, but the starting point of that process would probably be for you to respond to the arguments made in that discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Frankly there does not appear to have been any WP:LASTING impact to Van Spronsen's attempt at Propaganda of the deed. Certainly there has been no lasting impact to antifascism as an ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there is WP:LASTING impact. The attack is still cited weekly in national media: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Van+Spronsen%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS739US740&sxsrf=ACYBGNST2e0IWneEyMEIs0WzkVmds6Tg8A:1569594762597&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA9I-SnPHkAhWDtlkKHQFsCUMQ_AUIEigB&biw=853&bih=870 MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

MaximumIdeas, perhaps you could explain what the lasting impact is. Following the example used in WP:LASTING, is there legislation that was introduced as direct result from the event, or some other significant change? Vexations (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

MaximumIdeas, when I run the query (and use the full name "Willem van Spronsen" to filter out artilcles in the Dutch Reformatorisch Dagblad about unrelated topics, I do get a few hits, but they're all the same article by Michelle Malkin and one blog post by Alexander Hall for MRC TechWatch. I know google gives different results to different users, so perhaps you can be a bit more specif and clearly point out the sources you found that you think are indicative of lasting impact. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur that including this is critical. Without it, the article suffers serious POV issues and is whitewashing Antifa. MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

POV doesn't mean that articles should include what you think is important to the topic, but what the body of reliable sources do. And before complaining bias in reliable sources, that's the policy we have to follow. TFD (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also you make a mistake in assuming that we are excluding Van Spronsen's actions on the basis that we want to "white wash" antifascism. I find nothing morally wrong with what he did, but I also don't find what he did to have been all that significant. And that's the thing. Van Spronsen seems to have hoped to inspire other antifascists into what is effectively revolutionary activity through his deed. And on that front he failed completely. His action had no significant impact on the tactics, targets or level of escalation modern antifascists take part in. Furthermore, after the initial flurry of "a crime wot happened" articles died off, he didn't even manage to make any significant impact on the media landscape. It's not a PR effort to keep his actions off. Rather it's simply that what he did was sadly irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't get close to WP:10YT. Reliable sources aren't even mentioning it now. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Consider revising colloquial term

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

"right-wingers" is colloquial; "wingers" is not a word. "right-leaning gatherings" or similar may be preferable.

65.255.181.151 (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's the word used by CNN in the source cited. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The Oxford English dictionary begs to differ. right-winger, n. A member of the right wing of a political group or party; a person who advocates or supports conservative views or principles. OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2019. Web. 28 September 2019. Vexations (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2019

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

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

Lead

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

What is your rationale for reverting it? PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

QuestFour all I did was make the text match sources. Then Aquillon helpfully added a source. And Aquillon also made other contributions, which I suggested tweaks to -- I believe we were having collaborative page improvement; there is no need for your complete reversion which 1) did not go to a stable version and 2) which threw out some additions I made I imagine nobody could object to (like a WaPo source) I added. I would ask that you un-revert my tweaks and we can continue the collaborative discussion. These are hardly significant changes to begin with; marginal improvements. Thank you :) MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that there's disagreement over your additions, so you should talk them out rather than trying to revert-war them in; if we can't reach an agreement on that aspect, I'd suggest going back to the most recent stable version as QuestFour suggests. Certainly the revert-heavy recent history suggests a lot of this lacks consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No, what is clear is people are removing them with no explanation. Restoring status quo is not a valid reason to revert. The new version is an improvement and better sources. What are your disagreements about it? PackMecEng (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the sentence says one thing but introducing that subclause changes the intent.

"Activists typically organize protests via social media, with discussions focusing on the ideas of confronting racism and protecting minority communities, often through use of physical force"

With the way the commas are set currently, that sentence reads "activists typically organise protests via social media often through the use of physical force", where the subordinate clause is the method of discussing their focus points. This obviously doesn't make grammatical sense and makes the sentence hard to read

If "often through the use of physical force" is meant to be there, then it should be in its own sentence. Such as:

"Activists typically organize protests via social media, with discussions focusing on the ideas of confronting racism and protecting minority communities. Tactics such as the use of physical force are..."

It's the crowbar attempt at forcing stuff into sentences out of context that editors like MaximumIdeas cause prolonged disputes, where his suggestions carry water however it often requires finding the right location for his input to sit, which can require either an entirely new paragraph or a real effort at restructuring the sentences. Koncorde (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, physical force is not the focus of the source used there; in fact, it mentions it only to say that Antifa uses fewer appeals to physical force and more appeals to protect people (the two are directly contrasted), especially compared to the Proud Boys. The contested version PackMecEng is trying to revert-war in completely misrepresents this, presenting the "protecting minority communities" as being what physical force is used for, when the source says the exact opposite (ie. they spend more time talking about protecting minority communities than about using physical force - contrasted with the Proud Boys, who spend more time talking about physical force.) We do talk about physical force elsewhere in the article, where appropriate, but the efforts to crowbar it in here are entirely inappropriate and do not reflect the tone, focus, or content of the source that's being used. (Aside: By my reading, PackManEng's most recent revert is a WP:1RR violation. We need to go back to a stable version, as QuestFour suggested, and actually discuss what it should say rather than revert-warring. Obviously some recent changes are uncontroversial, and some are more controversial, but if we're going to include the less-controversial changes people need to back down on the contested ones at least temporarily so we can reach some sort of consensus.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Harassment sourcing

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

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

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

Hard to imagine you're a new editor, but just in case, you need to assume good faith. If I didn't I'd think you might be a sock.:-) Anyway, this article is about Antifa in the United States. And I see no source that proves who the masked person was at the Mohawk College demonstration. This video[7] does show several protestors blocking her from entering, no indication that they are Antifa. The story's been twisted to make this appear to have taken place in the US and to clearly involve Antifa. Oh, and they weren't attacked, just shouted at - not very nicely, but not an attack. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story? Doug Weller talk 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, genuinely curious here: what in your opinion would count as evidence that some people "are Antifa"? Do they have to literally say "we're Antifa!" or hold a sign to that effect? Or what? Also related: is it possible for there to be some evidence that some people "are Antifa" if the evidence isn't conclusive? Because I'd have thought that there was at least some evidence here, if not conclusive evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, all kinds of things could be used as evidence. An investigation by the police followed by an arrest and subsequent court case would likely unearth a mountain of testimony as well as documentary and physical evidence. If in support of the assertion that antifa did something, the only evidence presented is that someone looks like antifa, that is not enough for us to state that claim in Wikipedia's voice. Vexations (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There's almost never a court case. Is there a more common sort of evidence by which they can be identified? Because if it takes a court case, we can almost never identify them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, you may have misunderstood me: A court case is not evidence, evidence is presented at court. There have been plenty of court cases. As far as I can tell, and I've been following the cases of people who have been accused of criminal acts related to antifa, the press seems to give more attention to people getting charged with crimes than people getting convicted. Vexations (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not misunderstanding. You're saying we need something like a court case before we can identify someone as antifa. In my view it is obvious that, if that's what it takes, we will very rarely be able to identify anyone as Antifa. I regard that result as absurd. Are you comfortable identifying people as "apparent antifa supporters" in the article and ascribing notable acts to them? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not complicated, we rely on reliable sources. Anything else i original research. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't find a problem with the source. The ADL article says, "Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life."[8] While that could be re-worded in a neutral tone, the essence is correct: antifa counter-demonstrate far right demonstrations and argue with the far right online. I note too that the ADL calls the objects of harassment "right-wing extremists," while this articles refers to them as those whom antifa identify as such. We should accept the ADL description. TFD (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I agree. If there're sources that also describe those whom antifa oppose as "fascist, racist, or on the far-right", then that should be stated or at least clarified. Otherwhise, it makes it look like right-wing critics of antifa are right in arguing that antifa labels as "fascist, racist, or on the far-right" anyone to their right. While I'm sure there may have been instances of individuals related to antifa (however, I agree with previous discussions in not including some incidents like "Ngo Attack Ngo Attack" or "Willem van Spronsen attack on ICE detention center") doing that to people whom they identify as such but which sources may disagree with their idetification as "fascist, racist, or on the far-right", I don't think that really defines antifa. Also I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the article's Notable activism section support the claim that their "harrassing" (as stated in the lead) has been mainly related to "fascist, racist, or on the far-right" and not just to those whom they may have identified as such.

• "[...] February 2017 Berkeley protests against alt-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos"
• "far-right group Patriot Prayer's" and "far-right activist Joey Gibson"
• "[...] 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 "certainly used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists"
• "[...] Berkeley protest on August 27, 2017 [...] to confront alt-right demonstrators"
• "[...] February 2019 [...] Stone Mountain, Georgia as a white supremacist, neo-confederate rally planned [...] was cancelled"

Furthermore, the Response section is mainly related to antifa's tacticts; it doesn't dispute that their activism is mainly related to "fascist, racist, or on the far-right", nor does it claim that those whom they identify as such aren't really part of that.--Davide King (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Only Republicans Bill Cassidy and Ted Cruz, who "introduced a nonbinding resolution that would designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization for attacking Americans "who don't agree with them", describe "antifa" as "attacking Americans who don't agree with them". Otherwhise, the whole article supports antifa's claim that their activism is mainly related to "fascist, racist, or on the far-right" and not to "attacking Americans who don't agree with them".--Davide King (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is doing a disservice to the WP project

I just have to say that the level of bias on this article is overwhelming in its depth and blatancy. Anyone can look at the antifa and Proud Boys articles and see a huge difference in how things are arranged and how high the bar is set for 'encyclopedic significance.' Every negative thing PB have done is broken down into 19 subcategories, whereas criticism of antifa is not categorized and routinely removed by the same group of editors who, despite my best efforts to AGF, clearly have a bias that is interfering with their ability to edit.

A list of just a few things that have been censored from the antifa US article, all of which were covered by RS:

Paul Welch - Bernie Sanders supporter attacked and robbed of US flag by antifa in broad daylight in front of large crowd who did nothing. covered in 2 RS. no mention in the antifa article.

Andy Ngo - journalist who has written for several large conservative publications, assaulted by antifa multiple times. no mention, even though an article centered on Ngo's beating is cited in the WP article (citation 66.) this is almost ridiculous to the point of comedy. ngo isn't worth mentioning, but a quote from a Buzzfeed reporter in an article about Ngo is worth mentioning because it excuses antifa and maligns the police.

James Morrison - death linked to FSU (antifa group) by far left Mother Jones - not mentioned.

Connor Betts - mass murderer who counter-demonstrated against KKK, tweeted support of antifa. not mentioned.

Mark Rudd - co-founder of Weather Underground far left terror group, sees his old self in antifa. Opinion on antifa deemed irrelevant.

Chris Hedges - anarchist Pulitzer Prize winner who wrote a book on fascism. Opinion on antifa is negative, therefore deemed irrelevant. this was even censored from my user page (!!!) because a certain admin disagreed that anarchism is far left.

Gage Halupowski - found guilty for hitting another man with a weapon and will serve six years in prison. not included.

Tacoma antifa shooter/firebomber - not mentioned.

Richard Spencer – his getting punched was huge for antifa. Just check google trends. Not mentioned.

Mark Bray – The Antifascist Handbook was huge for giving antifa the greenlight for violence. Not mentioned.

And of course this list doesn't include all of the things that people don't even bother to try to include due to the extreme chilling effect that this group of editors has. And there are probably other important censored bits that I have missed.

To the group of antifa-supporters on here who are keeping this article from truly reflecting the goings on of this movement, please consider the integrity of wikipedia and the community as a whole and put them over your political leanings.

I am not very well versed on wikipedia, so I am sure people will now throw a bunch of rules at me and try to muddy things like serpentine lawyers, but anyone with some common sense, and without an extreme bias, who looks at my above list and/or compares antifa's wiki article with that of similar groups will most likely agree with me.

I hope someone who understands WP procedures better than me will see this and use all relevant procedures to call for the WP community at large (rather than those who compulsively edit this article) to come together and analyze/improve this article.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mbsyl: are you referring to me? Because if you are please link to where that happened. A quick look at your talk page shows no censorship. And really, if you are going to say our policies and guidelines are irrelevant and insult editors here by calling them compulsive, why is it worth replying to this laundry list? Doug Weller talk 21:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you not delete anarchist Chris Hedges from the list on my talk page because I said he was far left? I'm not saying the policies on here are irrelevant, but they can be weaponized much in the same way a lawyer can weaponize complexity and procedure in defiance of sincerity and common sense. Do you think an unbiased observer would say that the antifa and proud boys articles reflect a similar level of scrutiny, unbiased editing, and adherence to other WP guidelines, such as sourcing? Mbsyl (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mbsyl: none of this is censorship. If you want to edit here you have to follow our policies, and BLP is a core policy which applies to all pages including your talk page. Some things are left in the article history, others any Administrator can WP:REVDEL so that only Administrators can see it. You can read about that at the link. A handful of administrators, including me, can suppress edits so that other Administrators can't see them. Please also read WP:NOTCENSORED. And please stop claiming that there's censorship. Note that if you keep calling people far left (or far right) where reliable sources don't back your claims you can be topic banned or blocked. And please educate yourself (this may be part of the problem), Hedge is a Christian anarchist, you shouldn't call him simply an anarchist. You always need reliable sources, you can't say X says he's Y so he's also Z. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO all you need is a quick glance at how the articles are laid out - one thoroughly/cleanly cataloging all negative events involving a group, and one lacking such a clean list, with many exceptional events kept off of the article and seemingly all negative events called into question because of the nebulous nature of antifa's organizing and the black bloc masks.

Can you point me to any RS stories involving proud boys violence that aren't included their wiki article? Any mass shooters who tweeted support for Proud Boys and went to Proud Boy rallies that aren't mentioned? Can you even imagine that happening? And I know this talk page is for the subject of antifa, but to help show the bias of this article, I think PB is a fair comparison and I think its a good thought exercise to try to imagine a PB version of Connor Betts not being included in that long list of PB "events." Mbsyl (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT. Comparing articles about different subjects is not simple as subjects differ. If you have a problem with how the Proud Boys are depicted, do so on that article. If you have a suggestion for this article, make it without referring to another article. The items you have listed have been discussed at length. Also, please consider the possibility that you may have biases that color your thinking. O3000 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

In any Wikipedia article, the emphasis is always based on weight, which is how mainstream sources present the topic. If you can show that this article has a different slant from New York Times or Washington Post coverage, then we can change it. But I suspect your problem is how antifa is covered by mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Antifa is not an organization, it's a loose movement. Proud Boys are a specific organization, with leadership, rules, etc. That alone means comparison between the two is invalid. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you recommend a better comparison to an article about a right-wing group, HandThatFeeds? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, there's no need to compare Antifa to anything. Not everything has an equivalent at the opposite end of some spectrum that it's supposedly on. Frankly the whole (far) left-wing/(far) right-wing discussion is really tiresome. In stead of sticking a label on something, describe it properly. It is bordering on disruption to insist that something is labeled as far this-or-that on entirely subjective and rather US-centric criteria. What's a far-left to some of you here is liberalism to others, and what you think of as "centrist" is right-wing. Please stop using these grossly simplistic and inaccurate labels. Vexations (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, so it is a red herring to find differences between antifa and Proud Boys as HandThatFeeds suggests, is that your view? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's pointless and thus a waste of time, which is more or less what is meant by a red herring. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, No, it is not my view that to find differences between antifa and Proud Boys is a red herring. I believe that it would help our readers if we could clarify the points of contention between the Proud boys and Antifa. What is not helpful is drawing false equivalences and applying subjective labels.

Let me give you an example: I saw earlier this week that Jeff Van Drew was described as a "moderate democrat" [9] An unsuspecting reader might interpret that as someone whose views are somewhere in the middle of the democratic left/right spectrum. But that's not what he is. He's so far on the right wing of the Democratic party that he can switch to the Republican party without changing his views. My suggestion is that such labels are unhelpful, confusing our readers and should be avoided. Vexations (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Capitalization

No consensus. Although the numerical count tilts towards antifa I find the strength of the arguments relatively close. Regardless, there is certainly no affirmative consensus to change it to Antifa, so it will remain antifa. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the subject of this article be capitalized (Antifa) or not (antifa)? feminist (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Previous discussions on the issue: 1 2 3. feminist (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Antifa, per Google Books usage that shows the capitalized form being much more common. That more sources currently cited in our article use "antifa" than not is of little relevance, considering that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED and this article can be improved with additional sources. feminist (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Note that Google Books ngram search is significantly polluted in these cases and is not conclusive. Looking at the specific results of the search, one can see how "Antifa" has many hits where 1) it is used in English titles per titling conventions, 2) includes extensive citations of German material, with all nouns capitalized, 3) cites specific entities such as Antifa-Net. See, for example, how many times the title "Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook" is cited in many publications but the book itself uses "antifa" in lowercase. --MarioGom (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and if you look at the actual results thrown up by the n-gram, you'll quickly see that only one of the post-2005 texts refers to the US, which is the topic of this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa In my experience it is usually not capitalized. On the first page of a google search I found it uncapitalized in articles from the ADL,[10] Webster's,[11] the Urban Dictionary,[12] the Atlantic[13] USA Today[14] and the New York Times[15] and capitalized in CNN[16] and BBC.[17] Those are all the reliable sources on the first page of searches and it goes 6-2. I think grammatically that is correct because antifa is not an organization, hence not a proper noun requiring capitalization. TFD (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Antifa. Black Lives Matter, Occupy, Me Too. These are all names of non-organizations that are movements, and all are standardly capitalized. The question is whether the term is a proper name. The answer is that of course it is a proper name--it's the proper name of a movement, just like these other examples. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There's also the progressive movement, the feminist movement, the socialist movement, the conservative movement, the environmentalist movement. TFD (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you say that those are proper names? I wouldn't. That's the distinction it seems to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not usually, but neither is antifa. They become proper names when they are adopted by organized groups, hence we talk about Socialists in France and Conservatives in England. If you set up a group and call yourselves the "Alabama Antifa" or something similar then it would be capitalized. However, the key guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." We're not supposed to arbitrate how the language is used, but to reflect current usage. TFD (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can agree that 'Me Too' and 'Black Lives Matter' are proper names of movements, while 'the feminist movement', 'the socialist movement', or 'the civil rights movement' are not proper names, but rather descriptions of famous movements. The former are capitalized because they are proper names. The latter are not capitalized because they are not proper names. If we agree about that, then the only question is which group 'Antifa' belongs to. I think it more or less obviously belongs to the former. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if BLM, #MeToo and #Occupy are proper names or not, but the reason for capitalising them wouldn't just be that they are proper names. All three terms originated as hashtags or slogans made up of ordinary words that have a different meaning if you don't capitalise them. It would be confusing not to capitalise them. That's simply not the case with antifa, which has no other meaning. In fact, the opposite is true with antifa, where capitalising it creates confusion with actual formal groups. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa - MOS:DOCTCAPS O3000 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That policy says that capitalization can be appropriate where the term "derives from a proper name," as in the present case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What proper name? Antifaschistisch is a common word. The fact that a German party that lasted two years in the 30s used that word in its proper name doesn't make the common word a proper name. You would need to show that the current usage was derived from that short-lived, Communist affiliated party from 90 years ago. O3000 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Read the policy; that isn't what it means. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I read it. I have seen no evidence that antfi derived from a proper name. It derived from a common word. The fact that Jiffy Peanut Butter is a proper name does not mean we capitalize butter. O3000 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should capitalize 'antifascist'. We plainly should not. I'm suggesting we should capitalize 'Antifa', which is obviously a proper name for a movement, just like 'Me Too' and 'BLM'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DOCTCAPS disagrees. Also, BLM has a formal network and MeToo is a hash tag that is very confusing when not capitalized. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa per TFD and O3000. Also see my comment above when considering search results. --MarioGom (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• antifa: I've previously expressed the view that it's a trivial matter not worth arguing over, but the corollary to that is that there's no sense in changing the status quo in the absence of a very good reason. Neither of the arguments for capitalising given above is sufficient: Feminist's argument is quite clearly debunked by MarioGom, and Shinealittlelight's argument is only marginally more coherent than their amusingly baffling prior argument that "antifa" is sometimes used as an adjective and should be lower-case in such instances, which failed to convince when no one was able to find a single example of such usage. As such, there's really no need for a positive argument in favour of the lower-case: the status quo persists in the absence of a good reason why it shouldn't. But if one did want such an argument, one could do much worse than Bobfrombrockley's well-evidenced argument that "sources ... that know more about what they are talking about (as opposed to learnt about the existence of antifa in August 2017), tend to use the lower case more". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

What I said then is that there is probably no uncontroversial example of 'antifa' being used as an adjective, but that it seemed to me that it was being used as such in the ADL source, which explicitly says that they use 'antifa' as short for the adjective 'antifascist'. You responded that you thought ADL was using a noun as short for an adjective. I doubt that is coherent. (So there!) But, reading through our previous discussion, I am reminded of Vexations's example of 'alt-right', which he says is typically not capitalized. He thought 'antifa' is sort of like that. I think I agree with him. 'Alt-right' is an abbreviation of an adjective, and so is 'antifa' when it is not capitalized. That's my view, anyway. But it looks like the consensus is to keep 'antifa' as a proper name that isn't capitalized, flouting the ordinary conventions of English. (I realize that you may hold the view that it is a common noun--apparently one that refers to exactly one thing, which is pretty unusual.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa - Mainly based on what's already been said, but also because the purpose of Wikipedia should be to prevent confusion, and this is a common source of confusion. There are specific antifa groups (Rose City Antifa, is one WP:N example), and there are historical groups which have been commonly called "antifa" by modern sources (Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, etc). There is no umbrella organization here, and using capitalization to imply some degree of formality would subtly contribute to this common misconception. Grayfell (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  I don't really see why capitalizing it would necessarily imply some degree of formality, any more than having Anonymous (group) capitalized implies formality of a decentralized movement. feminist (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the clue is in the word "group" in the title of Anonymous (group). That article says "Anonymous is a decentralized international hacktivist group". Whereas antifa is not a group, but a movement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa definitely. For the reasons given above. In particular we need to avoid confusion, specifically people thinking that it is an organisation. This is the problem with coming late to a discussion, it's hard to think of something new and clever to say. :-) Doug Weller talk 13:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand this idea that non-organizations can't have capitalized proper names. That just isn't true. Anything can have a proper name. And proper names are standardly capitalized in English. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So go argue this at MOS:DOCTCAPS. And tell the editors at civil rights movement, animal rights movement, anti-nuclear movement, anti-war movement, environmental movement, they're wrong.

I don't think those are wrong; they're adjectives in each case. 'The antifascist movement' would be grammatically correct. But 'Antifa' is ordinarily a proper name, so it is capitalized. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure civil rights movement is a compound noun. O3000 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine, but my point is that they aren't proper names, while 'Antifa' is a proper name. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My point above was that antifa is generally not capitalized in reliable sources and therefore per guidelines we should not capitalize it. altright and kd lang are also not capitalized, although in the later case standard it is clearly a proper name. TFD (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We have several RS for both. Alt-right isn't a proper name. And 'kd lang' is a stylized stage name. If 'antifa' is a stylized proper name, then we normally seem to note when names are stylized, and we don't use the stylized version throughout the article (e.g. in our Lang article, or our Kesha article--we don't call her 'Ke$ha'). Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You're just going in circles. MOS:DOCTCAPS O3000 (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes we have both. That's what "is generally not capitalized" means. Some do, most don't. And the guideline says that we follow what most rs do, rather than what some editors think is grammatically correct. And the reason for the guideline, which is consistent with weight, is that Wikipedia articles should not strive to influence public opinion but to reflect what the public would find in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the Washington Post ([18]), the BBC ([19]) or The New York Times ([20]) are thinking about it being a "stylized proper name" when they write antifa movement. --MarioGom (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but I hear Jeff Bezos is the reincarnation of e.e. cummings. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Webster's says that capitalization is less common.[21] TFD (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa definitely, as per arguments made above. It's not a proper name. It creates confusion as it contributes to the misconception that it is a formal organisation. And the overwhelming majority of informed RSs don't capitalise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Antifa - From what I can tell reading through the arguments above, the only person who has tried to Wikipedia:Search engine test this is User:Feminist. The only real question to ask here is which usage is most common. The only real way to figure that out is search engine testing. Can anyone point to a search engine test that suggests the lower case is more common? NickCT (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Everyone does such tests. But, they have no meaning by themselves as they pick up absurd sites and highly replicated material. O3000 (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In order to rely on the Ngram viewer results we would need to know what percentage of the results were from reliable sources and which were from book and article titles, where nouns are typically capitalized. Furthermore, the search ends in 2012, although the term probably has become much more commonly used since then. I think my search was better: 6 reliable sources on the first page of a google search were uncapitalized, while 2 capitalized. but the best approach is to see what reliable sources say about usage. Webster's says the term is usually uncapitalized. Presumably, dictionary editors have access to the same sources that Wikipedia editors do and have greater expertise in determining how words are used. TFD (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and The Four Deuces: - It's easy to poke holes in User:Feminist's methodology, and some of your criticism is fair. But the thing is, what are YOU doing to figure out the most common usage? Nothing? I'll take a flawed method over no method.

Saying "I think my search was better: 6 reliable sources on the first page of a google search were uncapitalized" - A random grab like that might be a fair way to do things. I'll give it a go and see what I get.

Don't want to sound like a hater, but Websters is to dictionaries what USA Today is to newspapers. NickCT (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment." I agree though that Webster's is full of misspellings: color, willful, etc., but that's actually how Americans spell things. TFD (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - Ok..... So I did it your way. Random Google News grab. Used the first dozen articles from sources I recognized. Want to make it clear I'm not endorsing the reliability or quality of sources like the Washington Examiner. I used a low bar for the sources I accepted for this.

Lower Case

Fox

WaPo

Newsweek

NTY

Washington Examiner

Cap

KTSA

Fox

Quartz

KRCRTV

The Hill

Fox

Snopes

So score is 7 to 5 in favor of capitalization. Interesting that sources like Fox News are little confused (sometimes using capitalization, sometimes not). NickCT (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that three out of four hits were for Fox. I wonder if google skews the search based on your preference for news sources.

I think it is correct to capitalize Antifa when referring to the organization, just as we capitalize the Democratic Party. (Of course the Antifa organization only exists in some people's minds.) That seems to be the sense in which conservative talk show host Lars Larson of KTSA, and articles in KRCRTV and Snopes do. The Snopes article for example refers to the supposed leader of Portland Antifa. Of course if antifa were an actual organization with leaders and membership cards and a secret agenda to overthrow Western civilization, then it should be capitalized.

How did you choose the first dozen? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the first page? Anyway, I don't think you should count Fox multiple times- just say they use both.

So here's my count: lower case (4), upper case (3), mixed (1), capitalized when referring to Antifa as an actual organization (3). I also note the lower case sources are more highly regarded in general. But that's the problem with using OR- different editors come to different conclusions based on different data and interpretation. Fortunately, we don't have to reinvent the wheel and can leave that to writers in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Google skews results according to your preferences. That's why some people use DuckDuckGo. I use a separate browser always set to incognito. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, "Portland Antifa" is Rose City Antifa, which is a specific organization with a proper name. A member of that group could be called "a member of Antifa" as shorthand, but this is not really helpful, is it? This is an example of why google hit counts need to be evaluated carefully. As another example, the Quartz article does clearly capitalize antifa, but it barely discuss antifa at all. It is mainly about how antifa was falsely implicated for a bombing, likely take advantage of those who view "Antifa" as a boogieman. The source Quartz links for more background is this article at Time.com which doesn't capitalize and goes into significantly more depth about antifa as a concept. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and The Four Deuces: - re "your preference" - For the record, I very rarely read Fox news. I imagine the abundance of articles probably reflects Fox's obsession with left-wing "extremists". re "How did you choose the first dozen? " - From the first hits, I picked the first 12 that were from sources I recognized (i.e. I ommitted really obscure sources, that probably weren't RS). re "different editors come to different conclusion" - Right. Which is why it's best to do a blind review of all sources (e.g. ngrams). Look, it seems like your method produces an ambiguous answer and ngram points to capatilizing. Why not go with capatilizing? NickCT (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Because context matters. Even here, for issues like this, we need to summarize what sources are actually saying in proportion to due weight, not merely count them. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: - What's your argument though? Why do 5 sources beat 7? Why do the 5 deserve more weight? If you don't have some rationale for why certain sources are better than others, then why not just count? NickCT (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? I already gave my argument above. Te restate it, references to a specific group should not be conflated with the concept of "antifa". Additionally, sources which discuss antifa in depth are, at a glance, less likely to capitalize than those which mention the term briefly, or as context for a separate issue. This article, obviously, should be substantially about antifa, so we should follow substantial sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well sorry if I missed the point. But honestly I don't buy the point. There are a whole bunch of groups that rally under a flag in the way you're describing. A lot of terrorist groups will rally under one name but have very little affiliation with each. Can you point to a single other example where your "Caps for a group. Lower case for the ideology" rationale? Seems like arbitrary rationale. Why would we use it here? I'm not going to go from RS to RS to figure out if they are talking about a group or the ideology. NickCT (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

NickCT, for my search, I typed "Antifa" into a google.com seach[22] as I explained above. The page returned 10 hits, and I excluded Wikipedia and twitter, and was left with 8 reliable sources. But as I said, this is original research and Wikipedia:No original research says it is helpful to consult tertiary sources. Fortunately one tertiary source listed as reliable in Wikipedia's perennial sources page popped out in the google search, Webster's. TFD (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - I get that tertiary sources usually trump secondary ones. But that doesn't mean that one tertiary source trumps dozens of secondary ones. Plus, you've gotta consider source quality. Again, this is Webster's. The McDonald's of dictionaries. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

None of the secondary sources say that the term is usually capitalized. What you are doing is conducting your own investigation because you disagree with the conclusions reached in reliable sources. That's no different from reading about 911 and concluding that the history books are wrong. Of course they might be wrong, but policy requires us to rely on them rather than the conclusions of research by individual editors. What we normally do if we question what reliable sources say is find reliable sources that say something different. TFD (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I'd agree with you if we were talking about matters of fact. But talking about a lingual/semantic issue here. WP:COMMONNAME sorta directs us to do our own research on the issue. And again, Websters isn't really a great source. They commonly define things outside the norm or at odds with what other dictionaries say. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Antifa It is a name of a collection of groups, so a proper noun, and looking though the sources for this article most capitalize it as well. Other similar decentralized organizations also do the same as noted above. The argument that there is not central committee or the like really has no bearing on this argument from what I can see, again similar groups do not have that issue. PackMecEng (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Then why aren't civil rights movement, animal rights movement, anti-nuclear movement, anti-war movement, environmental movement, proper nouns? Antifa is a movement. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Then why are Black Lives Matter, Occupy, and Me Too capitalized? I am mostly going by what most RS use, which is capitalization. Think of it like this, when they are on the news, they are referred to Antifa part of the civil rights movement. When say a group from the x movement is on the news they state the organization and that they are part of the x movement. So for your example it would be Black Lives Matter which is part of the civil rights movement. See what I mean? The broader groups like the civil rights movement are less specific than groups like Antifa. PackMecEng (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter, for example, is a movement, but it is also a group with specific founders, a website, a mission statement, etc. The lines may be a bit blurry, but they exist. Antifa isn't a group, and it isn't even a collection of groups. Specific antifa groups have proper names, but the article isn't solely about those groups. Further, claiming that the civil rights movement is "less specific" than anti-fascism is a distraction at best, and introduces more questions than it answers. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Antifa most certainly is a collection of groups under an ideal. It is closer to Occupy which which like Antifa has no central structure but regional groups or chapters. Also claiming it is less specific? That is what it is. It was in response to O3000's question and examples. It would go something like civil rights movement at a broad level, then Antifa, and then Rose City Antifa. It is an explanation why civil rights movement is not capitalized and why Antifa is capitalized by most sources. PackMecEng (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not "a collection of groups", but, to the extent that it is a collection of anything, like the feminist movement or the conservative movement, it is a collection of individuals, who might organise as groups, often as short-lived ad hoc affinity groups, occasionally as more formalised local associations. However, it is usually used as an adjective rather than a noun, making the capitalisation even weirder. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Some people believe that Antifa is a highly organized group of professional revolutionaries acting under the direction of the New World Order. Here's a link to a purportedly leaked membership card posted on reddit. I think that using capitalization buys into that theory. TFD (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, you just outed by photo. O3000 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, a collection of individuals that joined local groups under the Antifa banner? No? Seems they only form groups when they try to do anything worthwhile. So maybe we just ignore the collection of individuals part, since that describes every group and is not well supposed. PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, do you have any books on grammar that say that? I always thought that a word that referred to various groups and individuals, all of whom would be described using proper nouns, was a common noun. Hence we talk about navies, cities, political parties, married women, people, places, etc. TFD (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think your ping did not work. I was mostly going off the examples I gave which are different than the situation you have there. I will take a look for something more concrete in a bit though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies - now corrected. Isn't it correct to say that BLM, Occupy, etc. are capitalized not because of grammatical rules, but because that is what users of the language have decided? Our role as editors is not to decide what should or should not be capitalized, but to follow the practice in reliable sources. I don't want to see that the Daily Rag of Pig's Knuckle, Iowa, has decided to capitalize Antifa because Wikipedia editors have decided to do that. TFD (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

How about KIVI Boise!?[23] Though I was mostly going by the sources we use in this article for capitalization. I do like the Idaho Statesman article, it even references wikipedia![24] Though they use all caps for some reason. PackMecEng (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

re "users of the language have decided" - Absolutely right. We go with the WP:COMMONNAME! NickCT (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

When you provide references you should be accurate. The article is credited to CNN. It was written by Jessica Suerth [25], who was an intern at CNN and is now a digital journalist at KPNX in Mesa, Arizona, "specializing in social media, our website and app." If you were writing an academic paper and expected to be taken seriously, you would not cite that article as a reason to use upper case spelling. I suggest that instead of starting with an opinion about whether to capitalize antifa and searching for sources that support your view, that you objectively review the sources and come to an informed decision. A serious scholar would never argue that while experts do not capitalize it, a social media reporter in Mesa, Arizona does and what do they know compared with her? TFD (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Some time ago, an editor (Doug?) linked on this talk page to Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines as helpful in thinking about how we use reliable sources for this article, and hence how we should view things like Google searches or nGrams as indicators of correct usage. The guidelines refer to anarchism, but are equally true of antifa (not least as many antifa activists are anarchists). Extracts from the guidance: Because anarchism has traditionally been a marginalised movement, it can be challenging to find well-informed mainstream sources of information. Editors are encouraged to provide multiple sources wherever possible, and should consider scholarly, well-researched material the best source of information... A comprehensive familiarity with anarchism, as with many subjects, is rare among journalists. Their concept of anarchism is often associated with terrorism, chaos or anomie in the popular consciousness, whether rightly or wrongly so.... Major mainstream newspapers are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. However, a journalist doing a story on a group of anarchists will often have no prior experience with the anarchist movement. As such, articles that do not cite multiple sources should be considered accurate only in representing the point of view expressed by the particular groups covered in the article and should not be generalized further to the anarchist movement as a whole. The guideline goes on to recommend reliable anarchist sources, as preferable to mainstream sources. Many of the mainstream sources on antifa, particularly those rushed out in 2017 when the topic entered public consciousness (such as the CNN explainer reproduced by kivitv and linked above, which is laughably incorrect to anyone familiar with the movement), are based on very little knowledge or research. If, instead of doing a random search on Google, we look at how knowledgeable sources use the term, we get a different picture. For example, there are a tiny number of serious books published on antifa. Mark Bray (quoted in our article and in several mainstream sources as an expert), uses a small a in his[26][27] (Serious mainstream source about him do so too.[28][29][30]) There is a newer academic book, American Antifa[31] by a sociologist Stanislav Vysotsky published by the scholarly publishing house Routledge. He uses a small a.[32][33] Here is a much more serious and authoritative discussion of the term which quotes the two authors; it uses a small a. If you look at online sources which antifa activists write for and read, you will see a similar pattern. Here are the most recent articles with the search term in It's Going Down, the main pro-antifa website in the US, excluding those that only specifically refer to particular proper name groups like NYC Antifa or Rose City Antifa or that only quote upper case right-wing attacks: [34] [35] [36] Another serious publication which antifa activists sometimes write for is In These Times, which also usually uses lower case[37][38][39] - although not consistently[40]. Ditto the Baffler, but more consistently.[41] On the websites of the main US antifa groups, when they use the term generically they use lower case - see NYC Antifa[42] or Rose City Antifa.[43] My view is that these kinds of sources are more important in helping us decide than a local radio station, Fox News, or an op ed in The Hill. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa lower-case, as this is not a formal organization, but a loose appellation that some individuals apply to themselves. Specific organizations, such as Rose City Antifa would have the capital as it's part of a formal organization name. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa: per sources, this is not a formal org, nor a collection of regional groups. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Here are a few sources that use Antifa and mention how they are regional groups.[44][45][46][47] PackMecEng (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • When we are referring to groups called Antifa then I agree we should capitalize it. Ironically, I lost an argument to capitalize Communist when it referred to actual Communist Parties. (See Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 14 August 2019). Where were you? TFD (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: can you quote from those sources where they say these "regional groups" are formal organisations with members, and, crucially, that all US antifa are members of these "regional groups"? There are several parties called Conservative around the world, and we call use a capital C when referring to those parties - but that doesn't mean we capitalise the word "conservative" at all times, as many conservatives are not in those parties. Also, check my comment just above which sets out why those ill-informed articles are not as useful as the informed and the experts, such as Bray who is quoted in a couple of them as an expert. @The Four Deuces: I wish I'd seen that argument as I would have strongly argued for capitalisation there, for the same reason I oppose it here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No I did read the sources you provided and they do use lowercase. More what I and others have tried to illustrate is the majority of sources user uppercase. While the sources you list are good sources, they are in the minority and I see no reason to discard the majority of sources because you like what your sources say more. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no head "Antifa" organisation that controls or oversees regional groups. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct, just like Occupy for instance. Nor does there need to be. PackMecEng (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As I demonstrated above, the majority of reliable sources use lower case. However, results are affected by Google Personalized Search, which returns results based on what sites the searcher normally visits. That's why NickCT got 3 hits for Fox News and a right wing columnist, while I got the ADL, Webster's, the Urban Dictionary, the Atlantic, USA Today, the New York Times, CNN, the BBC, Wikipedia and twitter. Because the search engine assumes that I am looking for the most respected sources, while it assumes that NickCT is looking for sources that reflect a specific political viewpoint. TFD (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

For a second time; I don't read Fox News. Also, you've presented no reproducible evidence that the majority of sources use lower case. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If you think that Google searches are not reproducible, that invalidates your entire argument. Fortunately, policy allows us to consult reliable sources whose authors have examined the issue and have formed an educated agreement on usage and their opinion was accepted by America's most respected dictionary. Also, you originally said you very rarely read Fox News. That's entirely possible because Google returns hits for the types of publications you normally consult for news stories. I wouldn't get that impression based on your user page, although your stated views appear rather heterodox. TFD (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you know how Google works? I do not think you know how Google works. The majority of RS support capital so lets just go by that. Also no one cares about Fox or who watches Fox. PackMecEng (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, there is no need to insult other editors. You have not evidenced your case that "the majority of RS support capital"; the evidence presented above at best suggests that some RSs capitalise but not a majority. Nor have pro-capitalisation editors addressed the arguments about why some RSs are more useful here than others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Both have been addressed ad nauseam above. More sources have been shown above to use uppercase and you do not get to discount the majority for sources you personally prefer. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The Google search I provided to you and have already mentioned 5 times shows that five out of ten reliable sources on the first pages of searches use lower case, while only three use upper case.[48] The fact I can link to a Google search should be evidence that I know how searches work. You have not yet explained what you find wrong with this search. TFD (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

At least two other users have shown how Google searching doesn't say what you says it does PackMecEng. Can you show me where you've addressed my points about why some sources are more useful than others (it's at the end of this version? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying the Google experiment. Of the first 12 RS hits for antifa, I find 9 use lower case and only 3 upper case. Upper case: BBC,[49] CNN,[50] New Yorker[51]. Lower case: ADL,[52] Independent[53] NYT,[54] the only published book on our topic,[55] Atlantic,[56] Evening Standard,[57] Pacific Standard,[58] Fox,[59] Vox[60]. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

And here is the Atlantic upper case[61], the Independent[62], New York Times[63], Fox[64], Washington Post[65], AOL[66], NPR[67], The Economist[68], The Guardian[69], Politico[70], Business Insider[71], Vice[72], PBS[73], ABC[74], The Associated Press[75], and Daily Beast[76]. Heck a lot of those are sources from this article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As the only reliable source for usage presented in this discussion says, some sources capitalize the word, most do not. Therefore you should have no problem finding 16 examples of upper case among the millions of hits for "Antifa" on google. By comparison I could probably find the names of over 16 antifa in the U.S. That would not prove that most Americans are antifa. TFD (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well no, you got it backwards there. Most use capital as shown here and above. PackMecEng (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

So you've moved the goal posts pretty dramatically. The exercise you proposed wasn't to look for upper case examples but to look at a random selection of reliable sources, i.e. the first reliable google hits, and look at the proportions. Also, seems relevant to me that these sources that we have shown use both upper and lower seem more likely to have moved from upper to lower. This appears (by looking at the most recent instance) to be the case with the Atlantic,[77] Independent,[78] Fox,[79]. Of those that use both over time, a number use lower case more often, e.g. Guardian, NPR.[80] BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes a number use lower case and most use upper case. We can keep going round and round if you like though. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that most use lower case and Google search returns more examples of lower case. Lower case also follows grammatical rules of the English language. TFD (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not true though. The majority of RS favor upper case. PackMecEng (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I prefer to rely on what reliable sources say and tests that can be replicated rather than your personal conclusions, based on whatever you get your news from. TFD (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Great! Then you should update your vote to upper case. PackMecEng (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess you must have missed my postings above. I pointed out to you numerous times, the only reliable source presented says that lower case is more common, while the only replicable test presented shows lower case preferred in reliable sources by 5 to 3. TFD (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• antifa so as to avoid confusions just like the above discussions suggested. Idealigic (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Antifa simply because it helps (my) readability. Also, man I love that we can still waste this much text on something so small (or capitalized!). Arkon (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• antifa I'd like to point out one thing: a google search) especially on by a logged-in user, is anything but random, but in fact highly biased. And the use of Antifa vs antifa is also clearly biased. Right-wing sources favour capitalizing the term. I can only hypothesize, but I suspect that they want to suggest to their readers that there is an organization by that name. There isn't. Vexations (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So, they should ask the leader of this organization what they prefer. If there is no leader -- well, there is the answer. O3000 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think they tried that with Occupy and it came back with caps. PackMecEng (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This has been running for more than one month. I think it is clear that there is no consensus to change from lowercase to uppercase. Should we formally close it? --MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"anti-facists" in opening line?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Using anti-facism here is like using "socialism" to describe this group is like using "socialist" to describe nazism. The ideologies this group promotes are inarguably facists. I'm proposing the wording in the opening sentence be changed to remove "anti-facists" and the origin of the groups name be referenced separately. 73.227.195.63 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really. "Antifa" is literally an abbreviation of "antifascist", while "nazi" is an abbreviation for "National Socialist". You may want to actually read the article, as well as articles about predecessors (Antifaschistische Aktion, Post-World War II anti-fascism). Also, note that Wikipedia is not a forum and any changes you propose should be based on reliable sources. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

73.227.195.63 says "The ideologies this group promotes are inarguably facists". WP:RS required as well as showing that it is not reflective of the article per WP:LEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, my comment might be misleading. When I said not really it was not an answer to the question in the title, but to the body of the comment ;-) --MarioGom (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was to the IP, not you! My bad. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

See my comment below in response to Acroterion 73.227.195.63 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The OP's comment appears to be an attempt at false symmetry: if National Socialists aren't actually socialists, then Antifa must be equally incorrect. This kind of forum-style false equivalence is a perennial feature of talkpages associated with fascism, where new accounts and IPs argue points not supported by any serious political science scholarship of the past eighty years. This idea also features in demands that, if fascism is characterized as "far right, then Antifa and similar opposition to fascism must inevitably be "far-left," regardless of actual ideology (if any coherent ideology really exists for Antifa). This also presupposes that broad opposition to fascism is an idea unique to extremists. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to make a false equivalency here. Simply trying to demonstrate that the burden of proof is not met for calling the group anti-facists. The point I was trying to make is that anti-facism, like socialism needs to be cited. The burden of proof is no different because of the name. There are no citations here to support this group as being an anti-facists group nor is there consensus that antifa is anti-facists 73.227.195.63 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the citations for "militant anti-facists" don't approach a consensus on this. The first one [3] questions wether or not the group is facists. 73.227.195.63 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If you mean the Washington Post source, no, it doesn't. The only paragraph resembling that is the following that talks about how antifa actions might inadvertently further fascism, which is something else completely. The rest of the article calls antifa "left". Rather than prevent fascism, antifa violence could further it, argued Laurie Marhoefer, an assistant professor at the University of Washington who has studied Hitler's rise. "Violent confrontations with antifascists gave the Nazis a chance to paint themselves as the victims of a pugnacious, lawless left," she wrote for the Conversation. "They seized it." Sjö (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is well covered and cited in the body. O3000 (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Remove the formulation "On the other hand" from the section "Response", so that the paragraph now starts with. "Historical and political... ".

Why: The formulation invokes a discussion. I understand that there are editors "on both sides", but creating dichotomy in the article based on conflicts between editors is not a neutral policy at all.

Why do I bother: I sometimes make small changes like this to wikipedia articles upon reading them, but this time the article was locked. 84.210.210.232 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the presentation of multiple viewpoints on Wikipedia does not indicate a lack of neutrality. We seek to have information on multiple viewpoints. This is an appropriate way to introduce a paragraph with an opinion differing from that described in the previous one. Furthermore, I see no evidence that this was based on an editor’s personal beliefs or a dispute between editors. We want to avoid giving undue weight to minor opinions, yes, but this appears to be an appropriate balance. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

C)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Antifa now paying vandals & theives to cause destruction, commit acts of violence & terrorism. Videos of Columbus rioters being paid are currently on Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1307:44EB:6873:EBDD:4BBE:C713 (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided sources for your claims. Such claims are common, but are usually if not always made up conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing as official membership in "antifa" — it's a leaderless movement. And second of all, how could anyone possibly know how to determine who is in antifa and who is not? (And third of all, the word "thieves" is not spelled "theives".)50.203.182.230 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Please update Antifa as a Terrorist organization as per the designation by the United States government 2001:569:7E72:A600:6878:52F0:A70A:7D4 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Is "antifaschistisch" the correct spelling ... and is antifa really a "contraction" of that word?

The Terminology section states that the word "antifa" is a "contraction" of the word "antifaschistisch". First of all, it's not a contraction. It's a shortening. Secondly, the logo of the 1930s German movement "Antifaschistische Aktion" — shown in the article — spells the word "antifascistische" with an E at the end.50.203.182.230 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The German word "antifaschistische" is an inflected form of "antifaschistisch". I think you're right on the first point since, per our article, a contraction is "created by omission of internal letters and sounds." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Antifa is now recognized as a terrorist organization. 69.146.101.16 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Antifa will be classified as a terroirist organizations according a tweet sent by the President of the United States @realDonaldTrump 12:23 PM · May 31, 2020 "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization." Jlafor (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That was added to the article space nearly an hour before you made this request. NedFausa (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Now labeled a terrorist group. 2600:1700:77A0:B1A0:D451:7363:7135:7D38 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2020

(edit conflict) Trump regularly “Tweetstorms”, and thus it’s difficult to tell if this is just bluster. Unless he’s talking about designation by a particular agency, so far as I know, this is not something Trump can do unilaterally. It requires an Act of Congress. It’s also difficult to label Antifa a “terrorist organization” as they’ve not technically committed any acts of terrorism, and they aren’t an actual organization. It would be like declaring the Tea Party movement, libertarianism, or participants of a Reddit conversation a terrorist group. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

AntiFa has just been officially declared to be a terrorist organization by U.S President Donald J. Trump

SteamedHamsMan (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

See the four previous sections above. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

2601:741:2:D040:2C73:78C:7A84:D9FE (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization

 Not done See the above sections. FDW777 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The president’s critics noted, however, that the United States does not have a domestic terrorism law and that antifa, a contraction of “anti-fascist,” is not an organisation with a leader, a defined structure or membership roles. The New York Times, Jun 01, 2020 07:43:30 IST Dr. Limar Taylor (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Requesting the re-evaluation of “mostly-peaceful.” More research should probably be done before making that claim (I believe it is inaccurate) 2600:380:A838:530C:6421:3604:D1F0:3255 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Please change that President Trump now does consider them a terrorist group as of yesterday on Twitter and other news articles. Daddys1977girl (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding important context to Antifa

I suggest we add another paragraph in the intro to give antifa proper context. All references are legitimate and support the points made.

Despite the attention brought to Antifa by Donald Trump, Antifa has not been designated as a terrorist organization and has not been responsible for any deaths in their anti-fascist counter protests. Statistically, Antifa and other left-wing groups are responsible for a relatively small amount of violence compared with right-wing or extremist religious groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbtron (talk • contribs)

References

Oppose: The outdated reference to NPR does not support your claim that Antifa has not been responsible for any deaths in their anti-fascist counter protests. NedFausa (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Colbtron: You might find it useful to read WP:SYNTH. Your proposed addition would be an example of the sort of writing discouraged by that policy, in that it's piecing together aspects of different sources to create a picture that doesn't appear in any of them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: @Schazjmd: @Arms & Hearts: Thanks guys, I was hoping to provide valuable context but I see that the references are vague and out of date. There's just not very many clear stats on Antifa at this point. I appreciate your patience and input.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbtron (talk • contribs) 17:18, May 31, 2020 (UTC)

Even if these sources are oudated, it baffles me that we're just going to leave it at that. There are plenty of reliable sources proving that "far left violence" is nothing but a myth, or at the very least incidents pale in comparison to white supremacist, and extremist christian acts of violence and terror. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to specify those sources and propose changes to the article. Before doing so you may wish to read the policy I linked above, and WP:IRS, if you haven't already, however. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UT

Designated Terrorist Organization

If the president of the United States tweets out that a movement is a terrorist organization, I don't understand how the United States hasn't "officially" recognized it as a terrorist organization. I do not believe this is a NPOV issue, since the Gülen movement is in the category, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by Turkey, even though there is no evidence of it conducting terrorist attacks. At what point would it be acceptable to add the category, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States, if not when the the head of state and head of government of the United States of America says so? —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In the United States of America, a tweet has no formal legal authority—no matter who tweets it. In March 2018, the Trump White House answered an August 2017 online petition: "Thank you for your petition requesting that AntiFa be formally recognized as a terrorist organization. Although Federal law provides a mechanism to designate and sanction foreign terrorist organizations and foreign state sponsors of terrorism, there is currently no analogous mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations." Since then, the law has not changed. Trump's latest tweets are bluster, not binding executive action. NedFausa (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump's tweets have been considered official statements by the president of the United States[[81]]. Since there is no mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations, what action would sufficient to say that the United States designates Antifa as a terrorist organization?—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

An official statement is not a law. What would be needed is new legislation by Congress, or at minimum an Executive Order by the president. NedFausa (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

At risk of sounding tautological, if there's no mechanism by which something can be designated a domestic terrorist organisation, there are no circumstances in which it would be appropriate to say that something has been designated a domestic terrorist organisation. The tweet is mentioned in the article; doubtless informed commentaries on its significance or lack thereof will be published in reliable sources in due course and we'll be able to cite those too. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Would just like to make a comment. If President Trump describes Antifa as a terrorist organization, it only becomes 'terrorist', according to an established right-wing ideology, that President Trump represents. To many people, having different ideologies, it is not 'terrorist'. If Hitler had described the anti-Nazis between 1933 and 1939 as 'terrorist', would that be 'correct'? Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 18:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the exact same thing I was trying to get across with removing "anti-facists" from the opening line. It's illogical to accept the groups claim to be "anti-fascists" (despite the group advocating fascists policies) and simultanenously ignore the president's claim that this group is a terrorist organization. That they are claimed to be "terrorist" and "anti-fascists" should go in the description or we should take out anti-fascists. This is logically inconsistent and exemplary of political bias on wikipedia. 73.227.195.63 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum. 73.227.195.63, what you are saying is clearly not the "exact same thing" that Che12Guevara was saying. What you are suggesting is that something becomes true or factual because someone says it. We go by reliable sources; the president and his tweets don't count as such. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

NBC article saying There is no domestic terrorism statute and legal authority for the U.S. to designate any domestic organization as a terrorist group, as the Justice Department's domestic terrorism coordinator has said publicly on multiple occasions in recent years. FDW777 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is probably just a misunderstanding on my part, but this times article seems to refute that (at least in their terminology) [82] 73.227.195.63 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, since a Russian group is by definition not domestic. FDW777 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for the clarification 73.227.195.63 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello all Wikipedia enthusiasts & contributors :) I suggest to add this notable source from New York Post. Which includes more context & various views to further get this Wikipedia article closer to NPOV.

• https://nypost.com/2020/05/31/trump-tweets-antifa-will-be-designated-a-terrorist-group/
• https://archive.md/LCkG1

Francewhoa (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Francewhoa, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. So since we have better sources, why include the Post? Schazjmd (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Hello @Schazjmd: Thanks for both your reply and Wikipedia contributions :) This link you shared about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is useful information & news to me. I'll try to contribute to it. As well as keep it in mind for my future contributions.

As for the New York Post (NYP)'s article, as you know there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the NYP. I agree that if an agreed on better notable source can be found it would be best. It is unfortunate because NYP's article includes multiple point of views to further get this Wikipedia article closer to NPOV.

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@Schazjmd: and all contributors :) I suggest to add this notable source VOA's article. Which includes various views to further get this Wikipedia article closer to NPOV. VOA's article includes various views such as related statements from, but not limited to, Anti-Defamation League, American Civil Liberties Union, Fire department, Mayor, Police department Chief, Secret Service.

• https://www.voanews.com/usa/trump-praises-national-guard-response-unrest-declares-antifa-terrorist-group
• https://archive.md/BjUjv

Francewhoa (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Oppose citing VOA article, which has a misleading headline "Trump Praises National Guard Response to Unrest, Declares Antifa a Terrorist Group" – he tweeted that they WILL be so designated, not that he has in fact declared them as such; also this is Wikipedia:Citation overkill and merely reiterates existing references, offering nothing new—unless you want to add in comments by various fire departments, police chiefs, et al. NedFausa (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Antifa is now designated as a terrorist organization. 100.35.27.224 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Tweets aren't law. FDW777 (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

@Francewhoa: removed a respected source, NBC News, and replaced it with two sources considered biased, The Washington Examiner and the tabloid, The NY Post. When I removed the examiner cite, which was little more than a copy of a tweet, they restored it. I think we should do better in a highly controversial article about an event with heavy current coverage. [83], [84], [85] O3000 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that, given the proliferation of high-quality reliable sources (NBC, NPR, NYT, BBC), there's no reason to cite tabloids or overtly partisan publications, and I'm puzzled as to why anyone would try to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur that New York Post is generally a poor source and others should be used when possible. But is The Washington Examiner considered a bad source? It's right-biased in much the same way that Mother Jones is left-biased, but I generally consider Mother Jones a reliable source. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I would use neither MotherJones or the examiner for this. The coverage is enormous in highly respected sources. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That's true, there exist enough neutral sources on this that the use of any publication with an explicit political orientation is unnecessary. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We can set aside bias: Mother Jones is reliable (but likely it's unnecessary to cite them here), the Examiner is not; it should never be cited in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that that is settled, we can go back to our normal programming; the ten (count them,10) sections incorrectly claiming Antifa is now officially a terrorist org (as if it was an organization to start with).O3000 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Francewhoa removed a respected source, NBC News

Hello @Objective3000: Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) And thanks for expressing your concern and asking about this edit. I'm assuming that you're referring to this edit 2020-05-31T12:54:04‎? In summary it was a good faith edit.

The following is the same as above, but with details if you're interested in those. Per my edit note, my intention was to contribute a notable source New York Post (NYP). Which includes more context & various views to get this Wikipedia article closer to NPOV.

When I saved my edit no warning were display about conflicting edits. After my edit, I noticed that someone else contribution was somehow deleted :( This was unfortunate as Wikipedia is usually good at warning contributors about conflicting edits before an edit is save. Anyhow, I noticed this challenge seconds after my edit was save, then I tried to undo my edit by myself, to restore the previous content, but Wikipedia warned that I could not do this because another contribution was made since then. Another contributor manually restored the contribution. Finally I clicked the "Thanks" link on this restore contribution. All can see this publicly here.

About my suggestion about adding the notable source NYP, about "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization", you're welcome to join the discussion above under "Designated Terrorist Organization"►"21:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)" :)

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Firstly, the discussion is here. Secondly, you violated WP:1RR as I noted on your talk page. I suggest you self-rvt. O3000 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity in second sentence

The second sentence of the lead, repeated below, contains a grammatical ambiguity.

"Activists engage in varied protest tactics, including digital activism, property damage, physical violence and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist or on the far-right".

The portion reading "...property damage, physical violence and harassment..." is ambiguous or at least difficult to read due either to the lack of an oxford comma or a missing "and". As it stands, it is unclear whether Antifa engages in "property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist", i.e. physical violence is a separate term from harassment, or whether they engage in "property damage, and physical violence and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist", i.e. physical violence and harassment are coupled together into the same term. Depending on which is correct, the ambiguity can be eliminated in the following way: add an oxford comma if they are separate ("property damage, physical violence, and harassment..."), or add a missing "and" if they are coupled together ("property damage, and physical violence and harassment..."). While in the oxford comma case there is not technically a grammatical error, the sentence is confusing to read as the eye notices there is still a lot of sentence remaining when "physical violence and harassment" appears, suggesting there will be an "and" later on so "physical violence and harassment" should be read as a combined entity—which results in misreading the sentence. This is how I first read it and if you re-read it I think you'll notice that the sentence feels like it's incomplete because an "and" is missing. I'm not sure which of the two cases is meant to be conveyed and since this is a controversial topic I thought it would be better I would post about this here rather than guess which one is intended and edit it myself. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that one might read the sentence as suggesting that antifa engages in harassment against those they consider fascists, and, separately, violence against unspecified other people? Such a reading is grammatically possible but doesn't strike me as one that anyone with a little common sense is likely to arrive at. Apologies if I've misunderstood though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well if the sentence as it is currently written is grammatically correct (the oxford comma case) then that is exactly what the sentence implies—in fact this reading is not just "grammatically possible" but is directly what the grammar implies. For a page on a controversial topic, this in-and-of-itself is cause for concern, as we shouldn't rely on people's common sense to say "oh no while it grammatically means this they probably actually mean this". But my primary concern wasn't that, it was that the sentence is currently written in such a way that most people will misread it the first time around. I know that when I first read "physical violence and harassment" my mind viewed it as a single term in the list (in the same way that "toast and butter" are read together in "for breakfast I had coffee, eggs, and toast and butter"). This is something a lot of people will do and it results in the sentence sounding like an incomplete sentence. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still finding your argument hard to grasp and it doesn't seem as though anyone else wants to weigh in. My suggestion is that you make whatever changes you think are appropriate and see what happens. If you're still not sure what the sentence is supposed to be saying, I would suggest you consult the sources it cites to determine which interpretation is closer to the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone else adjusted the sentence so the issue has been resolved. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Add the fact that Antifa is now legally considered a domestic terrorist organization. 50.115.246.238 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Except it isn't. I assume you are speaking about the U.S. Note that in the U.S. laws are passed by majority votes of both houses of Congress, followed by approval by the president. Tweets by the president don't have the force of law. TFD (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Except it is. Here's the attorney general's statement. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barrs-statement-riots-and-domestic-terrorism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.236.162 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a statement of opinion, not an act of legislation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a statement that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) will be investigating Antifa as domestic terrorists. That's not an opinion, that is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.236.162 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, Barr can bluster about who he's going to investigate for what, but that does not make it a declaration of fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Although U.S. police may treat actions as domestic terrorism, there is no legal basis for declaring a group a terrorist group. The Attorney-General doesn't even say antifa is a group. TFD (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

TFD: On the latter point, you are mistaken. In his official May 31, 2020 press release, the Attorney General states: "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly." (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. But he still isn't saying he will designate them a terrorist group. TFD (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)