Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 29

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

change "Antifa...is far-left" to "politically unafilliated,"

given that they radically oppose the right, and despise all gov't."----

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-antifa/2020/09/11/527071ac-f37b-11ea-bc45-e5d48ab44b9f_story.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/X56rQkDgd0qqB7R68t6t7C/seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-antifa 116l3 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm confused on multiple fronts by this request. This article doesn't say they are "far-left", just left-wing at present (though I do admit this is strange given the sources...), and the articles you linked don't describe them as being on neither wing of the political spectrum. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't see how a group of people whose main sign is the black and red flags of anarchism and communism can be considered anything, but left-wing to far-left. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQs at the top of this talk page, question 1. We've had seven major discussions about this in the last few years, the last one being last June. It's really not worth re-litigating unless there's something new to say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I read through some, and a lot of the objections read like obfuscations, and again their chosen symbol is the two flags of far left politics. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, Antifa is not a homogeneous group. You can't join, it has no organizational structure, nobody pays membership dues. The fact that some people use these signs, whether sincerely or ironically, is irrelevant (see the FAQs).

Antifa is a movement. Anti-fascism. Of course the most ardent anti-fascists are on the left, but anti-fascism is completely mainstream - we settled this in the 20th Century. There was a war and everything, you may have read about it.

We are no more permitted to draw the conclusions you draw, than we are allowed to draw the obvious inference from Trumpists' belief that Antifa is an existential threat to them. Sure, we know who Fa and Antifa are, but we have to go by reliable independent sources instead. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, you are incorrect in stating no one can join and that there are not organized ones. Rose City Antifa or the Torch Network for example. Also anyone that calls themselves Antifa or any RS that labels someone or a group as Antifa are Antifa. It's not magic or something special. Lets just go by RS? Finally everyone keeps saying they are not a homogeneous group but I see no evidence of that. If that were the case you would think you would see different groups or chapters disagreeing with each other or not working together, but facts do not support that assertion. PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, so you challenge the fact that Antifa is not an organisation you can join, by citing two organisations that are not Antifa, that you can join? Er, OK. Compare with movement conservatism - a loose aggregation of republicans, libertarians, and evangelical extremists - but still not a single group. It had groups you could join - like Phyllis Schlafly's "Women for Misogyny" or whatever she called it - but it was a movement, not an organisation. Exactly as for Antifa. A movement united in opposition to fascism, and thus (of course) largely in agreement as to who the fascists are, and that the fascists are bad. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL wait wait. Let me get this straight. . . So two of the leading most well known Antifa organizations are now not Antifa in your eyes. . . because. . . reasons. . . Listen if you are not willing to have a reality based discussion on the topic and would rather just rant about random nonsense, then twitter or facebook is that a way my friend. I mean seriously. Wow. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, read again, for comprehension. Rose City Antifa is an organisation you can join. Antifa is not. Torch network is a group you can join. Antifa is not.

You can't go to antifa.org, put in your credit card and pay your dues. There's no governing body. Nobody writes the book of rules, the mission statement or anything else.

Like movement conservatism, antifa is a movement. Like movement conservatism, there are groups that identify as part of the movement. But Antifa LLC is not a thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, even a leading organization that marches under the Antifa banner is a proper subset of the movement (which in turn is a proper subset of opposition to fascism more generally). XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa is not antifa??? Rose City Antifa is one of the nation's oldest active antifa groups. - ABC News. And for what seems like the millionth time I have to say this here, while all antifa are anti-fascist, not all anti-fascists are antifa. Antifa are self-described revolutionaries. They're anarchists and communists, according to Mark Bray [1] and anyone with eyes who sees their symbol with the black and red flags. When people tell you who they are, believe them. Antifa has an illiberal disdain for the confines of mainstream politics [2], so no, antifa anti-fascism is not completely mainstream. If anyone is tempted to think that anyone calling themselves anti-fascist is axiomatically doing good, they need to do some reading about the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to continue disagreeing with all the reliable sources on your own time, but I'm not sure what relevance this has to the encyclopedia. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused he is quoting directly from the articles in question. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, Schlafly's group was called STOP ERA, not "Women for Misogyny" I know you were trying to be clever, but it wasn't. That along with your use of evangelical extremism and anti-fascism is mainstream because World War II, is pretty much all the evidence needed to show you have no interest in removing your personal bias from this subject. To start with tell me do you think that "anti-fascist" from WWII like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Jean Le Pen, Hutton Gibson or anyone here [3] would be welcomed at any place where antifa groups/ people protest? Second the article here for Anti-fascism list examples that fall under far left, there is a reason why for Poland the example is the Anti-Fascist Bloc and not the Home Army. Third you can keep saying Antifa is not a group, something I did not dispute, but it is pointless. There is also no group calling themselves "Neo-Nazi" or "Alt-Right". There are however groups and people who fall under the category of these labels. As I mentioned before to another user "That be would be like saying that Neo-Nazis are not responsible for a threat from atomwaffen because Russian National Unity had nothing to do with it, its a catch-all term describe a wide range of different groups and people with similar ideas and actions." The same is with antifa. There is no official group, there are groups and people who operate under the label. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, sure, whatever, I had forgotten the name, but it actually was a group devoted to preserving a patriarchal view of the role of women, and she successfully killed the Equal Rights Amendment, so it was close enough. Thanks for remembering the name for me though.

As to whether historical far-right figures who opposed Nazism would be welcome at Antifa rallies, we can only speculate. But let me ask you: in Portland, do you think Strom Thurmond would have been marching with Fa or Antifa? I think the answer can readily be discerned by looking at the proportion of white faces in the respective camps. Thurmond didn't seem too keen on brown people. So regardless of their position on OG Nazis, I think these guys would have been with the Nazis in Portland. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

So you admit that people that actually fought the Nazis in WWII, would not be with the "anti-fascist" of today, well that's good. No its not close enough, opposing the ERA or certain strands of feminism does not equal misogyny, but its just bait so yeah I'll pass. I really could care less who Thurmond would march with personally I doubt it would be either, I just pointing out how absurd your claim was. Again its pretty clear you have no interest in removing your own bias in deciding on this topic. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, are you at all familiar with the America First Committee? It is quite likely that those on the extreme right who fought the Nazis did so only because America itself was attacked. You'll note that Thurmond didn't volunteer to fight until after Pearl Harbor. That said, you can't even be certain that he wouldn't have been welcomed by 1960s-Antifa - the NAACP praised him on occasion, after all.

But your argument is a bait-and-switch. "Would Antifa welcome racists who fought the Nazis". No. Because racism is part of the neo-fascist ideology that Antifa opposes. OG fascists were racists too and modern fascists are trying to make racism socially acceptable again. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that the American Communist party was one of the most anti-interventionist forces in the US, with Earl Browder saying Robert A. Taft would be better than the "warmonger" Roosevelt in 1940? This all changed on June 22nd 1941, I wonder why. Thurmond was praised by the NAACP in the late forties, by the 1960s he was one of the most conservative members of the senate and had already given 24 hour+ filibuster against civil rights in 1957. Finally all of this is pointless. You said anti-fascism has been main stream since WWII, sure in the same sense that anti-anarchism's and anti-socialism (in America's case) has been mainstream since the 1870s or anti-communism since 1917. That of course is not what we are talking about here. What we are is the ideology of anti-fascism which is different than being against fascism. Again my whole point is that what you posted was meaningless and you can not separate your personal views on the matter from objective discussion. If you wanna keep talking about history, then you should move to another section cause it is out of place here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, do you know how irrelevant this ancient history is to the modern anti-fascist movement, and the modern fascists it opposes? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Look buddy, this is getting sad. Not only is this not considered ancient history, but you brought them up and stared this whole thing. At this point your responses are ether trolling or more likely immaturity. You clearly don't have interest as I said before of removing your personal views and you have contributed nothing to this discussion please stop, because it is tiresome and dumb. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not someone is antifa is of course a matter for reliable sources, not self-identification, although reliable sources may use self-identification as part of a judgment that someone is antifa. But then REDFLAG applies. News reporters don't have the expertise to determine whether someone is part of antifa and if they are doing their jobs correctly, they rely on experts. Many editors come to the conclusion that a person or group is antifa, far right, neo-fascist, etc. and use Google to find a news article that uses the term. But that's backwards. TFD (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, an important point, which I hope will not be lost in the noise. Always look for counter-examples, not just sources that match the thing you know to be Truth™. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Threats to murder Ted Wheeler

Earlier this week, antifa released a video threatening to murder Portland's Mayor, Ted Wheeler after he called for citizens to stand against the violence in Portland.

Heres some articles for it https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/04/portland-police-investigate-veiled-death-threat-against-mayor-ted-wheeler-following-calls-to-crack-down-on-destructive-demonstrators.html https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-cops-fbi-investigate-video-of-masked-anarchist-who-issued-threat-to-wheeler-report https://www.ptnewsnetwork.com/breaking-portland-antifa-straight-up-threaten-mayor-saying-next-time-blood-is-spilled-it-may-just-be-your-own/ Special Forces Operator 7598 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Only the first of those three sources could be considered in-depth reporting from a potentially reliable source, and there is as yet no proof of who actually created the video. Our policy on living people accused of crimes indicates that this cannot yet be included. XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@ XOR'easter, Which one would that be? Special Forces Operator 7598 (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are a couple more talking about it.[4][5] PackMecEng (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

None of those mention antifa; they mention anti-fascism, but while antifa is antifascist, not all anti-fascists are antifa (otherwise we would be adding Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill to this page.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

True true, it's probably that other group of anarchist and anti-fascist. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not every anarchist belongs to a group. TFD (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

True facts right there! I mean, it's just silly to think that Antifa would threaten the person that just prior to this was saying that Antifa should be unmasked. Again it is probably some other group that recently had a beef with him that is also based out of that area, anarchists, and anti-fascism. What was I thinking? But seriously, these counter arguments have no basis in reality or common sense. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And no one has ever tried to falsely implicate antifa for anything. Nope, not ever. soibangla (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What you were thinking was that your speculation based on your ideology is self-evident fact that only members of the conspiracy would question. Part of your worldview is that no one could independently decide to be an anarchist, an anti-fascist, a feminist, a civil rights advocate etc. and therefore must be paid by some shadowy organization. TFD (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are on about with worldview and paid such and such. I neither said nor implied either of those. I don't care about your wacky conspiracy theories about "shadowy organizations" or whatever nonsense that is all about. This is a clear case of WP:BLUE, nothing more. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

When AP quotes it as "the anarchist and anti-fascist community", PackMecEng is right that it's obvious that it means the the anti-fascists who are largely anarchists engaging in these "direct actions" in Portland that Wheeler promised to crack down on; i.e. antifa(scists), not random disconnected individuals who oppose fascism in vague and undisclosed ways, nor elected people like Eisenhower. So it could possibly be added, but the sources don't state that it definitely was antifa, so it would have to state it in non-definite terms. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the full text of the relevant paragraph in the AP source is An anonymous account posted the video on Twitter Wednesday evening, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported. In it, an unidentified masked narrator speaking with an altered voice said they were speaking on behalf of a “small collective from within the anarchist and anti-fascist community.” None of the reliable sources presented even mention antifa (not even in relation to relation to Wheeler's crackdown - they make no connection at all.) Obviously, a reliable source actually mentioning antifa is the bare minimum before we could even begin to seriously discuss adding it to the article at all; without that it would just be speculation or synthesis by editors. --Aquillion (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To seriously argue that the article is not talking about antifa is a degree of willful obfuscation that is pretty shocking. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

There is simply no way to know who the person actually is. If he represents antifa, why didn't he explicitly state so? No one can know if he's actually a fascist engaged in disinformation to falsely implicate antifa, a common tactic in recent times. soibangla (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I support waiting, but the claim that one person made that the articles are not operating under the assumption that someone who falls under the category of antifa is silly. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• To be completely, unequivocally clear: I do not think the articles are talking about antifa, I do not believe there is any evidence connecting this to antifa, and I think that the sources are careful in their wording precisely because they are well-aware of that fact. (Again, even sources I would not expect to be so cautious, such as Fox, are avoiding using the word antifa.) Virtually all anarchists oppose fascism; to say that all anti-fascist anarchist communes can be presumed to represent antifa is effectively to declare antifa to be all of anarchism, which is patient nonsense. Obviously this is a topic that many people have strong feelings about one way or the other, which pushes people towards assumptions and speculation that is often tainted by bias (especially when heavy concepts like anarchist communes and anti-fascism start coming up, which many editors with less experience in the topic area may for whatever reason only be familiar with in the context of antifa); but we resolve the risk of that bias by adhering closely to the sources and relying on what they say, not by having editors pound the table and say "but it's really obvious to me that this is the case!" And in this case the sources seem unanimously clear in declining to make the speculative leap that you are pushing for. --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As this page makes clear "antifa" is a board term to describe a wide range of groups and individuals. However to seriously argue that the articles in question were not talking about one of the groups or organizations that operate under the umbrella term of antifa is downright silly. That be would be like saying that Neo-Nazis are not responsible for a threat from atomwaffen because Russian National Unity had nothing to do with it, its a catch-all term describe a wide range of different groups and people with similar ideas and actions. Again I don't think this should be included cause it could be a hoax and we should wait till more info comes out, but to argue the somehow the articles are not talking about someone or something that falls under the category of "antifa" is silly. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement "antifa released a video" is unsupported by the sources provided. TFD (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for more information to come out before posting, but some of the objections are just silly. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was on the Antifa all-hands the other day and the media division never mentioned making a video. Oh, wait: Antifa isn't an actual group and has no ability to take collective decisions or actions. Of course the Anti-Anti-Fa do tend to think of Antifa as a sort of Mirror, Mirror version of the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers or Three Percenters or White Aryan Resistance or whatever, perhaps one day they'll realise. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, you can always tell it's Antifa by their sinister goatees and mustaches. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, ah yes, silly of me. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone in a Guy Fawkes mask, or an Anon IP posting crap to the internet = Anonymous, amirite? Koncorde (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh I don't know if you intended that be directed at me, especially when I said that it should not be included. Also there is organization of antifa groups, its just antifa is used as an umbrella like alt-right when applying to to groups to mentioned above. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like more recent sources are calling the video Antifa related. Individuals claiming to be antifa released a chilling video last week, containing a seemingly veiled threat against Mayor Wheeler and publicized his home address.[6] PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, boom, national coverage. Add it and what it says about Portland residents in general too. Tired of the 'antifa means only what I want it to mean' arguments. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  As with the previous news items, this one is still saying "claiming to be antifa" without providing evidence linking the video to Rose City Antifa or any other organized group. WP:BLPCRIME still requires treading carefully here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I see, but it is reasonable I think for one to post saying that a person alleged to be with them did so. Of course we still should be careful. As well I believe the article can be used for other sections. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  We would of course match the attributed wording of ABC News. WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to organizations or ideological movements and I'm rather surprised to see it claimed as if it does. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, sure, because no right-wing grifter has ever engaged in a joe-job. Apart from that one time. And the other time. And all the other times. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

See above; it's not up to us to decide that something is not credible, but it's up to RS. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The ABC article still only says "Individuals claiming to be antifa released a chilling video". It also says that the spokespeople of the main antifa group in the town, Rose City Antifa, said they knew nothing about it. So we still don't seem to have any reliable source clearly attributing it to actual real antifa. Our policies on how we describe crimes WP:BLPCRIME should preclude us from including this. And the large number of "antifa" hoaxes should give us cause to be even more cautious at this point. Even if 100% verified, I'd argue one anonymous video of a threat probably wouldn't be due anyway. I think Portland residents' reported current tiredness is also undue in this article, as too local and specific to be relevant in an encyclopedic account of the nation-wide momvement but might be due in the Rose City article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Beck has the video in a youtube clip at 1:09.[7] The video is from one individual and he don't claim to be antifa. Since there is an anarchist symbol at the end and the video bears similarities to Anonymous (hacker group), I would guess he identifies as an anarchist. It's possibly a hoax, since real anarchists would not refer to their tactics as "window smashing and riots", and wouldn't complain U.S. political leaders "ignore" the people. They would use a stronger term. Someone who conflates antifa, BLM, environmentalists, progressives and Joe Biden Democrats might not notice that. That may explain why mainstream media have ignored the video and it therefore lacks weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

Yeah so it says Antifa is a group that uses mostly nonviolent means to acquire its political goals, however Antifa in fact uses mostly violent means to acquire its political goals. This can be seen in the many different videos circling the web of Antifa as well as witnesses and police reports. I just thought that I would suggest this change as the information that is provided on this page is inaccurate. 98.246.122.28 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Antifa are willing to use violence if necessary but violence does not constitute the majority of what they do. They almost always tend to also be involved in community organizing and mutual aid work. --2600:1700:94C0:8460:302E:DE73:3EA7:2662 (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Two commentators

Hey I added on the academic part the statements of Paul Gottfried,R. R. Reno, and Stanley G. Payne. There has been so back and forth on the first two and it was recommended that we post on the talk page. So what do you all think? 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say these are entirely undue. One guy who is pushing a book, and another with no actual background on the subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

All three are totally undue. No expertise on the topic and no secondary coverage suggesting these opinions are noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC) (PS to clarify: Reno and Gottfried I think we probably already have consensus against but I oppose Payne as well. Payne might have more expertise on fascism, but not on US antifa and while not fringe is equally undue in the absence of secondary coverage. I also still think we could trim some of the other, apparently arbitrary, comments from non-notable academics without secondary coverage as undue, e.g. Shirley Jackson and Marc Rodriguez. And I am going to revert the descriptions of West and Chomsky as their academic expertise (Chomsky is a linguist, West is a philosopher) is not relevant to antifa so they are noteworthy in this article as activists not scholars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Symmachus Auxiliarus' edit summary on Gottfried's extensive connections to the far right – the only way this would be more of a fringe perspective would be if he started babbling about how the Queen of England's a lizard (and I haven't read his book, so who knows...). I don't know anything about Reno but his views appear to be of a piece, and, as has been noted, he has no scholarly background in any relevant field. The Payne article nowhere mentions "antifa", so obviously shouldn't be cited in this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A few comments regarding what has been posed. Based upon what you have written all of the academics cited should be removed, none has any focus on "antifa" so why include them. One person object because Gottfried wrote a book on anti-Fascism and is pushing it. By that logic Bray should be removed because that is the only thing he is know for. Regarding Gottfried's connection to the far-right, it as I pointed out, it was marginal and he already has condemned the alt-right. [8]. Finally I don't see how his views are anymore fringe than West or Chomsky. Next the claim that Payne does not mention Antifa is a little silly, it is clearly what he was talking about in the article. As well the no secondary coverage is odd, by that logic most of these should be removed except for West. Finally I added Reno since he seemed roughly as qualified as Beinart. All in all I feel that either they should stay or the whole thing should be removed since all of your objects apply to everyone else. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You might find there's a consensus for some of those other changes – much more likely than for adding back Gottfried et al. – but in order to test that you'd be better off starting a new section below and avoiding both sides-ism and "other stuff exists" arguments (it would probably also be worth looking over prior discussions on the subject – searching the archives for Chomsky and Beinart's names turns up a good number). Separately, I'm surprised I have to say this, but yes, actually mentioning the subject of an article by name is generally a requirement for a source to be appropriate, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and plain common sense. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out both Reno and Payne mention antifa or Antifascism. Payne mentions Gottfried's upcoming book and give it a good review, which speaks to its academic merit plus that it is published by a University. What said before does not make sense to me, I am not engaged in "both-sidesism" or "other stuff" I followed the precdent set by the other ones. Do you believe paleoconsartivism is any more fringe than anarcho-syndicadism? Next you have suggested I create a new section, for some changes, what ones. Finally if you could can you address what your objection to Gottfried is? I have provided an article from him denoucing Spencer and the connection between the two was marginal, I have provided examples of his academic credntials, from his position as a professor, and the publishing and reviews of his work. If you could do so it would be appericated. 3Kingdoms (talk)

The changes I was referring to were your suggestions that all of the academics cited should be removed, Bray should be removed (and implicitly also West and Chomsky) and the whole thing should be removed (I suppose in a sense that's only one change though). I've already made my views plain on the other points you raise here and am not interested in discussions that go round in circles. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You did not answer any of the points I made your argument boils down to Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Please address the points. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A few comments regarding what has been posed. Based upon what you have written all of the academics cited should be removed, none has any focus on "antifa" so why include them. No, this is untrue. Mark Bray is an expert on Antifa and is widely described as such in high-quality, unbiased sources quoting him; and, while we cite some of his works directly, he is also extensively cited on the topic in secondary sources besides. Several others (Alexander Reid Ross, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Marc Rodriguez, Shirley Jackson, and several others) are cited via high-quality WP:SECONDARY sources which establish their significance. Meanwhile Gottfried, at least, is patiently a WP:FRINGE figure, and all of them are writing in low-quality outlets (largely think-tanks; the fact that Gottfried was apparently only able to get his opinion published in the outlet of a think-tank, with a tiny circulation, where he is editor-in-chief does not do much to recommend him); nobody else seems to have taken much notice of what they say. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"First Things" is not low quality. Next Gottfried and Payne are as much if not more of an expert than Bray. They have both been in the field for decades and are respected sources. Your objection boils down Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Finally Gottfried's views are no more fringe than Bray, chomsky, west, etc. I am not going to repeat what was already said, so please provide actual reasoning. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It has a circulation of about 30,000 - it is absolutely marginal. Bray is widely acknowledged among independent sources as an expert on antifa specifically, but more importantly, Bray, Chomsky, and West are all cited via independent high-quality secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no "cicrculation rule" so your point means nothing. Second as pointed before First Things has had important influene in American politics. Third Payne is a far better know historian and expert than Bray so yeah he can be cited. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Circulation is useful as one measure of a piece's impact, which determines whether it is WP:DUE. I do not agree that First Things has any significant influence on American politics, but in any case, if Payne is as significant as you believe, and if First Things is significant as you believe, then it should be easy to find high-quality secondary sources covering Payne's views on this, as we did for Bray and the others mentioned. Without that it obviously cannot be included. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now looked a little more carefully at the three proposed additions: "Antifa: Nazis Without a Plan" by Paul Gottfried is a shockingly ill-informed polemic with very little analysis, published by the website of the surely WP:FRINGE Charlemagne Institute, and I cannot see any reliable source which has referred to it or Gottfried's views on American antifa, suggesting it is not WP:DUE. "The violence of the left" by R. R. Reno is an ephemeral opinion piece which includes no analysis and only refers to "antifa gangs" to exemplify an argument about media double standards in reporting left-wing violence rather than to illuminate the topic of this WP article. Again, I cannot see any reliable source which has referred to it or to Reno's views on American antifa, and there is no reason to think Reno has any relevant authority or expertise. Payne is a more credible author, whose views would probably be due in a WP article on fascism. However, his First Things article does not mention antifa and does not discuss America at all, but takes a longer and European-focused historical view of the epithet "fascism". Our "Public reactions" section already takes up an excessive part of the article, so if anything we should be trimming opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. A few points to what you have said. I personally think that saying that Reno or Payne was not talking about antifa here is the USA is a little silly, both are Americans and the debate about Antifa came up throughout the election and was mentioned in the Presidential debate. It is pretty clear that is what they were talking about. As well as I mentioned above Reno was added as a counterpoint to Beinart, who while not an expert published in a respected paper of the center-left and Reno in one of the center-rght. Regarding Gottfried, the major issue with the CI was a claim of anti-Semitism in the 1990s, serious, but it has been more than 20 year and Gottfried himself is Jewish. Second I believe he qualified to talk on the matter. Two of his books "The Strange death of Marxism" and "Fascism: The Career of a Concept" were both published by universities and got positive reviews from scholars. Third while his paleoconserative views are certainly not the most popular ideology in the USA, but then neither is West's Social democracy/ democratic socialism, Chomsky's anarcho-syndicaism, or Bray's leftist views, if Gottfried is considered fringe they should as well and be removed. Finally the claim of not being mentioned is odd, besides Chomsky and West I heard no mention of the others outside of Bray's book, when discussing this issue. As well while not about the article Payne in his article gives his support to Gottfried's upcoming book on the matter. If you think we should trim the article, than if so we should remove both the academic and activist sections in their entirely. I don't agree but that is my view if go ahead with that. Thank you. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I would not be against deleting the section entirely, as I'm not sure what it adds. But there is no need to create WP:false balance between mainstream and minor viewpoints. Bray, Reid Ross, Kazin and Ben-Ghiat are in the article as representative of the sorts of views sought by reliable sources in articles. (Personally, I don't think Kazin (interviewed by Vox) and Ben-Ghiat (interviewed by the NYT) are particularly due much weight as they are not go-to experts cited by several sources, which Bray and Reid Ross are. Jackson and Rodriguez have even less weight due as they seem to be local academics used as talking heads by local media.) Beinart is a different sort of case, as he is the author of one of the weightiest and most informative articles in a mainstream, reliable publication. As we use him elsewhere in the article it may be overkill to include him here too. Payne (currently give more space than anyone else in the section, and more than twice as much space as anyone other than Beinart) has written an op ed in a little known conservative magazine focusing on European history and it seems ridiculous to use it just to balance Beinart. What we need to aim for is WP:BALANCE: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Are views such as Gottfried's as prominent in reputable sources as views such as Beinart's? Do we really want to proliferate primary sources in order to shoehorn in some conservative voices? In a previous discussion (Archive no.22) I noted that Reems of opinion pieces have been published from the left and from the right about antifa; many are written by academics. Any number of academics have been quoted in passing in articles about antifa. Here are a few examples.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] So, the question is: which ones are noteworthy? Surely those cited regularly by reliable sources and/or have some specific expertise in antifa which makes them authorative (rather than vague generic expertise in society-related fields. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding the objections that Payne is somehow not talking about American Antifa, to the point of it looking like "willful obfuscation". Next First Things is hardly "Little Know" just looking at its wiki page shows the influence it had especially during the Second Bush admin. Third the claim that only Bray and Reid Ross, who are evidently the only ones who support antifa unconditionally, should be kept makes little sense . Googling Bray/his book first leads to a series of negative reviews/critics, an op-ed he wrote in WP, and some mentions in passing. Reid-Ross has even less and his book "Against the Fascist Creep" was not even published by an academic/university publisher but AK Press in comparison Gottfried's books are published by Universities and his upcoming book on anti-fascism is getting prompted by Cornell University [24]. Fourth there is really no shoehorning here that you are claiming. Both Payne and Gottfried are more famous and distinguished historians than Bray or Reid Ross; they have published numerous books relating to these subjects that are published by respected institutes of higher learning and cited by others in the field, thus Payne having the most to say is perfectly fine, but if you want it cut down sure I could do that. The attempt at calling them vague once again rings of "willful obfuscation". If you think Reno should go then I guess, but I think it is fine and I agree he is not the biggest expert so I gave him the smallest section. Finally the claim of false balance and shoehorning comes across as disingenuous, especially when you essentially are calling for ever one except the two who support them as mentioned unconditionally, which to me could easily be seen as gate-keeping or whitewashing of the group. Please address the points I have mentioned, thank you. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As well I would like to here from others to get a different view. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, you're the only holdout here, so I doubt it'll go any differently if you bring other people in. That said, you can try WP:DRN if you really insist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure what your talking about. This discussion is between he same 4 people, and I would like to get another voice especially when some before had argued that the sources were fine on the history page. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just as an aside, 3Kingdoms also added Gottfried's opinion to the related article of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. I didn't notice at first glance, but the outlet where he is published, Chronicles Magazine, is an outlet for the Rockford Institute, a think tank (and not a particularly noteworthy outlet at that - it peaked at a mere 15,000 subscribers.) I am strenuously opposed to using anything from a think tank or a publication by a think-tank unless there is very strong evidence that it is high-quality and significant; a think tank's purpose is to pay people in order to pump out whatever arguments will advance the goals of their employers, after all. There is no reason to think they care about fact-checking or accuracy, but even beyond that the fact that they are essentially hired guns means they cannot reasonably be considered WP:DUE for anything but the opinions of the people who own the think tank, in articles specifically about that think tank. Obviously there are exceptions for think tanks that are particularly recognized for being noteworthy, significant, and / or reliable, but the Rockford Institute is not one of those. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your point is simple goalpost moving, evidence has been presented by me showing Gottfried's credentials for being included, please address those. Currently the only thing I see is Wikipedia:I just don't like it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not seen any valid indication of Gottfried's credentials or significance, no. Can you point to independent secondary sources - ones that aren't affiliated with him, his think tank, or his political movement - that have covered his words on Antifa, or which describe him as an expert on Antifa? Without those I am not seeing any argument for why you think he should be added; if anything, this feels more like a case of WP:ILIKEIT, where you want to add what he says simply because you, personally, feel it is insightful or significant or agreeable. But that is not a valid argument and is unlikely to satisfy WP:ONUS - you need to show that what he says about Antifa is significant, ie. it has received recognition rather than appearing solely in low-quality fringe publications with marginal circulation. Cornell West, who you've criticized repeatedly, is quoted in The Guardian and Slate, two extremely high-quality, high-impact publications; Chomsky is quoted in The Independent. Bray - in addition to being published in several high-profile mainstream sources himself - is cited, and his expertise acknowledged, in NPR, US News and World Report, Vox and several other sources, all of which describe him as an expert. Where is your secondary sourcing for the people you want to add? Obviously a think tank is going to claim that their hired guns are the greatest experts on whatever the world has ever known, but without independent recognition and secondary coverage that claim isn't meaningful at all. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Gottfried's works are regularly published by Universities, is a professor emeritus, and has currently written a book on anti-fascism which is being supported by Cornell University. West was only brought up because you and others have labeled Gottfried, "fringe" when it could easily be argued that West's democratic socialism or anarcho-syndicanhism of Chomsky and Bray could also be called fringe. I am having trouble seeing that you are arguing from a point of good faith. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The point is that we don't have to rely on our personal feelings or opinions to determine what opinions are mainstream or relevant or WP:DUE; we just have to look at secondary coverage. Rather than trying to insist that you, personally, believe Gottfried is qualified, you would better spend your time looking for secondary coverage of things he has said about Antifa, which could be used to illustrate that his opinion on it is one that someone has taken notice of. As I've pointed out, all the other people you've objected to have had significant secondary coverage in independent, unbiased sources; Gottfried, as far as I know, has not, which makes it hard to argue that his opinions are WP:DUE relative to theirs. --Aquillion (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I have pointed to his work being published by universities. His work has been judged to have academic merit regardless of what one thinks of it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Being published by a university press isn't a tacit endorsement of the work. Anyone discussing these sources should know this, of course, and I'll assume that you do. I'm also curious as to what you meant when you said that one of his works is "being supported by Cornell University", as I'm unclear as to what this means.

See response below. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I should also note that being a professor emeritus/emerita just means that a professor was in good standing with the university when he/she retired. Gottfried retired a long time ago, and so far as I'm aware, has maybe published one(?) possibly peer reviewed piece in about fifty years. He doesn't really engage in academic scholarship anymore, so far as I can tell. With the exception of one work published by Telos (which may be part of their blog service, or published as a dissenting piece, and thus not peer-reviewed), he doesn't appear to have published anything in peer reviewed academic journals since the late 1970s. I can give a more in-depth analysis of his work both past and present if you'd like, but that's hardly necessary here. I can say that I did a preliminary analysis of how the handful of books he's published since then were cited on Google Scholar, and it wasn't particular encouraging. In terms of scholarly publications specifically (and not popular press), most were either refutations of his points, or just noting in passing what current paleoconservative authors are saying. They aren't generally giving a serious scholarly treatment of his work, or using it to support current scholarship. Regardless, what we're discussing here is a specific work that's more of an opinion piece or a polemical, published by a Paleoconservative think tank and advocacy group. Aquillion has noted its limited and dwindling circulation, and I likewise wasn't able to find it being discussed in secondary and independent reliable sources. All of this leans against inclusion of that specific material. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

If a book is being published by a University it genrally speaks to it academic merit regardless of one's view on it. I said Cornell cause that is who is publishing Gottfried's upcoming book on antifascism [25] Simply putting in Paul Gottfried on Jstor will show him being cited, along with articles he wrote. Of course there are other mentions describing his influence on politics on the American Right. So yes he still is mentioned regarding politics and history. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd also like to clarify my position on the Payne piece. Payne is a serious scholar, and thus deserves a more nuanced discussion as to inclusion. Notice that I didn't remove the Payne source, as I felt this was something that needed discussion on the talk page. While the weight (or lack thereof) of Reno and Gottfried were fairly self-evident and I felt that policy supported reverting those additions as evidently undue, Payne was an outlier among the three. However, I still submit that Payne is WP:FRINGE in this rather specific context, and anyone familiar with his work likely already knows why, but I'll spell it out here. Payne is considered reliable for scholarship having to do with classical fascist movements (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc). However, he holds the rather fringe view in his field that fascism more or less no longer exists outside of that historical context. In a field with a couple thousand scholars, when you can count the number of scholars that support this view on your hands... That's definitionally a fringe viewpoint. It's not a concept accepted by mainstream scholarship in any of the related fields. His views on Antifa and modern antifascism generally are obviously derived from that fringe viewpoint, and if there is any consensus that this be included at all, we'd absolutely need to provide this context, and weight it accordingly. This is roughly analogous to a climate scientist who rejects the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and I think almost everyone here would probably agree that neofascism not being a form of fascism is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to say. You seem to have completely misrepresented or misunderstood what Payne said. He wrote "Genuine neofascist groups do appear, but lack support and grow weaker with each decade. A valid rule of thumb is that the more important an extremist group, the less truly neofascist it is. Conversely, the more genuinely neofascist, the less significant." How you could possibly think that means "neofascism not being a form of fascism" I don't understand. Secondly that you call Franco as fascist, a viewpoint supported by about as many scholars as could be counted on your hands, is another questionable claim. Third you provided no evidence that his view on anti-fascism or fascism is fringe. Richard J. Evans hardly a right-wing historian calls him an expert on fascism. [26]. I really don't know what to say regarding your objections given how quickly they are contradicted. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I did say that he was an expert on fascism. Namely, that his work on European fascist movement in the early 20th century is well-regarded. Perhaps I misspoke here, but does he not claim that many of the modern far-right groups generally regarded as fascist are not fascist? He also, as you pointed out, regards neofascism as a fading phenomenon (what I meant when I said it "doesn't exist"; I should have been clearer, in that he seems to regards it as near non-existent). If you want me to trot out sources that talk about how the opposite is happening, and the phenomenon is in fact growing, there's no shortage of experts saying as such. As I said, he's in the minority here. I should also note that I have no objection to including him, but should we include him, his views on the subject should be weighted and contextualized per the majority who disagree. As I said, I also have no objection to merging some of the material elsewhere and scrapping the section, as BobfromBroccoli suggested. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

"but does he not claim that many of the modern far-right groups generally regarded as fascist are not fascist?" No in fact he never says that or for that matter does he even mention any "modern far-right groups generally regarded as fascist are not fascist". Again I really don't know what to say when you have clearly not understood what he wrote to such a point to lead you to believe he said any of the things you think he did. Futhermore can you please tell me what these "modern far-right groups generally regarded as fascist" are if you mean ones like National Democratic Party of Germany then yes I would think Payne would call them Fascist if you asked. If you mean Trump supporters or the National Rally than most likely he, like most historians would say they are not. Please provide some of those "sources" you claim to prove him wrong. I have provided examples of his merit as a historian of fascism from other respected historians like Evans so I would like to hear what you considered dissenting voices to his views. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Payne's views on contemporary fascism are irrelevant here. (I agree he is a serious, well-regarded scholar of classical fascism, and there would be viable arguments both ways on whether his views should be considered due on pages relating to contemporary fascism.) This is an article about antifa in the US. Even if you think his article is on that topic (I don't), you'd still need to show secondary sources consider him authorative or relevant on it. If you can supply these, we can consider including him here; if not, it's a dead argument. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

How one could possibly think he is not talking at least in part on American antifa I honestly can not understand. Just to be clear Mark Bray should not be included by your standards since his work is on the past not current anti-fascism. Here is more proof that Payne is an expert on anti-fascism [27] 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I should note that I'm not opposed to overhauling this section as recently suggested, and making it more narrowly focused, and/or splitting it into two sections ("scholarship" and "public figures" or something of the sort). Or even removing most of it entirely and merging the useful bits elsewhere. I will say, 3Kingdoms, that Aquillion is correct in that West and Chomsky are far more due for their opinion than the individuals you've cited, being public intellectuals whose opinions are widely cited and circulated around the world (similar to Richard Dawkins). I rather strongly disagree with some of their analyses from time to time, and I think we can all likewise agree that they're manifestly biased on certain topics. But like it or not, their opinions carry weight, and are published in reliable sources with global circulation, as well as being reprinted or cited in reliable national and local publications of dozens of other countries. That simply isn't the case for Reno, Gottfried, or Payne. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You misread what I wrote. I have no issue with West or Chomsky being included. I objected to the bad faith claim that some how Gottfried is a fringe views, when one could easily say that both could easily be considered fringe and in fact Chomsky far more fringe than either of them. This is not even getting to Bray. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Saying that Gottfried is fringe is not a bad faith claim, and honestly you should be more careful throwing around that term. I would assume that all of the editors here are acting in good faith. That you disagree with them doesn't make their analysis a bad faith argument. I would consider his "rebuttal" article you cited, published by the National Post, to fall under WP:MANDY. Aquillion laid much of this out quite well, and there's no point in me repeating it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not assume bad faith at first, however over the course of the discussion it increasingly seemed more and more likely. The person you mentioned did not lay out their case well, in fact they never addressed either the article I submitted or answered my question explaining why he is considered fringe, but not the others, something no one has answered so far. Then when one editor effectively called for the removal of all academics except the two that support Antifa unconditionally I again found that questionable. I am more than prepared to accept good faith as the rules say, but there are limits to have much your are willing to concede until you start questioning. You say his article is WP:MANDY I say your basically saying "when did you stop hitting your wife?" The evidence speaks enough to my mind to show he is not associated with Spencer anymore and what was there was marginal at best. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll happily respond to all this when I have more time, as explained on your talk page. However, I can respond to this and your prior comment. I have no issue with support or non-support of Antifa, and could care less. My concern is with the biases of the people quoted, and whether their opinions have any currency. Whether they are likweise reported in reliable sources, and/or whether their opinions fall well outside the mainstream consensus of Antifa. While you might be personally satisfied that Gottfried has sufficiently distanced himself from Spencer, there's really no doubt as to his connection with the far right, and even the alt-right. Aside from the Rockford Institute, there's also his work at Taki's Magazine. This isn't simply "guilt by association". His former connections to and support for the opinions of people like Spencer and Gavin McInnes (founder of the Proud Boys) aren't in dispute. The regularly cited essay of WP:MANDY absolutely applies here. Honestly, it surprises me that you'd rally around including Gottfried, let alone uncritically cite his opinions in the first place in this sort of article. To my eyes, he's quite firmly in fringe territory for his opinions on the left. But this may be something that we can't resolve locally... Especially as you've discounted the opinions of every other person who has weighed in on the matter, and accused them of bad faith. So I tend to think that we're perhaps at an impasse here, though I should note that this is more or less a WP:1AM situation. There's no point spilling more proverbial ink here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear I don't support citing him "uncritically" I would be more than happy to add that he is a paleoconservative historian/philosopher before quoting him. Next certainly his views on matters are outside the norm in the USA, something I did not dispute, but I simply raised the point that one could say the same about Bray and Chomsky. Third I addressed the Rockford institute above, about Taki, it is a perfectly fine to take issue with him for that. My major point is that the Spencer connection seems marginal at most and with Gottfried being Jewish really can't see him having a whole lot to do with the alt-right now. Finally my major point was simply saying that his work has merit as a historian as opposed to David Irving or Dinesh D'Souza. I also have not called them all bad faith, I simply expressed my frustration at what I found to be suspect behavior or failing to address point made. Hope that clears this up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to I take exception to the accusation that my suggestion of removing some of the academics was made in bad faith. I think I gave solid arguments, and also provided a range of possible sources from various perspectives as a way of assessing which academic views might have due weight. But I don't want to labour the point. It seems clear that, unless new voices come forward to agree with 3Kingdoms, the consensus is not for inclusion of these three opinions and we should close the conversation as unproductive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

When your idea would involve removing all academics except the two that are unconditional supporters of antifa, fail to address point raised, goal-post move, and on your talk page you say that you "conducts antifa" I have difficulty accepting that there is honest disagreement. Finally their is no consensus for removing Payne. Clearly this is not going anywhere so I am going to WP:DRN now. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

So, instead of going to WP:DRN as I suggested, you're just running around in circles here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah cause I would prefer talk it out. Great contribution. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Phase 2: focus on Payne

The article will be better if it is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources related to Antifa. Let's have different viewpoints represented rather than suppress them. Terjen (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Except that the bit you've reinserted DOESN'T talk about the actual subject of THIS article. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Clearly a critique of the topic: "An antifascism without fascism makes it possible to create or imagine exactly the right kind of enemy, one that in fact does not exist. This has the further utility of seeming to justify an appeal to violence and the adoption of increasingly aggressive tactics, which impose ever greater centralized power and terms of censorship, and gain objectives less easily achieved through rational discourse and analysis. There is no simpler, easier way to stigmatize and to verbally assert power over an opponent." Terjen (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

In his article, Payne historical points out that fascism no longer exists, although there is a neo-fascist fringe. His target is mainstream liberals who describe opponents, such as Donald Trump, as fascists in order to discredit them. He is not complaining about the few hundred U.S. antifa who target groups that mostly have connections with historical fascism, such as the American Nazi Party. Protesting an American Nazi Party rally in Skokie is not the same thing as calling Trump a Nazi. While the American Nazi Party may not be a true fascist party, there are obvious similarities. They literally named themselves after the German Nazi Party, adopted their symbolism and praise them in their literature. TFD (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the article, there is a reference to an upcoming book on antifascism by Paul Gottfried that should be of interest for additional perspectives. From the endorsements:

"One of the most learned scholars of politics in our time has produced a methodical demolition of the myths propagated about antifa in the halls of politics, the media, and the universities." From the blurb: "Gottfried concludes that promoting a fear of fascism today serves the interests of the powerful—in particular, those in positions of political, journalistic, and educational power who want to bully and isolate political opponents." Terjen (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's possible that Payne believes that antifa serves the interests of the elites by deflecting blame for social problems from them onto the radical right. But he doesn't actually say that since he doesn't mention antifa at all. Paul Gottfried is incidentally a controversial writer, so we would have to be careful in presenting his opinions about antifa so that we explain how accepted they are. TFD (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before, but I really can not see how one can think Payne in his article is not talking in part about antifa. Gottfried being called a controversial writer I agree with, but in my view no more than Bray, Chomsky, or West. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You might be right, but it's not clear, hence not usable. My point about the controversial nature of Gottfried is that when we provide opinions we need to explain where they are coming from and how accepted they are. If for example we quote an expert who thinks primitive life exists on Mars, I want to know if most experts or only a tiny few believe it. In political topics, I want to know if the person is reflecting views typical of anarchists or paleoconservatives or most informed writers or their own opinion. TFD (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I still can't buy the argument that Payne who article is about how fascism today has almost no following, and thus what does one make of modern anti-fascism is not talking about American antifa at least in part. With Gottfried yes I think mentioning that he is a paleoconservative historian is worth including. Although I think that it should then mention that Bray is an anti-fascism historian. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Gottfried: A book endorsement and a blurb is hardly an independent source establishing noteworthiness. The endorsement is by Alexander Riley, a sociologist with no expertise on fascism or anti-fascism who isn't notable enough to have a WP article.[28] Riley also writes for Chronicles, which is the website edited by Gottfried, so even if this wasn't just a book endorsement he'd not count as an independent researcher. Re Payne: I just don't understand how you can say his piece is about US antifa. He gives a historical account of the history of the word fascism (this part of the article rests on his area of expertise), then moves to the present to make a polemical point about anti-fascism in general, in a way that is far from specific to the particular American movement discussed here, which isn't synonymous with anti-fascism in general. The word "antifa" does not appear; the words "America" and "US" don't appear; all his examples are drawn from Europe. Even the word "antifascism" appears just three times, one of which is just a mention of Gottfried's book. Re consensus: Three editors (3Kingdoms & Terjen here, PackMecEng in the edits) have argued for inclusion of Payne; five have argued against (me, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Calton, and TFD on this page, FDW777 in the edits - plus for Gottfried: The Hand That Feeds You, Arms&Hearts & Aquillion, making seven. That's a very clear lack of consensus for including Payne, and a consensus against including Gottfried. As onus is on those arguing for inclusion, we should keep this material out. See also WP:NOCON: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Your point regarding Reily is irrevelent, Payne is an expert on fascism and he endorses the book so yeah, nonargument. Payne, yeah okay, despite the fact that anti-fascism as discussed in the modern times is almost entirely based around antifa, Payne, an American, is not talking about them., sure. Nothing more than willful obfuscation. The only objections of note on Payne have come from you and TFD, the others got basic points wrong. TFD said nothing about Gottfried that he can not be included only Auxiliarus provided actually reasoning to object. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see the reason for including Payne; BobFromBrockley basically articulates my thinking here. Also, the disputed text is a lengthy verbatim quote (of essentially polemical prose), which is not good encyclopedic writing. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

As opposed to all the other quotes that are just as Polemical? 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no other verbatim quote of this length is there? BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the Payne article doesn't mention antifa or the United States, it's worthless as a reference for this article. FDW777 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That you seriously think that this article has nothing to with America or American antifa is flat out absrud. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, please comment on content, not on editors. Not making personal attacks and assuming good faith become even more important in long discussions like this. I see that you've opened a dispute resolution thread, and I'm glad you did. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 19:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not intent that an attack on the editor, and since it comes across as that I am sorry. However I have not found the argument that Payne is somehow not talking at least in part about modern antifa when the article is about modern anti-fascism, to me is silly. I hope the dispute resolution can solve this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Again, you cannot simply say "well, I feel it's connected. I feel First Things is cool and impactful and I think Payne is awesome and what he says is important." The article can't be set according to your personal opinions, interpretations, and views - if, as you say, Payne's piece is about antifa, is important, and was published someplace important (something I see absolutely no evidence for on any of those points), it should be easy to find WP:SECONDARY coverage of it saying such. Without that, trying to include it alongside scholars who have gotten secondary coverage for their views on antifa is WP:UNDUE - no matter how strongly you feel that Payne's views are equal to Bray's in impact and significance, secondary sources (at least the ones we've found so far) do not agree, since they extensively cite Bray and pay no attention to Payne. (Why do you think Payne has no secondary coverage, if he is as important as you say?) --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

So basically you don't like Payne cause reason since most of the others also got no secondary coverage. Despite all evidence that First Things is an important Journal, you ignore cause you personally don't like it as a source, fine, but not my problem. Even more ironic is that Bray himself has received little secondary coverage with most of it being reviews of his book and an OP-ED by him. So yeah. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you requested it, I added a bunch (more) secondary coverage for Bray, though I'll point out that in many cases we were citing him via secondary sources already and that several of the pieces by him that we cite the most are news articles (not opinion pieces) published in high-profile reliable sources like the Washington Post. The fact is that Bray is widely-respected among reliable sources as a source on antifa and is frequently cited on the topic by a wide range of independent sources, which per WP:USEBYOTHERS illustrates that he is someone we should also pay attention to. The same simply isn't true about the opinion-pieces you're trying to add - you've presented nothing indicating that they're significant beyond your personal opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You cited OP-EDs by him , and one interview with him. Payne has written numerous books on fascism along with Journal articles about antifascism. [29]. So no you have not proved your point. Finally one could easily call Bray Fringe just as much as Gottfried. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken; none of the pieces we cite from Bray are opinion pieces. As a respectable high-quality source, the Washington Post clearly distinguishes between news and opinion; note the huge "OPINION" indicator on those pieces and the absence of it on the articles they had Bray write. They had him write these pieces because he is, to them, a trusted academic expert on antifa. Beyond that you do not even seem to understand what I did add - look at my edits and you will see that what I added were WP:SECONDARY sources, other high-quality WP:RSes independent of him citing and quoting Bray for the very things we cite and quote him for here. In other words, not only did the Washington Post trust Bray enough to have him write articles as fact, but those articles and his other writing were highly-regarded enough to get significant mainstream coverage elsewhere (which likewise indicates that they are WP:DUE for us to cover here.) "One could easily" claim anything they want; but I have demonstrated, with sources, that Bray is a respected expert on antifa whose commentary on it is treated seriously in high-quality mainstream sources, and that the particular commentary we are citing has attracted secondary coverage that demonstrates that it is significant. You haven't demonstrated anything comparable for the sources you keep trying to argue are comparable to him. Why do you think so many high-quality, reliable mainstream sources go to Bray for information about antifa, while none of them seem to go to Gottfried, Reno], or Payne? How can you reconcile your personal opinion that Bray is as fringe as Gottfried with the fact that so many sources plainly respect Bray, while none seem to respect Gottfried? --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say. Above Bray it directly says "perspective" I.e. his perspective (opinion). The piece is very clearly his opinion and is certainly as polemical as the three you object to. Next fringe is based around his beliefs which is what you said about Gottfried. Bray was disavowed by his own university over his views. [30] Payne is mentioned by numerous sources on matters like fascism and today [31], [32], [33]. I presented enough evidence before regarding Payne and Gottfried's qualifications for commenting on American Antifa, you can look through them above. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Of the two Washington Post articles by Bray I just glanced at, both of which are cited in the article, one is marked as "Perspective" with a tooltip clarifying it as "Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences". The other is "Analysis", with the tooltip "Interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events", and located within the "Made by History" section which appears to feature articles by expert historians in specific fields. Neither are opinion pieces in the traditional sense; the former is probably at least opinion-adjacent while the latter is probably not. If anyone reading this really wants to go after removal of Bray, which I very highly doubt will happen, please consider doing so in a new talk page section.

So at the end of the day you even concede that "the former is probably at least opinion-adjacent". Second I never called for Bray to be removed, I simply pointed out that the number of times he is cited is overblown compared to what some were saying. As well I argued that one could call his views fringe, just as much as Gottfried's something no one addressed. So there. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I have added extensive WP:SECONDARY coverage of Bray, which demonstrates that his views (and in almost every case the specific quotes from him we use, which tend to have substantial secondary coverage) are significant and considered mainstream by reliable sources. If you want to try and equate him to Gottfried, you must produce comparable secondary sources covering Gottfried's remarks. If (as you keep opining) Bray is fringe and Gottfried is not, and if Gottfried's feelings about Antifa are so relevant, then why do so many different high-quality, mainstream, independent, secondary sources cite Bray's expertise on antifa, while none seem to pay any attention to Gottfried? --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, as far as your claim that you presented enough evidence before regarding Payne and Gottfried's qualifications for commenting on American Antifa, I disagree completely. You presented some evidence, and upon getting thoughtful and constructive responses from multiple editors about why it wasn't enough evidence, responded by accusing those editors of things like "bad faith" and "willful obfuscation". Unless I'm missing something, you largely did not present more evidence, and didn't address the core elements of the arguments made against inclusion beyond saying that you "can not see how one can think [that]" or you "can't buy [that] argument". TL;DR: If your goal is consensus for inclusion, I suggest that you provide evidence to disprove the arguments against inclusion. If you can't or don't want to do that, that's okay, it doesn't mean you lose. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 00:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

So Payne, one of the most respected scholars of Fascism and a scholar on antifascism, is not good because reason, cause that is all I get from what you posted. Second before someone says he is not talking about antifa I'm just going to post these quotes from the article:

• "In recent decades, one of the most popular terms of political abuse has been “fascist.” The practice of misusing this word quickly reached heights of hysteria during the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump in 2016."

• "Objective analysis of contemporary political expression in the contemporary West might readily conclude that in terms of the use of violence and the search for an anti-traditional anthropological revolution, the term might be more readily applied to the left than to the right of the political spectrum"

• "Though fascism has all but disappeared, antifascism has not. An antifascism without fascism makes it possible to create or imagine exactly the right kind of enemy, one that in fact does not exist. This has the further utility of seeming to justify an appeal to violence and the adoption of increasingly aggressive tactics, which impose ever greater centralized power and terms of censorship, and gain objectives less easily achieved through rational discourse and analysis. There is no simpler, easier way to stigmatize and to verbally assert power over an opponent. This rhetorical tendency represents the present and possibly culminating phase of a growing current in Western culture and politics since the 1950s, best analyzed in Paul Gottfried’s new book, Antifascism: The Course of a Crusade, out very soon."

For someone to read this and not think he is talking about antifa to some degree, I really don't know what to say other than it is a pure case of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. With Gottfried I also provided numerous examples of his works being published by universities, cited in journals, and a recommendation from Payne, again one of the most respected scholars of Fascism. This has also never been addressed. If you are going to reduce all my arguments to me saying "bad faith", etc. I got nothing to say other than I question how much you read or understood what I wrote. If you wanna address the specific points I made go for it, but if not, then I don't see the point since this is going nowhere. Have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-fascism today isn't entirely based around antifa, it's also based around the The Resistance (American political movement) and their allies in mainstream media. Resistance is a clear reference to the anti-fascist resistance of WW2, and the movement portrays Trump and his followers as fascist. Payne and other leading fascism scholars have gone on the record to say that Trump is not a fascist. So it's possible that he was referring to them. TFD (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said antifascism is only antifa. They are however the most talked about antifascist group in America. Here is a more direct talk about antifa from Payne [34] 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It's really indirect. He talks about Democratic Party supported demonstrations and says that probably antifa is behind the worst violence at them. Note the headline: "Stanley Payne denounces the Democratic Party using protests as its militias." The protests included millions of millions of people not just the several hundred or at most several thousand antifa members. And he doesn't say they are connected with the Democrats (they're not) just that they take advantage of the demonstrations to create mayhem. And he does not say that the specific groups they target are not fascist. The most you can take from his interview is that antifa join larger demonstrations and create mayhem, although Payne isn't definite about that. TFD (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"Then the violent (probably from Antifa, and related groups) take advantage to start riots, fires, destructions and robberies of all kinds. The mayors are semi-trapped, because they don't want to turn against their own...This psychological-doctrinal explanation refers to the most organized and mobilized elements of Antifa and BLM, which have become something like the Democratic Party militias." I really don't see how this can be considered "indirect" mention. As well how many were violent at protest really is not relevant. You can look at all of the "stop the steal" protests and plenty were nonviolent, however what happened on Jan 6th was not. Same idea applies here just one instance can cause serious damage, 5 dead on Jan 6th and 25+ throughout all of the unrest of the year. However this is getting off topic and not important to the discussion. Having said that I wanna say thanks for the response I do appericate what you have said and the tone it was given which goes a long in having a good debate. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't really be extending this, as the consensus here is so overwhelmingly against inclusion and the returns are diminishing, but I just wanted to clarify two factual points. First, re Mark Bray: Dartmouth may have "disavowed" Bray's personal opinions but they have not disavowed his scholarship. His colleagues robustly defended him, saying "Mark Bray, on the strength of his historical scholarship, has become the national expert on a subject that is suddenly, terribly urgent: the 20th century history of fascism and anti-fascism in Europe and, more recently, the U.S."[35] I can't find any mention of Dartmouth sacking or punishing him (their library was celebrating him some time after the "disavowal"[36]), and he now works at Rutgers.[37] His book on antifa has several scholarly citations.[38] Second, re Stanley Payne: 3Kingdoms has inserted a couple of links to his scholarship on historical fascism. Literally nobody here is disputing that he is an expert on that (he is rightly cited multiple times in our fascism article). It is also true that he has written on historical European anti-fascism, and specifically on Soviet anti-fascism in the interwar period. I think it would be a good idea to draw on that scholarly work (not this ephemeral opinion piece) in the general anti-fascism article, where it would add real value. The dispute is whether he is an expert on US antifa. So you need to provide secondary sources showing that he is to make your case. Anything less than that is just keeping the argument going for no reason. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You quote "Mark Bray, on the strength of his historical scholarship, has become the national expert on a subject that is suddenly, terribly urgent: the 20th century history of fascism and anti-fascism in Europe and, more recently, the U.S." Key words historical and 20th century. By that logic so is Payne, if not more so. You keeping mudding the waters by saying "historical fascism" to deflect cause you don't like. Bray's major work puts a major focus on interwar antifascism and then some polemical comparisons to the modern day. How you can think it is different than Payne's work I really cannot understand what you are talking about. Since either way in looking at your argument it can really only mean we should keep both or remove both. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If this was the only assessment of Bray's expertise then you might have a point, but I know I could easily paste in other assessments of his expertise that indicate his authority on US antifa (to add to the several Aquillon has already added), whereas you've had a long time to find assessments of Payne's expertise that indicate his authority on US antifa and don't appear to have found any. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "antifa scholar" there are people that research antifascism and then apply it to today. Antifascist works by Gottfried or cited works to him. [39], [40], [41]. Payne [42], [43], [44]. Bray's work on 20th century anarchism-antifascism, thus he has authority to comment on the current movement. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that with every attempt to shoehorn your chosen authors into the article you show the strength of the case against. Gottfried: The Chesterton Review is pretty much a definition of a fringe source in relation to American antifa; the piece was published before the term antifa was used in America; and it does not appear to discuss American movements. The Intercollegiate Review is an even more fringe source on probably anything other than paleoconservatism, and it is clear from the review that the book is not about American antifa or even European antifa but about the European left ("the insidious mix of multiculturalism and “anti-fascism” that marks the European “Post-Marxist” civil religion"). Gottfried's Preface to a book about alleged Partisan crimes in Europe in 1945 does not indicate he is an expert on US antifa in the 21st century. Payne: a 1988 review by him of a book on interwar European anti-fascism might indicate he is an authority on that topic, but not on this topic. An article on interwar Soviet anti-fascism which you've already shared and has already been discussed might indicate he is an authority on that topic, but not on this topic. I can't see where he's mentioned in the article on anti-fascism in the 1930s, but at best it might indicate he is an authority on that topic, but not on this topic. So after clearly extensive googling, you've not found any secondary sources suggesting either is an expert on American antifa. Please, please can we just put this to bed now? I'm not commenting on this further unless a new bunch of editors come along with new arguments, you'll be glad to hear, as consensus is so overwhelming it's just a waste of everybody's time now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand how you cannot understand this so let me be as clear as possible 1 Mark Bray is not an expert in Antifa as a field of study, cause it doesn't exist. Going off his university page his focus is historian of human rights, terrorism, and politics in Modern Europe by your own logic that should mean he is not and expert on American Antifa. He has two books out the Antifa handbook and Translating Anarchy, with another one on the anarchist movement in Spain and France at the turn of the century. Bray is considered an expert because he has written before on the anarchist and antifascist movements of the past and thus applies that knowledge to the present. 2 Now Gottfried, he has written numerous works on political ideologies of history and current development. The Strange death of Marxism is a study of changes in the post WWII left, how you can possibly think that means he has no knowledge or merit to comment on a current day movement that has many aspects of what he talked about in his book, is simply nonsense and honestly comes across as bad faith. Next you don't seem to understand what Fringe is, The Chesterton Review is as you linked a peer-reviewed academic journal, which wiki considers high on the reliable source mark. Since they gave a good review of Gottfried's book shows he is an expert in the current left and can be asked to comment. This of course is not getting into the fact that this year he is release a book on Anti-fascism is more than enough proof of its merit. After that to talk about fringe is rich when your evidence against Intercollegiate Review is fringe nonsense like "rational wiki". This all just screams bad faith and I don't like. 3 Payne is basically the same as Bray, he has published works and commented on antifascist movements of the past, so when he applies that knowledge to the present is has merit. This is why I don't care when you or others claim that there is "agreement" when basic points are apparently something most can't understand or just get wrong. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no question that Bray is a leading expert on antifa. Therefore we expect the facts he presents to be accurate. Payne OTOH has not made a study of antifa and mentions them only in passing. Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." The way to write a neutral article is to identify the main sources and summarize what they say. That way Payne's article would never have been considered. But if we begin with personal opinions and search for sources that support them, then we get this type of source, which inevitably leads to long, pointless discussions. Payne isn't interested in antifa and merely notes that they may be responsible for the most serious violence at Democratic Party supported demonstrations. But we already know that from sources actually about antifa. But the claim that antifa's targets are not fascists, because fascism no longer exists is applying a lot of reading between the lines. First of all, the source used for that doesn't mention antifa by name. Secondly, the clear meaning is that Democrats are wrongly accusing Trump of being a fascist. Antifa are not Democrats and the groups they target as fascist come under the neo-fascist label that Payne accepts as meaningful. Payne wouldn't waste his time writing about tiny fringe groups that attack other tiny fringe groups. TFD (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling Bray's work a study of antifa, is true to an extent, but it is also him appliying his prior resaerch on the past to the present just like Payne and Gottfried. Regarding other points he never fascism does not exist today or sole talk about the democrats. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In "ANTIFASCISM WITHOUT FASCISM," Payne indeed says that fascism does not exist today. And in the interview titled, "Stanley Payne denounces the Democratic Party using protests as its militias," he indeed discusses the Democratic Party. Even the titles are clear about what they are about. If you followed CONTEXTMATTERS, you would never even come across these articles because they are not directly about antifa. TFD (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No he does not say that fascism does not exist today he says "Genuine neofascist groups do appear, but lack support and grow weaker with each decade. A valid rule of thumb is that the more important an extremist group, the less truly neofascist it is. Conversely, the more genuinely neofascist, the less significant." To claim that they don't mention antifa when Payne says antifa right in the article is absurd. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

While Payne says that neofascist groups exist, he says that fascist groups do not. They are two different things, at least according to Payne which is why he titled his article "Anti-Fascism without Fascism." Obviously if he thought they were the same thing then his argument would make no sense. And Payne does not mention antifa in the article. I suggest you look at it again. TFD (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about the interview where he mentions antifa, sorry I got mixed up when you brought up the Democratic party which was not in the first things article. He refers to neo-fascism as fascism, but it is marginal and not important. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Currently a Dispute Resolution is underway regarding the issue of including Payne and other writer's opinions on antifa. [45]. I was not sure if you also have to post a notice here, so I thought I might as well be safe than sorry. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Had you done this three weeks ago when I suggested it, we could've saved a lot of trouble. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And what was stopping you from doing so. I really don't know why you are trying to do some sort of flex of how great you are for suggesting this buddy. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Because you're the one arguing for inclusion against consensus. But you preferred to waste our time going in circles. It's all on you, "buddy." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean you didn't exactly contribute to this discussion so how about settle down buddy. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Because everyone else did a fantastic job pointing out the flaws in your argument. If you'd settled down in the first place, we wouldn't be here. But don't worry, I'll stop commenting in this section now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not really no. I'm not angry so I don't need to settle down. Take care. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll second HandThatFeeds sentiment there. 3Kingdoms has been disruptive and then some. Bacondrum 21:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see anything "disruptive" that I have none, I'll debated about the issue here, maybe a little too strongly, but hardly grinding the process to a halt. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms Just ignore the personal attacks and other uncivility so you can focus on doing good work. Bacondrum is currently also threatening me with AE over a friendly welcome I posted on the talk page of a (relatively) new editor. Terjen (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The DRN has been closed with the following statement "A very clear consensus exists. The filing editor is advised to WP:DROPTHESTICK because WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY rarely ends well for the one. At some point, it becomes time to accept that this is not going to go the way you hope and walk away. Try again at some point in the future with new, different, potentially better sources and arguments. For the other involved editors- I would recommend continue to be professional and kind, but if WP:BLUDGEON continues, take that to the appropriate location. All involved editors are reminded to collaborate with respect for all- regardless of how frustrated you may be, or how strongly you disagree." Again- I'm not an admin, the DRN cannot force decisions to be accepted. But at this point- this case does not belong at the DRN because there is as clear a consensus as I have ever seen on WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

k 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

Antifa is a non existant militant group created by right wing extremists in order to have someone to blame for violence and damage purpetrated by the well organized, well funded and well equipped para military groups who are primarily white supremicist, ex military individuals increasingly willing to follow fascist leadership who most recently attempted a semi armed coup at our nation's capital. 97.116.145.211 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting source

[46] - covers a number of relevant points, also useful elsewhere I think. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

This page makes conflicting statements. It states that antifa has never been linked with politically motivated murder/ violence, and then goes on in the next paragraph to state that the killing of Aaron Danielson was committed by antifa protester Michael Reinoehl. Both statements can not be true.

Since the paragraph itself states that the killing must obviate, or “update” the claim that antifa has never been linked to political murder/ violence, the first portion of the section should be removed as outdated as of the date of that murder. 107.184.162.102 (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ER, they are not for controversial changes. The first section should not be removed at all, but retained to demonstrate the isolated nature of the Danielson incident. FDW777 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You're conflating a member of a group committing a crime as an individual, with a member of a group committing a crime to further the group's goals.

It's the difference between attacking a politician because of a dispute over your lawn, versus attacking a politician as part of a political action.

There's no evidence Reinoehl killed Danielson as an act of supporting antifa. In fact, we have no idea why it happened, because the police were too trigger-happy and murdered Reinoehl in the street. So we will never know if it was an action in support of antifa, or just some other dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

76.126.243.124 (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I am fact checking this page. Antifa is described on this page to be a ‘non violent ‘ and anti-fascist’ but their very means of political opposition are blatantly contrary to those former attributes. Please change so Wikipedia can continue to be consistent in their quest for truth.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Your characterization of the article content is imprecise. soibangla (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit to fix a broken link

Footnote 122 links to a broken link at ajc.com. The updated link is https://www.ajc.com/news/national/protesters-march-stone-mountain-village-after-park-closed/l7GMMkadRXRg55MSjflLJK/--Bposheaajc (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Notable Actions and Terrorism

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.

---

How have none of the riots in Portland in 2020 - 2021 been mentioned in the article? Antifa was clearly responsible, and the riots led to numerous severe injuries, a murder, countless assaults, and the attempted murders of numerous Law Enforcement Officers, as well as many arsons and vandalisms. Additionally, Antifa participation in domestic terrorism should be mentioned due to terrorism being defined as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Seeing as there are countless well publicized instances of Antifa engaging in domestic terrorism, this should be mentioned, if not prominently in the article. Furthermore, it should be mentioned in the introduction that many people or organizations attacked by Antifa are not far right, or even necessarily right wing, and it should be mentioned that Antifa is a far left movement. History Man1812 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

Which reliable sources support your proposed changes? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Seeing as there are countless well publicized instances of Antifa engaging in domestic terrorism" Domestic terrorism in the United States does not mention antifa or any affiliated organization among the terrorist organizations. The list of "Notable domestic terrorist attacks" does not seem to mention them either. Basic question: who defines antifa as domestic terrorists, and who have they killed? One example of domestic terrorism is Anti-abortion violence, where we have multiple recorded cases of "murder, assault, kidnapping, and stalking" by supposedly "pro-life" people. Have the antifa engaged in similar activities as the "pro-life" murderers? Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add content supported by reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Per synthesis, you would need a reliable source that says antifa's actions were terrorism and your other claims (i.e., not just some opinion piece.) TFD (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There are some examples here - https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa - Inf-in MD (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That source finds three possible reports by local police linked to Antifa, and then immediately says that the FBI discredited those reports and could find no connection to Antifa. That's all. There are no confirmed acts of terrorism in that report. Certainly none in Portland, which is claimed above. --Jayron32 16:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

CSIS data — as well as recent threat assessments conducted by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — indicate that Antifa poses a relatively small threat in the United States, particularly compared to violent white supremacists and anti-government extremists such as militia groups. However, CSIS data do indicate a recent increase in violent activity by Antifa extremists, anarchists, and related far-left extremists. This is likely connected to the concurrent increase in violent far-right activity, particularly from white supremacists and others whose ideology anti-fascists actively oppose. This trend indicates that while Antifa does not pose a large threat in isolation, its followers will likely become increasingly active if the real or perceived threat from white supremacists and other far-right domestic extremists continues to grow, as most do not trust the government to respond adequately.

Italics mine. soibangla (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Getting in fistfights and the like are not acts of terrorism. Not all violence is terrorism, and no one has yet produced any noteworthy examples of Antifa-linked terrorism. --Jayron32 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"In July 2019, Willem Van Spronsen, a self-proclaimed Antifa supporter and member of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club, attacked a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and attempted to ignite a 500-gallon propane tank" is not exactly a fistfight. Neither is "on August 29, 2020, when Michael Reinoehl—a self-identified Antifa supporter—shot and killed Aaron “Jay” Danielson, a member of the far-right group Patriot Prayer. " Did you read the link? Inf-in MD (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Spronsen and Reinoehl are already mentioned in the article. So I don't see why you are arguing to include them. It's already in there. --Jayron32 18:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing to include them, I am rebutting your false claim that "no one has yet produced any noteworthy examples of Antifa-linked terrorism." Inf-in MD (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that of the 85 deadly extremist incidents since 9/11, far right-wing extremist groups were responsible for 73%, while radical Islamist extremists were responsible for 27%...No deaths were attributed to left-wing groups...The Department of Homeland Security reported in October 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS. The DHS report did not mention antifa, despite persistent allegations about its threat from the political right in recent years.[47]

soibangla (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you think quoting a 2017 report is a rational response to my examples of a 2019 and a 2020 event? Inf-in MD (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you think citing two cases out of an article that overwhelmingly does not support your argument is persuasive? soibangla (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If I was making an argument that Antifa's actions are mostly violent or mostly terrorism, no, it would not be. But when I am asked to provide examples of Antifa terrorism (i,e "no one has yet produced any noteworthy examples of Antifa-linked terrorism") , yes, I think those are good, persuasive examples (unlike quoting a 2017 report to rebut claims about 2019 and later events). Inf-in MD (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no historical finding that antifa has been characterized as "terrorist" by law enforcement. Is there such a finding for these two instances you now cite? soibangla (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The FBI has explained that "it declines to designate any organization a “domestic terrorist organization.” Doing so may infringe on First Amendment-protected free speech"[48] ( my emphasis) . So that they haven't designated Antifa as such doesn't mean anything. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Neither is described as an act of terrorism. Also, the source is a blog post. Please help us all use our time on more productive editing pursuits by looking for reliable sources that use the phrase 'acts of terrorism' or something similar. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSBLOGS, "Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". I think a "blog" published by a respectable think-thank, written by a notable expert like Seth G. Jones easily qualifies. The context of the paragraph describing the Van Spronsen attack, which set it apart and distinguishes it from other use of violence by antifa, "which do not match common definitions of terrorist", make it clear that the author considers these to be such cases which do meet the definition.Inf-in MD (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A blog post from Jones may be reliable per WP:SPS, but I'd take the cautionary note from the bottom: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Also, I would not say that it's clear from context that the authors view the two acts as terrorism. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet Spronsen and Reinoehl are but two data points the author mentions simply to demonstrate they have not been overlooked, but the remainder of the article makes clear they remain distinct exceptions rather than the rule. soibangla (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This talk page section is titled "Notable Actions and Terrorism". I think these two examples are notable, and indeed, they have been covered by other sources, and described as terrorism, e.g "van Spronsen's words suggest a premeditated attack in service of a political goal — to federal authorities, that makes him a domestic terrorist."[49] Inf-in MD (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Then BEBOLD and throw it in the article. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I may do that. I like to get consensus for it, first. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why wait? Nothing is stopping you from BEBOLD. soibangla (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Who said van Spronsen's words suggest a premeditated attack in service of a political goal — to federal authorities, that makes him a domestic terrorist? soibangla (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

NPR. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well thanks for not actually citing it...twice. soibangla (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually did cite it when I first posted the quote, as you can see by looking up a few lines. Try to exercise a little more care in reading. Toning down the aggressive, pompous and incorrect comments might help. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the aggressive one here. soibangla (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are. non-aggressive people simply admit their mistakes (re: citing) when they are pointed out to them, aggressive ones double down. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not double down. I suggest you calm down. soibangla (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed antifa supporter is a tenuous connection. Plenty of crimes have been committed by Democratic and Republican voters, but that does not make them criminal organizations. TFD (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it tenuous at all when covered by a reliable source discussing Antifa threats. Since, unlike the Democratic Party or Republican party, Antifa is not a formal organization, if we go by your strict definition, "Antifa" could never be accused of anything. Inf-in MD (talk)

You're so close to being accidentally correct there, it's almost funny. --Jayron32 18:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing funny here. The tactic you are using is transparent. But you could simply acknowledge that I provided exactly what you were asking for - "noteworthy examples of Antifa-linked terrorism" Inf-in MD (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The tactic you are using is transparent. Oh. The. Irony. soibangla (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Inf-in MD, My point is that whether someone is a member or supporter of a group, you need to show a connection between their criminal actions and the group in order to label the group a criminal organization. Al Qaeda for example had as its main purpose to plan and support terrorist attacks, leading it to be called a terrorist group. And yes, it is possible to name people as members of groups that have no formal membership. This is done by prosecutors of criminal organizations all the time. The individuals you mentioned were not considered members, just self-described supporters. TFD (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we label Antifa a terrorist group. A request was made for "noteworthy examples of Antifa-linked terrorism", and I believe the two examples I provided qualify as Antifa-linked. van Sorensen was killed during his terrorist attack and so no charges were filed against him, so the fact that no prosecutor described him as an Antifa member is a Red Herring. Reinoehl was described by the US Attorney General as "a dangerous fugitive, admitted Antifa member, and suspected murderer" Inf-in MD (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Reinoehl isn't credibly described as a terrorist to my knowledge (discounting "extremist"). People who study terrorism also study extremism, and both these words may be interspersed in a text but "x is a terrorist" is really needed to label an individual, not talking about extremism in general terms while touching on terrorism. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Described by whom? Very few people are actually charged with "terrorism", per the link I provided earlier "While an individual may still have committed criminal acts that are widely considered domestic terrorism, the individual cannot be charged with committing an act of domestic terrorism under current federal law. For example, Timothy McVeigh, widely considered a domestic terrorist in the United States, was convicted of murder, conspiracy, and using a weapon of mass destruction in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168"[50]. Certainly the previous US administration which suggested Antifa be designated a terrorist organization at least partly based on the Portland events, considered him a terrorist, as do some conservative groups [51] Inf-in MD (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

By a reliable source (or two) — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the previous US administration which suggested Antifa be designated a terrorist organization at least partly based on the Portland events, considered him a terrorist, as do some conservative groups. Trump and his allies have made exhaustive attempts to persuade Americans that "busloads" and "planeloads" of antifa are descending on every bucolic American suburb around the clock to rob, rape and burn, to distract from the reality that the top domestic terrorism threat in America, the guys who actually kill people, are aligned with Trump. And, um...NewsComWorld?[[52]]. Well OK then. soibangla (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2021 (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.

Another Far Left comment: Dichotomy of internal Wikipedia references 'right' vs left' and disparate severities

1) Within this article, "Antifa" is described as being counter / in conflict with "far right" groups numerous times. And yet they are solely described as just 'left wing', not a corresponding classification of 'far left'.

2) Another Wikipedia article on the "Epoch Times" describes them immediately as "far right", not a similar just 'right wing' classification as "Antifa" is given even though they are a news source, not an activist group.

3) The Wikipedia article on "far right" is almost 40 pages of content, with an extensive table of contents broken down by country with numerous examples of "far right" groups in the United States. Compare to the Wikipedia page for "far left", only 8 pages long and *no* mention of *any* named "far left" groups in the United States.

The political bias is clear in just these examples. References for the "right" draw more scrutiny / negative detail while reference for the "left" are displayed in a more positive light and less documented scrutiny. Reviewing the talk pages for both "Antifa" and "Epoch Times" numerous requests / justifications have been provided for "Antifa" to be classified as "far left" with justification. It has not been. Whereas "Epoch Times" has had numerous requests to be be classified as "right wing" / "conservative" with justification. It has not been. For a site that purports to be balanced and 'even', the overall editing process is not applied consistently - how can that be considered a reliable source of information provided that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:c101:27c0:2d08:fea8:de55:6974 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I encourage you and others to support with justification using reliable sources, our meat and potatoes here, rather than Talk page argumentation. I note a common fallacy (which might actually be a disinformation tactic) that a group opposing another group lying at some extreme position must therefore lie at the opposite extreme position. This is also common when comparing media outlets (e.g. if one is conservative, the other must be liberal and there is no middle). I would be interested if there is evidence that antifa unilaterally engages in violence when far-right demonstrators are not present, but I am not yet aware of it. Other articles provide extensive evidence that far-right groups are far more prevalent, to the point the FBI/DHS now consider white supremacists the top domestic terrorism threat, whereas they barely mention antifa. One might hypothesize that antifa ("anti-fascist") exists only because fascists exist. soibangla (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Descriptions in articles are based on usage in reliable sources. They typically describe fascists, Klansmen and related parties as far right and socialists, communists and anarchists as left-wing. TFD (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Epoch Times is not really a news source, at least not in the traditional sense. I'm assuming you've read the article on it past the first few sentences, and are familiar with it being a mouthpiece for the dissident religious movement Falun Gong. Aside from acting as an outlet for their group's propaganda, the Epoch Times is also known for "stirring the pot" in American politics, manufacturing and/or stoking controversies, and quite frankly just plain making things up. They profit from it. Quite a bit. It's debatable though how much of this they actually believe or agree with, and how much of it is just them taking advantage of the "culture" war", and the discontent and conspiratorial tendencies found on the far right, in order to make money. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)