Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Press Freedom

I introduced a small section to the lede regarding press freedom organizations reports on attacks on journalists which has been covered by Reporters Without Borders, the Columbia Journalism Review and the Freedom Of The Press Foundation. These attacks have gotten coverage in mainstream media as well like in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc. Today, an attacked journalist got coverage in international media. I was wondering where this could be covered in the body of the article. I was thinking in the Public reactions section but was curious what you think. Cheers. --Loganmac (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Possibly a subsection next to the subsection on civil rights organizations? Given RS report on it it seems okay to include. One thing I'll note though is that the WP:LEAD should generally follow the article body, so it would've made more sense for you to create a section on this first, then try and summarize it in the lead. I also think what you introduced to the lead was perhaps a little bit lengthy/detailed, and trying to shorten/summarize things further (down to a sentence probably) would help strike a more appropriate balance between all the aspects covered in the article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

My idea for the body content was pretty much what was introduced in the lede, was hoping more people could chime in for what section to write it on and what more content if any could be included in this section (WP:WORKINPROGRESS). This is an issue that has been given extensive coverage in RS but seems to be missing. I didn't see the two sentences as being that long tbh. Loganmac (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "body text first, then lede" is generally the good approach to follow, regardless of the length of the addition. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate to say "several instances" and definitely not noteworthy enough for the lead. In the proposed edit, we have (1) CJR: Antifa protesters assaulted journalists at a demonstration in Berkeley for taking photos"[1], citing (2) the Press Freedom Tracker (is that a reliable source?),[2] which only mentions one journalist (Berkeley, 2017); (3) Washington Post: antifa "shoved a black umbrella into [a journalist's] lens and several shouted: “No photos!”" and "small groups of antifa members harassed, threatened and occasionally jostled reporters. The activists demanded not to be photographed", Charlottesville, 2018;[3] (4) the Toronto Sun, which happened in Canada and therefore is outside the scope of this article; (5) the Vice/Reuters correspondent is the same single incident mentioned by (1) and (2); (6) "others", which are (a) the same incident mentioned in (3) plus separate incidents in DC at the same time, reported as follows: "NBC’s Cal Perry was filming an August 11 protest in Charlottesville when an anti-fascist—or, antifa—protester shouted profanities at the reporter and swatted his camera away. NPR’s Tim Mak was covering the protests in Washington, DC when he dodged an egg thrown at his head from within a crowd of antifa protesters. Kelly Weill, who covered the protests for The Daily Beast, tweeted that antifa protesters were “uniformly chill” throughout the weekend and that the only people who had pushed her around at the protest were the police";[4] (b) the same incident & citation as (2) above; (c) an opinion piece by the same source as (2) reporting another allegation about the same incident as (3), this time saying "journalists who were covering the event were also attacked by protesters during the rally" but linking to a story which says that demonstrators cut a reporter's audio cable[5] and finally (d) a newer incident, where anti-fascists fired paintballs at a reporter (Portland, 2021).[6] In short, we have an incident in Berkeley in 2017 involving violence against one journalist, an incident in Charlottesville in 2018 involving a few cases of shoving, shouting, occasional jostling and damage to a camera cable, an incident in DC in 2018 involving an thrown egg missing a reporter, and an incident in Portland in 2021 involving paintballs. That amounts to four occasions, with actual violence in one or two of them. We should probably add the Charlottesville 2018 Unite the Right rally to the article citing one or two of these sources, and the Minsky incident, Berkeley 2017, to our Notable Incidents section, but I'd leave it at that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC) PS please let's not cite the WSJ and CNN pieces suggested by Loganmac above; both are opinion pieces relating to Andy Ngo's alleged attacks, which are highly contested due to him being very unreliable as a source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WSJ and CNN weren't used as sources for the lede statements. I made sure not to include anything regarding Ngo, but RS aren't deemed unreliable over the suppossed unreliability of the victim, specially when the attack is treated as fact in numerous well established sources [7] [8] and is part of ongoing litigation [9], I used those two as an example of coverage in mainstream media, of which there is plenty more. It's pretty innacurate that in your count you deem paintballing or missed projectiles as non-violent, and consider only violence to judge relevance. Reporters Without Borders and other press freedom trackers consider all attacks, even equipment sabotage and other "non-violent" actions (ie. intimidation, etc.). Loganmac (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's important that if we use language like "acts of violence", we don't give the wrong impression and inadvertently conflate greater and lesser degrees of harm/injury/property damage. I mean, when I hear "violence", I think "brains spread across the street", not paintball. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and I definitely support adding info on this to the article, even if tweaks should be made to the content. I also support a brief mention in the lead. It is clearly WP:DUE. What exact terminology to use can be deduced from what the sources use. We should go by them. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• I added the original edit to the body, see Antifa (United States)#Press freedom. Feel free to update, move, or add something to the lead for it. PackMecEng (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think the original edit is workable. Several of these sources are opinion pieces used for statements of fact; the Freedom of the Press foundation cite is also to a press release, so it falls under WP:RSOPINION. All of these problems were detailed above. (One of the ones I left, [10], only uses it in a subheading and should probably also be removed per WP:HEADLINES.) There are also WP:SYNTH issues in combining this into a "press freedom" section when several sources don't mention press freedom at all. The CJR source - the only one that seems to bind the section together as a topic - is both an opinion piece and only mentions antifa in passing (literally just one sentence.) Not sure that there's enough here to support a section. --Aquillion (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Opinion pieces, as you know, are perfectly fine for the article. We can just attribute them, as I note you did for one, in the article if you think they are a big issue. Most of the issues you bring up are not actually issues in themselves and are perfectly serviceable. PackMecEng (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
      • But as I mentioned, even in my revised version, we're still using opinion pieces and WP:RSOPINION sources for statements of fact; and we're using unrelated news articles (which do not mention freedom of the press) to try and support the opinion pieces. Assuming we agree on removing the CJR piece (which is only a passing mention), the sentence is essentially just a summary of the Freedom of the Press Foundation press release (note, the text currently inaccurately says multiple press freedom non-governmental organizations - even if we accepted the CJR opinion piece as talking for the CJR as a whole, which is inaccurate, and even if we ignore the fact that it's just a passing mention, the CJR is not a press freedom NGO, nor does that source say that multiple press freedom NGOs have criticized antifa. It only mentions antifa once in passing, after all; again, this is the problem with using sources that only have passing mentions of the main topic - it feels like you skimmed it really quickly, and attributed everything in it to Antifa, which its much more cautious wording clearly does not do. The only mention of Antifa in the entire piece is Antifa protesters assaulted journalists at a demonstration in Berkeley for taking photos, so that's all it can be cited to support - and an opinion piece isn't a particularly useful source for that, especially since it's a clearly exceptional claim.) The paragraph should more properly be a single sentence reading something like In a press release, the Freedom of the Press Foundation said they have documented over a dozen different physical attacks on journalists or livestreamers covering antifa rallies - at which point we have to start discussing WP:DUE weight for a press release; certainly it seems hard to justify devoting an entire section to it. If the focus is on freedom of the press, you don't have any other non-WP:SYNTH sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

While Aquillion's edit condensing this material down is an improvement, I think we could go further. At present the first sentence risks giving the impression that Simon's CJR article is wholly or primarily about antifa activities, when those instances in reality don't even garner a full sentence in his piece. Various problems with the sources in the second sentence have already been identified above – they all mention antifa in passing or in headlines, if at all (does anyone have access to the Times article to check?), or they're opinion pieces or press releases that we can't use for factual claims, or they make claims of very dubious relevance (like the quote above beginning In a press release, which is specifically not a claim about antifa doing anything, but about things happening to people covering antifa rallies). I suppose at least we're no longer citing articles about events that happened in a different country. This looks very much like a case of someone deciding that something that fits their preconceptions needs to be in the article, then piecing together a lot of inadequate sourcing for it in order to make it look halfway credible. Rather than deciding what we want in the article, then looking for sources for it, we should look at the sources and decide what to put in the article based on what they say. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Simon's column in the CJR makes a statement about violence tending to come "from the extremes" and then gives one example from each of two extremes. The phrasing of that first sentence seemed a bit tangled up, and it could easily be read to imply that Simon wrote about "several" incidents rather than one. I don't think that sentence was necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

CJR focuses on the Berkeley incident in a non-opinion piece which was omitted in the body wording afaik.[11]. I fail to see the relevance of "mention in passing", whatever that means. The point of the original sentences was to mention attacks on the press as reported by organizations commonly associated with press freedom tracking. CJR has done countless reporting of this [12][13][14][15], has press freedom reporters in its staff [16], and holds periodical press freedom related events [17]. Another omitted source is Reporters Without Borders who cite violent incidents in many articles [18][19] [20][21]. Another press freedom tracker, Committee to Protect Journalists also quotes a Swedish journalist hardships in covering the protests What we’ve also seen in Portland is that antifa and those organizations that are targeting individual journalists and saying, you know, “Don’t let these photographers take these pictures and that will lead to you getting arrested.” I encountered that, too, from protesters who could get aggressive when they felt they were getting filmed or videotaped or interviewed the same way that police would do.[22]. It's pretty clear there's a pattern here that can't be ignored in the article. Loganmac (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah sounds about right. The opinion piece part is a bit of a red haring, just needs to be attributed. No need to whitewash the article when several strong RS cover the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Content dealing with attacks on journalists by antifa demonstrators has been included in the article, since this discussion began. Several strong RS support the claims that this has happened. Got a specific suggestion on how to further improve the article in this regard? — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the CJR frequently covers the tracking of press freedom in general, but that's not really the issue. The issue is the CJR article is an opinion piece by the director of the CPJ relating to a CPJ report, not independent CJR coverage of the CPJ report, so it is misleading to give the impression that alleged antifa violence against journalists is something CJR has itself reported on. The opinion piece is about violence against journalists at demonstrations in general, and mentions antifa only in passing (Physical attacks tended to come from the extremes: Antifa protesters assaulted journalists at a demonstration in Berkeley for taking photos, and white nationalists brandishing a shield assaulted a reporter covering a 2017 rally in Tennessee.)so it would be undue weight to use this as an example of CJR or CPJ reporting on or commenting on antifa violence against reporters. The specific incident in Berkeley may be noteworthy, but this would be the wrong source for it, and it would be wrong to make it about a general issue of violence rather than about the specifics of the incident.

RSF are also a good source for facts about specific incidents, but these four mentions in their very comprehensive weekly tracker (two relating to Ngo) do not add up to a general pattern (if there was a general pattern, there'd be a lot more in their tracker.) As I said before the August 2017 Berkeley incident they mention involves harassment not violence. They give a balanced account of August 2018 Charlottesville, which is worth adding to the notable incidents section. The other two pieces relate to Andy Ngo, who they clearly describe as a blogger and not a journalist and should not be conflated with this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

I am recommending the term “movement” be replaced with “organization” throughout the entirety of this article. Antifa has a hierarchy to its members. They (the members) share common goals, common ideology, a unifying symbol to identify other members, and use social media to disseminate information. By all accounts, they are an organization, not an idea. NotsharingmyIP (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Adjust sentence in lead

Antifa's violence, such as milkshaking, is not equivalent to right-wing violence.
The such as milkshaking does not belong in the article, it seems to have been added as some sort of joke rebuttal rather than an accurate representation of Antifa's actions. Antifa's most notable actions are certainly not launching milkshake attacks of any sort, they of course have done so, but milkshaking is not their core tactic, and so it doesn't belong in the lead, though of course should be mentioned elsewhere in the article. 82.28.152.167 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be from the source:

“Throwing a milkshake is not equivalent to killing someone, but because the people in power are allied with the right, any provocation, any dissent against right-wing violence, backfires,” Professor Ben-Ghiat said in an interview last year.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

And that was my point, it is something Antifa does, but is not its main tactic, and so doesn't belong in the lead. 82.28.152.167 (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a good summary of Ben-Ghiat's statement that was quoted in the NYT, but it's bad summary of the section on their activities. Either we should make explicit in the lead that we're quoting Ben-Ghiat, or just say "Antifa's violence is not equivalent to right-wing violence" instead. The middleground that exists at the moment seems to be the worst of both worlds. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and done. It is a bizarre and misleading thing to focus on, since their violence also extends to non-lethal (with an exception or two) assaults of fascists and those they consider fascist, as well as property damage (which some might consider a form of violence). This isn't equivalent to the murders and insurrectionary activity the far-right engages in, however. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you! 82.28.152.167 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Summer of 2019

In Summer of 2019 it had been possible to read, that Antifa had been declared to be a terrorist organization in the US. Later perhaps: Just in one state. (?) Does anyone have the/ a source for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.5.250 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Antifa vs antifa

I'm probably old school, but I see no reason to adopt style over substance. This is clearly a proper noun, or am I missing something beyond lazy fingers sending text messages?

If Wikipedia has a policy on this, maybe someone could post a reference.

An article I was reading at spectator.co.uk that sent me here uses proper noun case throughout (as they should IMO).

Is Wikipedia more bent by fashion or more unbent by remaining an encyclopedia that remembers and practices pre-iPhone English orthography? — MaxEnt 03:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

MaxEnt, I just took a look through the archives in case you're interested. A 2019 regex search of sources by Vexations apparently found that a majority of sources used antifa rather than Antifa. As of this RfC in 2020 there was no consensus to change from lowercase to uppercase. There's a bit more to be found farther back, but those two links seem to give a good view of the current state of things. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

As to the fashion-vs-orthography question, the answer can be found at MOS:CAPS, which states that Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Emphasis present in the original. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to endorse this reply by Ezlev. Spectator is not the most reliable source. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

A lot needs to be changed.

This article is wrong, Antfia is a far left, racist, fascist group Pyromilke (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So line up your references and edit the article. Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, they can't edit without getting extended-confirmed, but I second the call for reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

hey there, I was just doing some research and noticed that you let the antifa site have positive things written about them and their message/actions etc. but when it comes to conservative groups your site tends to have more negative aspects.. please review 73.119.252.129 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I am open to ideas about this article being changed, but you need to provide an example you want to change first. EytanMelech (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Road to GA

This article is one of the perennially most viewed articles in the anarchism WikiProject. It looks fairly robust. For those who have been stewarding this article, what work remains to take it to Good Article status? czar 02:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not honestly entirely sure what is the prevention, but I'm probably assuming the risk of dispute and infighting regarding certain political events, which have sparked both sides to fight each other online. Perhaps it is a spillover prevention? I know the article is pretty well protected, but it is probably controversial enough to warrant a close eye. EytanMelech (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Possibly mentioning somewhere in the lede that antifa is not actually an organization and that there's no such thing as being a "member" of antifa? Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Change left to far left. If Qanon is far right then Antifa is far left. 71.223.173.21 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: One thing has nothing to do with the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove edited protections

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.

---

This page contains biased accounts of the subject matter. Therefore, the protection status should be lowered to ensure that these biases are counteracted. Crazy Jay Sphere (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Content is based on reliable sources. What changes are you wishing be made? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 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.

2020 Gettysburg hoax

Talk:George Floyd protests in Pennsylvania#Proposed merge of 2020 Gettysburg hoax into George Floyd protests in Pennsylvania may be of interest, as this article is a possible alternative merge target. This article doesn't currently mention the Gettysburg hoax but probably ought to; what form that would take may depend on the result of the merge discussion however. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"left-wing" change in lead to "far-left" with Far-left politics wikilink?

Hi all,

I made a small change after reading the NY times piece here that is cited inline in the article itself. The piece is from the NY times, very reliable, notable, and all that jazz. The say right at the outset, (Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Sandra E. Garcia that is) that antifa are describes as "far left” activists." Now personally, I do not think that is a bad thing. , but more importantly, if it is the factual and actual verbiage used by the RS being cited, I'd like to suggest we use this far-left instead of left-wing as it is now. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 06:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (for example, here) without arriving at a consensus in favor of "far left". For starters, "far" compared to whom? XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The other issue is that the source fails rs, at least for this claim, per News organizations. While reporters are experts in what happened today, they are not political analysts. TFD (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that the lede should say "left-wing to far-left" instead, because it has been described as both. X-Editor (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I also am fine with "left-wing" or "far-left". Google News search engine tests are imperfect, but in case it helps a little: <antifa + "left wing"> beats out <antifa + "far left"> about 3:2. Firefangledfeathers 03:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times is not a reliable source for the history of antifascism or for the constitution of antifascist movements in the present time within the United States or elsewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nor are google searches. Again I'd suggest using academic sources such as Alexander Reid Ross's "Against the Fascist Creep" as a basis for describing the nature and history of antifascism. They exist. You don't need to include the half-educated opinions of American propaganda outletsnewspapers. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Left-wing and far-left are not mutually exclusive. The former is a sub-set of the latter. Anyway per my edit summary please start a new Rfc to see if far-left is to be included, the previous Rfc still applies. FDW777 (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The former is a sub-set of the latter. I think you got that backwards. Far-left would be a subset of left-wing. But yes, we'd need a new RfC to change this (and I don't think one single source will accomplish that). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. FDW777 (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur, I would be unwilling to change something so fundamental in the lede on the basis of a single source, especially a media source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Far-left" is as much a slur as it is an actual descriptor of a ideology. I support the removal. ValarianB (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Now there's a hot take if I ever saw one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The term far left lacks precision. It's used by speakers to refer to anyone who is more left-wing than they are. So antifa is more left wing than New York Times readers. OTOH, the New York Times is more left wing than Fox News Channel, which routinely calls them far left. Major Communist parties used the term to refer to Maoists and Trotskyists, whom they perceived to be to their left. Wikipedia however has a policy of neutrality, hence cannot assume when left becomes far left. TFD (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet we define far-left and far-right in WP articles, so I don't see why we cannot use those terms if a preponderance of reliable sources do. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

First, far right and far left are not symmetrical terms. Second, just because another articles does something, doesn't mean they should or that we should follow them. What btw is your definition of far left and please provide a reliable source. TFD (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What's happening here is actually a content dispute centered on a specific change that was well supported by reliable sources: diff. So not one single source, etc. Participants should not abstract the other side's position too much when we are dealing with two specific revisions. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not simply a content dispute, though; persistent attempts to add material that's been extensively discussed and found not to have a consensus in its favour, without accompanying attempts to demonstrate that consensus has changed or any explanation of why consensus ought to change, are also a conduct issue. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How I might define it is irrelevant. WP defines it, reliable sources report it, and in any other scenario we'd go with what RS report, but we seem to make an exception in this scenario. Maybe we need to elevate this as a broader policy matter. soibangla (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the point, the NYT is unquestionably a reliable source. The issue is, is their single use of it in one article defining? ValarianB (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

But it's also Reuters, CNN and Center for Strategic and International Studies.diff soibangla (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

CSIS is a political think-tank. I would not consider that an unbiased reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not Heritage or AEI or such. soibangla (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You are taking the wrong approach. Instead of deciding how you want them classified and searching for sources, you should see what expert sources say about them.

News media are reliable sources for news not for analyis per News organizations. I prefer the opinions of people who have PhDs and teach at universities to someone with a journalism degree just as I prefer the opinions of medical experts on covid to Joe Rogan.

You still haven't answered my question. What does far left mean? More left wing than you are?

TFD (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why badger me for a personal view that I've told you is irrelevant? Maybe you prefer the opinions of people who have PhDs and teach at universities, but the overwhelming majority of our sources are from the press. Note that I included CSIS, a serious think tank, as a "kicker" to the three unimpeachable reliable sources I provided. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is going around in circles. You want to change the designation to "far-left," start an RfC to gain consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If I assume good faith, the reason you want to add the description is to convey information to readers, rather than to disparage antifa. If so, then you should be able to explain what information you wish to convey. For example if I wanted to say that antifa was a left-wing group, I could point to the Encyclopedia of the American left (Second edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. ix, where it is defined as individuals and groups that have sought egalitarian changes in economic, political and cultural institutions, specifically communists, socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists. Because precision is important, unless an orgnaization contained more than one of those groups, I would use the actual group description. I would for example say that Democratic Socialists of America is a socialist group or the Communist Party of the United States is communist group, rather than using the broader term left-wing. TFD (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If I assume good faith, the reason you want to add the description is to convey information to readers, rather than to disparage antifa. Yesterday someone off-wiki, commenting on my WP edits, said I was "definitely a leftist operative," suggesting I showed prior knowledge of the Patriot Front march on WP, so therefore I was part of a false flag op to frame them. So there's that. I think I'll exit this discussion as it seems to be getting a bit angry. soibangla (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

By "leftist," I assume they were referring to the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Right-wingers also refer to Jeff Bezos, George Soros and Joe Biden as leftists and believe they are funding antifa. TFD (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. I am not attempting to disparage antifa. And I'd appreciate if you would not accuse me of backloading into a pre-conceived belief, as you have now done twice. This approaches a personal attack on my integrity. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree fully with Soibangla as they are entirely correct. Numerous people and organizations have been called "far-right" a few words into their articles' leads, even though it is a vague term that barely describes most. I would cast the same skepticism on calling people or organizations "far-left", as it is also a vague term, but is used by numerous reliable sources to clearly describe Antifa for very obvious reasons, like them being communists and anarchists, and therefore this should be included in the article's lead as well. The number of sources describing Antifa as far-left is so numerous in this Wikipedia article, and so many other different sources can be easily found[23][24][25][26][27][28] in a few minutes on google. Bill Williams 02:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: I also couldn't agree more. So many reliable sources have described them as far-left that it is hard to ignore and definitely should be included in the lede. X-Editor (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"like them being communists and anarchists" But we do not typically describe either communists, nor anarchists as far left politically. Our sources differ on what identifies some factions as far left, but suggested criteria include "anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, opposition to NATO, and in some cases a rejection of European integration". I would be hesitant to describe an American political movement as Anti-American. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill Williams, if the term far right is vague and poorly sourced, then the solution would be to remove it where that is the case rather than use the same approach here. We don't balance bad practice elsewhere with bad practice here, per point. In fact I have always insisted and most editors agree that in order to call a group far right, journalists are not expert sources and instead we require academic sources, either a book or article about the far right that includes the group or a paper explaining why they are part of the far right. The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right (2003) for example is a good source, but is dated. Cas Mudde's The Far Right Today (Wiley, 2019) is more recent.

The other problem is that while far right is a category used in academic writing, the term far left isn't. All left wing groups can be described by specific ideologie, while far right groups cannot. What for example is the ideology of the Proud Boys or the Aryan Nation?

TFD (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The fundamental problem is that "far left" has not magically become a more specific term than the last time we had a debate about it. Our goal here is to write informative prose, not to recycle epithets from headlines and other such superficial descriptions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

References
References

"we do not typically describe either communists, nor anarchists as far left politically" that is literally the definition of far-left, if they are either authoritarian or anarchist communists, otherwise far-left is literally meaningless. Yes, ring-wing people frequently use it to describe less extreme socialists like The Squad but the term "far-left" still clearly applies to legitimate anarcho-communists. This is extremely well sources by academics, not just the news media. Bill Williams 14:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have changed "left wing" to "anarcho-communist" [29] as that is clearly the specific ideology of the group (as described repeatedly by numerous sources throughout the article), which is more accurate than vaguely referring to it as "far-left" or "left-wing" and should at least stay there until there is consensus for either of the two more vague terms. Bill Williams 14:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  The only time the phrase "anarcho-communist" or "anarcho-communism" appeared in the article was when you just added it to the lead. If something is mentioned in the lead, it must be discussed in-depth in the main text of the article, per WP:LEAD. --Jayron32 15:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"Anarchist" and "Communist" are stated to be Antifa's two main positions 100 times in this article, and that is quite literally the definition of "anarcho-communist" as stated repeatedly by reliable sources. Is there as a communist who is an anarchist but not an anarcho-communist? What does that even entail? Bill Williams 15:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The word "communist" appears four times in the text, and communism appears like twice, and only in the context of one of the several ideologies that individuals who claim connections to antifa also adhere to. Such a hyper-specific concept as "anarcho-communism" is not supported merely because words like "communist" appear in the text as well. For a group without a strong association with such a granular concept, it's better to use broad terms to describe them, given that the ideology attracts adherents from a wide swath of the left side of the political spectrum. --Jayron32 15:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The article literally states that a majority of antifa identifies as anarchist and communist, this article has the communism category and is in the communism portal, dozens of the sources on this article state that antifa is anarchist and communist, and the terms "anarchist" or "communist" or different grammar changes made to those words occur multiple times throughout this article. It is clearly anarcho-communist, but you are right, its supporters subscribe to a variety of views, all of which can simply be stated as "far-left" if you want the article to be accurate. Bill Williams 15:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No reasonable definition of far-left includes social democracy. Left-wing does, however. --Jayron32 15:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, the fact that it says that the majority of adherants are anarchists or communists doesn't mean that they are anarcho-communists. The majority of people may like chocolate and pizza, but that doesn't mean that the majority of people like chocolate pizza. --Jayron32 15:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism is an ideology distinct from both communism and anarchism. 15:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the eighth substantive discussion of this question in about four years and each time the consensus has been to maintain the status quo, so really without a new RfC this discussion is pointless. "Left-wing" is the least controversial and most capacious description, and anything more specific than that, even if supported by a few RSs (usually non-specialist reporters in mainstream news media) occasionally use something more specific, such as "far left" (which exclude social democratic, liberal, and other non-far left adherents, and/or which suffer from definitional vagueness), can easily be shown to be inappropriate by using stronger RSs. Enough already. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Far left has been cited with literally dozens of sources in the article plus the ones I supplied on this talk page, with a number of them being reliable academic sources. Communism and anarchism in support of communism are both textbook cases of far-left ideology, and if you think they are not far-left, then there is literally no such thing as far-left or far-right or any ideology at all, because the "left wing" article literally states that it is about striving for more equality, which communism supposedly strives for worldwide, but in this case with absolutely no government involved (anarchy). Bill Williams 17:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This seems to ignore the point about social democratic, liberal, and other non-far left adherents. Moreover, the academic sources include things like a journal of data science; what makes that a particularly good source for politics? And if we do accept, say, the International Journal of Communication as reasonable for the topic, they've also used "left-wing" rather than "far-left" [30]. It's also worth noting that the IJoC article cited above talks about "far-left" hashtags, and goes into a considerable number of caveats that using a hashtag isn't the same as being a member of a movement, which isn't the same as holding an ideology. This is why we have to dig deeper than the mere use of a word and make an educated assessment of what is the informative thing to say. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The academic sources are clearly cherry-picked. The first refers to a U.S. Homeland Security defintion of the far lrft in the United States. The other two sources are articles in journals aboub social media and communications. See Context matters: the less relavant a claim is to the topic presented in the source, the less reliable it is, particularly if it is mentioned in passing. I wouldn't for example use an article in a toxicology journal as a source for an article on space exploration. However if an editor wanted to include a claim that did not exist in relevant texts, they might find it in this type of source.

The Homeland Security definition is problematic: "embrace anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and [seek] to bring about change through violent revolution." The U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 that the Communist Party USA did not seek to bring about change through violent revolution and that no doubt applies to most other left-wing groups in the U.S., including members of antifa. Furthermore, the U.S. government often supports the violent overthrow of repressive governments. The Venezuela socialist leader Juan Gaido for example, who tried to violently overthrow the government of Venezuela, received a standing ovation in the U.S. Congress and wa never referred to as far left. A number of third world socialist leaders who lead violent revolutions against colonial powers or dictatorships have been honored in the U.S., including Nelson Mandela.

TFD (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with labelling the group as far-left or at least providing additional commentary to highlight the political lean and bias a viewer needs to make an informed decision. As labeled by Dr George Hawley, a University of Alabama political Science Professor studying white supremacist, was quoted saying "he believed the far-left activists, known as antifa, were welcomed" pg 182, paragraph 7 as well as Dr Eoin Lenihan from the University of Augsburg which argues that "whereas there are numerous studies on the dangers of far-right and ISIS extremism, there is little attention given to far left—and specifically Antifa—extremism."

Finding individual sources which use the term far-left in passing is trivial, and does not change the fact that the preponderance of sources do not use such terminology, or if they do, demonstrate more nuance, noting that antifa attracts adherence from the entire left-side of the political spectrum. The article currently notes that nuance, and to remove that nuance by more narrowly defining Antifa as "far left" rather than "left wing", which more accurately encompases it by being appropriately broad and allowing for the nuance noted in the article, is a bad idea. It doesn't become a better idea if you find two sources which use the term in passing. --Jayron32 18:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That would imply that the demographics are understood by editors using numerous WP:RS well enough to claim the group includes those of the left exclusively. Because Antifa is a loose and decentralized group, there is no way to place the group on any point of the political spectrum confidently and accurately, even by using a generalization such as "left-wing" since a centralist or Centre-right could technically support the movement against Fascism or Far-right politics. Thus it should be labeled simply a political activist group and then the demographics or political attraction detailed elsewhere. IE providing additional commentary to highlight the political lean, motivation, and bias a viewer needs to make an informed decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joustice (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Left-wing" is more than sufficient to describe Antifa, as shown by the sourcing provided. ValarianB (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Its completely reasonable to assume that Antifa consists largely of left-leaning individuals from all intervals on that side of the political spectrum, however labeling the group solely as "left-wing" when being "anti-fascist" is not uniquely a left-wing goal can excludes some of the potential proponents of the movement who also advocate against Far-right politics, but align with other core values and beliefs. Prescribing a generalized political affiliation of "left-wing" using previous news articles WP:NEWSORG and expert statements WP:RS implies the group can be distinguished on the political spectrum to the point of opposing political wings based on the findings in the source material which I feel then should be immediately apparent to the reader in the article intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joustice (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

References

ann coulter speech

needs mention of the protest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.237.208 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What speech? Why? Does anyone know who she is anymore? TFD (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Ann Coulter a neo-fascist? Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

anti-fa

It's not capitalized because anti-facism is a belief, a movement. There's no leader, organization, or underground bunker.

Based on what I've learned, believers in anti-facism are ANTI-government--local, city, county, federal.

Few carry guns. And the antifa movement is associated with ONE death. Lots of hooligans breaking the windows of police stations and other acts of vandalism, but they don't create violence. And I'm pretty sure they don't loot, by definition, but I'm not positive.

Those involved in the movement have more than questionable tactics, but they do A LOT of good as well (check them out on Twitter.)

Making some of their more aggressive acts of vandalism and infrequent violent behaviors hard to understand.

I just feel very strongly that this page needs far more sound and reputable sources.

People rely on Wikipedia for good information, and this page makes them sound like extreme-leftists, raping and pillaging, extreme-leftist heathens.

I've recently had surgery and have A LOT to learn about editing, but I wish someone would take action, as this is an unfair depiction based on half-truths and gross lack of knowledge.

ANY tips or helpful information would be most appreciated. 116l3 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

116l3, what "reputable sources" are you using? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

Change "Voice of America summarized the report as stating" to something like "Voice of America, a US state-owned radio broadcaster, summarized the report as stating"

Worth noting this summary is from American state-owned media in the same way one would quoting CCTV on the Hong Kong protestors or RT on Navalny. Especially in light of the fact that antifa is broadly antagonistic towards the US state and this summary is the only thing in the section claiming that antifa and the far-right are similarly dangerous. It would be different if their stance was the majority but much of the rest of the section explicitly argues against it. LanaDelEditor (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems fair to me. Done — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

173.179.80.112 (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Why don't you have any of antifa's terrorist attacks written on this page?

Um, because there are none, IP user. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

Source 31 does not support the last sentence of the overview (first) section. 2601:281:CD00:8870:7D2D:E2F2:BC9:C4CD (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done For posterity, this is source 31. I have removed it, because it does not support the statement:

Several analyses, reports, and studies have concluded that antifa is not a major domestic terrorism risk.

This reference was used in other parts of the article, so it is preserved in the places where it is being used. Please note that as a result of this change, a different source has been re-designated "source 31", so don't be confused when reviewing the article content for changes. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022 study on antifa and violence

Concerned that the ambiguity around what the article actually is may grant it more weight than it deserves.

The edit calls it a study but ultimately, it's an article from the Washington Post's Monkey Cage blog where the authors looked at a list of protests from summer 2020, whether or not "an antifa chapter" attended, and then whether there were reports of police injuries, crowd injuries, property destruction or arrests. They then came to the conclusion that since protests that "antifa" attended had more reports of these things, the presence of antifascists "greatly increased the risk of violence" without considering any other relevant variables.

If there's something I'm missing here I'm open to correction but this doesn't look like a scholarly article or study, it looks like an non-peer reviewed blog post that doesn't show its work, where the entire conclusion is based on the assumption that correlation is actually the same as causation which is both a profound and basic error.

I'm not saying that this article is necessarily worthless but to call it "a February 2022 study", put it in the section with all the other scholarly work, and uncritically repeat its conclusion made with fundamentally flawed logic, gives it a lot more credibility as a source than it has earned LanaDelEditor (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's by a professor emeritus of sociology and a doctoral student so it would qualify as an expert source. The problem is that received no media attention outside extremist publications. So it fails weight and I will remove it. TFD (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If the same people had published an article on this topic in a reputable academic journal (and I'm sure one or both of them eventually will) then we could probably cite it; in this format, in the absence of peer review, any explanation of methodology beyond two brief paragraphs, or any wider coverage of their findings, including it is undue. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Mic Crenshaw

@Foorgood: Can you clarify why you think this article needs to specify that Anti-Racist Action was co-founded by Mic Crenshaw? While I appreciate you adding a reference to support that claim, it still strikes me as an unnecessary detail in this context. There are various other organisations and movements mentioned in this article—Antifaschistische Aktion, the Anti-Defamation League, Black Lives Matter, to name the first few—and we don't feel the need to name any of their founders, on the principle that the interested reader can click through to the relevant article to find that information out. Why's this case different? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Not every group has a definite leader so its good to mention them when they are mentioned in sources so that readers could know more about the group and its founding- especially since anti racist action is the precursor for all antifa in america.Foorgood (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced I'm afraid, but I'd welcome others' views. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine, the guy is notable enough for his own article and the source supports it. PackMecEng (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• It seems too tangential to me. What's the relevance here? Why pull that one bit out of a massive source and highlight? It feels like it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to a random aside that is only indirectly connected to antifa. --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just to build on my perhaps too-brief comment above, there are a few issues here. One is that Crenshaw doesn't seem to be, as Foorgood says, the "definite leader" (or, more to the point, founder) of ARA: the New Yorker piece says it was formed by the Baldies as a group, not Crenshaw individually, and Forgood's initial edit also identifies a co-founder. So it seems there's more than a little muddlement here. There's also a sourcing question: the Bray and NBC sources initially cited on ARA as a precursor of antifa don't mention Crenshaw, and Foorgood has had to dig out the New Yorker piece to (tenuously) support the claim made. It's a perfectly good source, but ideally we should look at sources and write articles based on what they say, rather than deciding what we want to put in the article then seeking out sources to support it. Piecing sources together like this is a minor and fairly harmless form of synthesis, but still one to be avoided if possible. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it for now per WP:ONUS give that this discussion has split evenly and largely went nowhere. --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Why remove it if 2 users think it should stay and 2 users think it shouldn'tFoorgood (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Because, per WP:ONUS and WP:QUO the default when we can't reach a consensus is to go with the status quo. You have to demonstrate a consensus for things you want to add, and a deadlocked discussion isn't a consensus. If you want you can ask a wider audience on eg. WP:NPOVN (if you think this is a NPOV issue) or on one of the other messageboards; or you could start an WP:RFC. Or just wait and see if more people weigh in here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think all 4 of us have to approve of it to have consensus. The fact is all over Wiki for any kind of topic usually founders or pioneers are mentioned so that readers can know them.Foorgood (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't all have to, no. But there usually needs to be a rough majority (consensus isn't just about nose-counting, so sometimes a really strong argument can win out, but usually you need an RFC to demonstrate that.) It can be rough when there are only a few people discussing something, which is why I recommend you go to one of the boards I referenced or start an RFC to attract more voices if you think it's likely that having more people weighing in will shift things - having a small number of people going in circles around a simple include / exclude question like this can be bothersome, and involving more people is a possible way to break the deadlock. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

“Highly decentralised” vs just “decentralised”

In the opening sentence of the introduction, is it fair to describe American AntiFa as “highly decentralised”? This may seem like splitting hairs, but using the word “highly” is too evocative to me, it would suffice to say AntiFa is “decentralised”.

Reading through the three references for the opening sentence, not one of them delves into the organisational structures of the different chapters of AntiFa. The first does mention the fact AntiFa is not “highly organised” if I were to guess I’d say the person who originally wrote that conflated not being highly organised with being highly decentralised.

It’s pretty well understood the majority chapters of AntiFa around the US do have a decent amount of organisational structure and there is intension and premeditation to their actions. 203.94.44.201 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"Highly decentralised" seems like a reasonable paraphrase of the sources to me. In LaFree we have not only "not ... highly organized" but also "more of a movement than a group"; in Klein we have antifa "as a collective of nameless vigilantes"; and Bogel-Burroughs describes antifa as "without official leaders and organized into autonomous local cells". More generally, "highly" seems useful insofar as all organisations are to some degree decentralised, insofar as the power of a centre is never absolute. The U.S. federal government, for example, could be described as decentralised insofar as its three branches have their own autonomy. It's possible that "decentralised" is generally taken to mean "less centralised than most organisations", but in that case "highly" is just additionally clarifying what the word already implies. Appeal to what's "pretty well understood" is generally not a convincing argument on Wikipedia; what's needed instead are reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This article doesn't meet wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view

There are weasel words in almost every sentence of the introduction, e.g. "Many right-wing politicians...", "Some scholars argue...", "Scholars tend to reject...". Request that someone who isn't so closely associated with the subject or sympathetic to its cause rewrite this article. QuanteroBay (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@QuanteroBay: If you have a look at WP:WEASEL, especially the second paragraph, you'll find that the passages you cite aren't actually examples of weasel words, because they either accurately represent what reliable sources say or summarize views described in greater depth elsewhere in the article. If you think greater specificity can be achieved without undue verbosity, though, you're welcome to suggest specific changes you'd like to see made or, once you've made 500 edits and had an account for 30 days, make any such changes yourself. (Requesting that unspecified other editors rewrite the article from scratch, on the other hand, is probably unlikely to achieve results.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it is described as an "Anti-fascist" and "anti-racist" organization also violates NPV. These are the claims of those who are a part of this movement, but it is far from being an objective fact. Another article (the "proud boys", shows them to be a "neo-fascist" organization even though they do not personally identify as such, but rather as "western chavanist"). These terms are propaganda terms, not objective descriptions of the "movement". The wording of the second paragraph appears to have been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:c081:9220:99f3:d059:ac1b:5cd0 (talk) 16:04, April 11, 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes all organizations the way they are described in reliable sources. Antifa is described as "anti-fascist". It's literally the name. The Proud Boys are described by RS as "neo-fascist". Have you ever considered that "Western chauvinist" might be their propaganda term? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Just curious if you have gone to the DPRK wikipedia page. Why isn't wikipedia describing the DPRK as a democratic country? After all, it's literally in the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8090:1500:384:95D9:AF73:64D2:7C75 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate this users concerns, the entire article is written with bias - it defends and justifies actions when there is no need to say if they are good or bad, a wiki article is meant to relay neutral information about organisations/individuals. This does not do that. 81.106.209.219 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Which parts of the article do you think defend, justify or describe actions as good or bad? It's very difficult to respond without specific examples. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

The references to doxxing etc should be highlighted as illegal activities 2600:1700:4191:3610:6BC8:6982:2599:9241 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Antifa is capitalized

Antifa is capitalized in the title of the page when consensus is that it should not be Googleguy007 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Names are capitalized by default. See for example Capitalism, which is not capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence or title, or as part of a title where all nouns are capitalized. TFD (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Read the FAQ Googleguy007 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Googleguy007 which doesn't apply to the title. Or to when we use antifa as the first word in a sentence, surely you don't think we should stop doing that? Only words such as iPad have a title beginning with lower case. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Allegiance to liberal democracy

@Bill Williams: I was wondering if you could explain this edit summary in a bit more depth. Most of the sources following that claim, as far as I can see, don't discuss antifa's relationship to liberal democracy; the exception is Bray in Vox, who says antifa have no allegiance to liberal democracy. This isn't quite the same as either "little allegiance" or "oppose", but is probably closer to the former than the latter: it's entirely possible to lack allegiance to something while also not actively opposing it. Is there anything in any of the other sources that I'm missing? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I can look into it more when I get home, but I was just rewriting the current wording, since "little allegiance" is a very vague way of saying they oppose it, but I agree there should be more sources on the matter. I will come back later but a quick search came up with two, [31] [32]. Bill Williams 18:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Those sources definitely won't be usable: one is an article in a journal that primarily publishes work by undergraduates, the other is a listing for an event hosted by a far-right advocacy organisation. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

And Antifa isn’t an organisation with an ideology. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

In any case the current sources definitely don't seem to support the change, and seem clearly higher-quality than the proposed ones, so I've reverted it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

An idea charged with conspiracy to riot-how peculiar?

“I’m not aware of other cases like this, where a group of ‘antifa supporters’ are charged together as committing a conspiracy,” Catrina Doxsee, an associate director and associate fellow for the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a Tuesday phone interview. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2021-12-11/experts-say-san-diego-case-likely-first-to-use-conspiracy-charges-against-antifa

The charges are an RS encyclopedic fact further delineated by an topical expert. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F125:EE7F:B726:9883 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The article does not call antifa an idea. Are you suggesting that we change the article or are you responding to something you read about this article? TFD (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Too soon anyway, but the bit about what direct action includes is interesting. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

Concerned that this article is not factual...please see news sources related to this site. In particular, the statement, 'non-violent' is inaccurate. 2600:1700:5260:A700:D921:901B:5D81:CEDE (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2022 (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. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of words from Mark Bray

The intention of Wikipedia is to inform about a topic with a NPOV. The antifa article contains a lot of quotes from Mark Bray. But this [33] RS piece says: "While Bray doesn't participate in the group's protests, he nonetheless considers himself an ally." Surely it cannot be correct to have so much in it that is written by a self-confessed ally of antifa? Isn’t that rather like stuffing the article with self-sourced material? Text of that kind would be deleted very quickly, and rightly so. Perhaps the same thing should happen to a lot of the quotes from Bray? We know that they do not come from a NPOV. Boscaswell talk 09:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean completely impartial, nor that sources themselves must be neutral. It means that the article is written best as possible from reliable sources. While Bray may self-identify as an "ally," that does not mean he is a primary source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

While Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, sources do not. The reality is that most if not all writers sources about political topics will have opinions and most secondary sources, other than news reports, are written to express an opinion. TFD (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

See also multiple prior discussions on this or related topics: August–September 2017, August 2019, October 2020, and December 2020, for example. Bray might be the single most-discussed person at this talk page (though Andy Ngo would probably be a close second). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

"Loosely organized"

@X-Editor: I appreciate your changes to the "Public reactions" section, but I'm not sure about this addition. What does "loosely organized" tell us that isn't already covered by "a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups" in the following sentence? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Antifa as a far-left group

Shouldn't Antifa be characterized as a Far-left group rather than as simply left-wing? It seems by characterizing it as such can delineate it from mainstream left-wing political movements. By simply calling it "left-wing" makes it seem as if it is a non-fringe group. GuardianH (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

What do sources say? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Numerous previous discussions on this topic are linked from the "frequently asked questions" box at the top of this talk page. The fact that this has been discussed extensively in the past doesn't necessarily mean consensus can't change, but for it to do so you'd probably have to show why the existing consensus is flawed, that certain important points were missed, etc., as well as identifying sources that support any proposed changes. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent additions

I'm uncertain about a couple of recent additions by X-Editor and would like to get a sense of what others think. X-Editor added a quote from an op-ed by Rich Lowry; while Lowry is a notable commentator and the Oregonian a reliable publication, it's not really clear to me what justifies quoting this opinion in particular. Why, out of all the many op-eds on antifa, is this one especially important? The content of Lowry's remarks doesn't really tell us anything we haven't already got from, for example, the quotes from Kazin, Ben-Ghiat and Beinart above. (And if Lowry's comments belong in the article, I definitely don't think they belong in the "other activists" section.)

The addition of a quote from the 2020 Network Contagion Research Institute report is a bit more complicated. I agree that the previous status quo, in which we quoted Scott Crow on the report without giving any sense of the report's provenance or content, was confusing. When Crow's comments were originally added by Davide King in 2020, the article had a bit more content on the report; that content was removed by Aquillion in March 2022. Since this has gone back and forth without discussion, it might be worth discussing whether we want to cover the NCRI report in the article, and if so in what form. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The report actually only mentions antifa once in the context of several images shared in a subreddit. So I don't think the report nor the response to the report should be featured in this article. I disagree that Lowry's remarks don't already make points mentioned above, because all of the above commentators are leftists and not conservatives. Adding Lowry's quote would give a new and different perspective. X-Editor (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Right-wing perspectives aren't exactly underrepresented, though: there's a long section on statements by Trump administration officials; three of five people mentioned in the "Members of Congress" section are Republicans; as is Christopher Wray, whose views are also discussed fairly extensively. Even if there was an imbalance to be rectified or a perspective missing, I don't see why citing this op-ed by this author would be a particularly good solution. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

When I said "all of the above commentators are leftists and not conservatives.", I was referring to the content in the specific section titled "Other activists". Sorry for not making that more clear. X-Editor (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The easy solution is just to merge that section into the one above. I am unclear as to why it was separated out to begin with; West and Chomsky (as well as most of the rest) are from scholars. And the ones from people with no academic expertise should probably be removed unless they have substantial secondary coverage. I generally disagree with the sort of argument you're making here on WP:FALSEBALANCE grounds, though. We have an obligation to cite the sources in a balanced manner when sources of similar weight say differing things or hold differing views. But taking a lower-quality source, one with no secondary coverage, or one from a non-expert and weighing it equally to higher-quality sources isn't balance - it's effectively imposing our own views on the topic by determining what the "balance" should be ourselves instead of respecting what it actually looks like in sources. And more generally when it comes to quotes I favor removing low-quality ones rather than adding random stuff from talking heads - there's simply no content to things that are just "talking head on the left blames everything on the right; talking head on the right blames everything on the left", it's just editors arguing in the article by proxy. We should focus on people with actual expertise and people who have received secondary coverage instead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree EXCEPT West and Chomsky are not cited as scholars (they’re scholars but of theology and linguistics respectively, not of anti-fascism; their relevance here is as activists with knowledge of antifa via experience of politics rather than via study, hence their inclusion in the activist section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, the NCRI paper is an easy question; unless I'm missing something, it only mentions "Antifa slogans", not Antifa itself, and only in passing in a caption. Rich Lowry is a commentator with no relevant expertise, and I generally object to adding random commentators just because they've said something incendiary or strident - especially in an effort to crowbar in a "balance" between left-right sources, which is WP:FALSEBALANCE and leads to WP:QUOTEFARMs as people add random zingers from commentators in what effectively becomes editors arguing back and forth by proxy. If people feel that there are too many voices on one side in that subsection we could trim or rearrange it, but note that we do cite multiple people responding to Chomsky; and, more generally, the other subsections in the opinion section contain significant conservative voices - including an entire section devoted to the Trump administration specifically! Also, why was this section split from the one above it? Cornell West and Chomsky are scholars; why list them under "other activists?" --Aquillion (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I find the entire section to be against neutrality because we are supposed to "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Comments by non-experts, such as Rich Lowry BA, are not reliable sources and they only attain weight when they are reported in reliable sources, such as news reports or academic papers.

It's also misleading to describe Lowry as an "American writer," without pointing out that he is a conservative. Since I expect writers in this genre to form conclusions, then look for supporting evidence even if it is flimsy or false, I would discount his conclusions unless I read his article and accepted the evidence and reasoning.

TFD (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsure about NCRI (currently subject to question about it reliability on RSN) but the Lowry quote absolutely isn’t noteworthy. So many commentators have written on antifa there’s no reason this un-illuminating and non-expert comment is worth quoting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2022

This definition states: “ Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies. A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries, and have little allegiance to liberal democracy,[9] although some social democrats also adhere to the antifa movement.[7][10][11]”

What is missing here is the number of people that identify as Antifa, yet are simply antifascist. They espouse no ideology, they simply oppose fascism.

See “about” on Antifa Today on Facebook and Tribel. See “about” on AntiFa on Facebook. See “about” on Antifa International on Facebook. 2600:8804:4B04:4200:254F:9CFE:57F6:773E (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2022 (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. Additionally, Facebook "about" pages are not RS, especially for the number of people identifying with a movement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem with lower-case argument

At top of this talk page, it says: "Q3: Why is 'antifa' spelled in lowercase? A3: Many editors have argued that antifa is a common noun, based on available sources. There was no consensus to switch to 'Antifa' in this RfC." However, this relies on the incorrect assumption that all proper nouns begin with a capital (an exception: iPad) and all common nouns do not (exception: Fridays). Can the illogic be corrected? Equinox ◑ 04:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like you'd need a new RFC to "correct" it. And I doubt you'd succeed based on that argument alone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I think Equinox was proposing a change to the FAQ on this talk page (which can be easily done) rather than to the article. But perhaps they could clarify? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it changes anything either way. In order to change the FAQ, we'd have to gain a consensus on the capitalization of "antifa"... which is precisely what the RfC attempted. So in order to change that consensus (so the FAQ could be reworded), we'd need a new RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess RFC result supersedes logic, in the way that reliable sources supersede truth. I didn't know. Equinox ◑ 10:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The main reason is that most rs spell it with lower case, while upper case is the preferred spelling of conspiracy theorists. English language spelling doesn't always follow logic. TFD (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is why we don't deal in WP:TRUTH: everyone thinks their internalized opinion is the truth. We go by reliable sources specifically so we don't have to humor every person coming in here proclaiming their "logic" is superior to factual reporting & academic analysis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: In order to change the FAQ, we'd have to gain a consensus on the capitalization of "antifa"... I don't think we would, because I don't think the FAQ accurately represents the close of the RfC at present. The RfC was about whether "antifa" should be capitalised, not whether "antifa" is a proper noun or a common noun. For the reasons Equinox gave, these aren't quite the same thing (though they are for most purposes). So the FAQ could easily be modified ("antifa is a common noun" → "antifa should not be capitalised" or something along those lines), if people feel strongly that it ought to be. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The RfC was about whether "antifa" should be capitalised, not whether "antifa" is a proper noun or a common noun.

I'd argue that's a distinction without a difference. Really, this entire argument is one of pedantry rather than anything actually helpful for improving the article, and I don't think we're getting anywhere productive by spinning our wheels here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, could change the FAQ so long as it affirms the RfC result. Could say something like "because a majority of editors argued that capitalisation misleadingly implies it is the proper name of a formal organisation"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Mark Bray and WP:DUE

I'm concerned this article gives disproportionate weight to the voice of one person - Mark Bray. Bray is referenced 16 times in this article explicitly, including in the lead. He's a notable part of academic discussion of antifa and anti-fascism generally, but I also think it's undue to rely on him as often as this article does (especially that in many cases here, he's being used as a sole source for opinion rather than as a source of falsifiable fact claims). There's a worrying mix of WP:RSOPINION being blended with objectivity here. BrigadierG (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a WP:RSOPINION issue here. As far as I can see, arguments ascribed to Bray are clearly described as such in every case; there aren't any cases where they're mischaracterised as objective facts. If there are any borderline cases, tightening them up would only need small changes to wording that could surely be boldly made. (There's also a case to be made that conclusions arrived at on the basis of scholarly research aren't really the same as opinion pieces and the like, which is what that guideline's primarily about.)

Whether Bray's cited too much is another matter. I wouldn't object to trimming some of the five sentences of quotes in the first paragraph of "Movement structure and ideology". Otherwise, given the length of the article and the number of people quoted and sources cited, the number of citations doesn't seem too excessive.

The ideal solution, of course, would be to reduce our reliance on Bray by drawing more extensively on other scholarly sources. The fact that this article only very briefly draws on Vysotsky's American Antifa is its major shortcoming at present: it's a detailed and unimpeachably reliable source we could cite a lot more. I've been hoping to get round to that for a while but it'll probably be a while longer before I get there. Vysotsky, of course, arrives at broadly the same conclusions as Bray, which adds to my sense that there's no WP:WEIGHT problem as such: while views in the media and U.S. society more broadly are probably more hostile to antifa, Bray's arguments are in keeping with the consensus among experts. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Digging deeper, I think the problem is less severe than it seemed initially. I have a few ideas to try and rephrase for balance in a couple of places, but I'll let consensus settle on Eric Clanton before pursuing those to avoid causing more damage. I think the real way to improve this article as far as Bray is concerned is cut down on as much of the activity and reactionary hoax material as possible to give more weight to scholarly analysis.

BrigadierG (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to say I 100% agree with Arms & Hearts. Huge number of citations in this article so Bray isn't getting particularly disproportionate airtime. There's a dearth of real scholarship, hence he was the strongest source when this article was growing. Vysotsky published subsequently and is a stronger source so we should use him more, and trim Bray. Agree with BrigadierG that specific events that were newsy a couple of years ago take up too much space. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources connecting Eric Clanton with antifa

I'm not convinced, particularly about the last one. But I've already reverted once. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see the sources do now broadly support the BLP claims made, I agree that they aren't sufficient to indicate the relevance of antifa to this event or of this event to the broader history of antifa. Berkeleyside tells us that police "found flags, patches and pamphlets 'associating Clanton' with antifa and anarchist groups"; the Washington Post attributes that connection not to the police but to posters on 4chan. Even if sources did indicate a strong connection to antifa, the purpose of this article isn't to list every instance of antifa activity. Are there any sources that treat this event as especially significant, or that discuss it more than a few months after the court proceedings, for example? (There are also, I think, still WP:BLPCRIME issues with listing what Clanton was initially arrested for in addition to the offence for which he was convicted.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it opens bigger questions about determining group membership. For instance, many reliable sources in this article seem to use antifa and anti-fascism interchangeably. If we are to draw a distinction between these two things, I think leaves open a question of "What's the difference between the labels antifa and anti-fascism". It seems the way that most news outlets use it is that antifa refers to a specific chapter that self-identifies with that label, whereas anti-fascism is the category that those groups belong to. That would seem to be at odds with the consensus in this article (that I agree with) that antifa is an ideology and not a group. Is antifa an all-encompassing label for modern anti-fascism occurring in the United States? That seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME application of the word. Are there any anti-fascist groups that aren't antifa?

I guess what I'm trying to work out is whether antifa is a subset, or a complete set of the set of anti-fascist individuals and groups. If it's a complete set, then a RS calling someone an anti-fascist is sufficient to include them as antifa, whereas if it's not a complete set then the bar for inclusion should probably be explicitly being called antifa. As the article stands, I can't see that there are any anti-fascist groups that wouldn't be classified as antifa in common usage. Eric Clanton is an anti-fascist who possessed multiple(?) patches of anti-fascist groups, and who showed up in the same black bloc uniform to perform the same actions as some antifa individuals as identified by RS. Is it possible that he's aligned with antifa to this degree but is not himself antifa?

That said, I agree including the offence he was arrested falls afoul of WP:BLPCRIME and I apologise for including it. I've edited it out as a symbol of good faith so we can continue the discussion.

I do agree that this article has become something of a WP:COATRACK of various things antifa-aligned individuals have done, and various things its opponents have said about it. Perhaps the right way to proceed might be to figure out some kind of consistent inclusion criteria so we can avoid wasting time on WP:FARTs.

BrigadierG (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right to identify a complexity here – essentially, the sources give us good reason to avoid treating antifa as a group, but this leaves us in a pickle when talking about whether any individual belongs to antifa. But this isn't really a problem provided we treat this article as an overview of the movement's key aspects, reception and central debates etc., with some illustrative examples of particular high-profile actions. It's only if we treat it as a compendium of newsworthy events that that complexity becomes a serious obstacle.

Are there any anti-fascist groups that aren't antifa? Yes: see for example Refuse Fascism (briefly covered in this article in relation to the conspiracy theory that assumed they were antifa), PopMob (no article but see e.g. this piece), and many more outside of the contemporary U.S. context. "Antifa," in the sense that's the subject of this article (that is, as a phenomenon in the U.S. primarily since 2017) is a much narrower topic than antifascism. All antifa groups, people associated with antifa etc. are antifascist, but not all antifascist groups or individuals are antifa.

As far as Clanton's concerned, I think questions like Is it possible that he's aligned with antifa to this degree but is not himself antifa? are the wrong questions to be asking. As I asked above, even if his connections to antifa were beyond debate, what would make his conviction a significant enough event in the history of antifa for it to merit a mention in this article? If the answer's "nothing in particular" then the question of how antifa he may or may not be is immaterial. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Good points from Doug, the Brigadier and A&H. Antifa is a subset of anti-fascism not synonymous. As we are not a newspaper we should not include every single instance that one or another news source has associated with antifa. What tends to happen is that events in the news get added to this article too quickly and at too much length (see WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS) and then get sedimented here, skewing the weight. In this specific instance, the terminology of "associated" is too week and the sources too scarce and flimsy for Clanton to be included here. In general, we should be trimming not growing the specific events and instead, as per above talk section, focusing on scholarly sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Antifa (United States) One reason for Wikipedia’s bad reputation

stop humoring WP:SPA POV-pushers. Dronebogus (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

All that stuff about Trump in the article makes it look like a left-wing hack job. It doesn't represent real Antifa. Antifa doesn't support either party or the capitalist economic system. I fact they consider both democrats and republicans fascists. They demonsrated that on Biden’s Inauguration day January 20, 2021. They protested in both Portland Oregon and Washington DC that day. They protested and vandalized the Democratic Party Headquarters in Portland. And they protested both against Biden and Trump in DC. Adrahn (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Antifa refers to Biden’s Fascist Wars Antifa yelling F*ck Trump, F*ck Biden in DC Newsweek is considered low-quality today per WP:RSP, but more generally, the reason the article talks a lot about Trump is because he spoke more about Antifa than most other politicians, and this is reflected in coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC) I can probably find better references even though those reflect the facts. And I understand the reason for all references to Trump however, I contribute to news blogs from coast to coast. Practically everyone laughs at Wikipedia’s use as a reference for facts regardless of political affiliation. Articles like this are a reason. It’s blatantly politically one-sided, overkill. Don’t we want Wikipedia to appear to be a reputable source? Adrahn (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Well, secondary coverage of Wikipedia over the past few years has generally said that we're one of the few sites that have been getting things right and avoiding misinformation - see eg. [34][35][36][37][38]. I'm sorry that the blogs you read don't agree, but to answer your question, no, I don't think we should write our articles with an eye towards convincing absolutely everyone that Wikipedia is a good source - that leads to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Just because there are people who feel so strongly about something that they'll distrust Wikipedia if we don't cover it the way they want (or don't include the things they think are important) doesn't mean that those things pass WP:DUE weight or WP:RS - our goal is to reflect the preponderance of high-quality reliable sources, especially things like mainstream news or scholarly ones. If there's a lot of people who disagree with those - who feel the mainstream media is biased and academia can't be trusted, or who get their news from blogs instead or whatever - then they'll never be happy with what we have on Wikipedia, and that's not a problem we can or should try to solve. And to get back to the main topic, that's the problem with the things you're asking for here, as I see it - you want the article to talk more about Biden or Obama to "balance out" how much it talks about Trump, but the sources overwhelmingly focus on the relationship between Antifa and Trump. We're not going to misrepresent that balance just to make people happy. Beyond that, if you look up and at the article's recent history, we're trying to avoid having it turn into a blow-by-blow summary of every single protest by anyone who called themselves Antifa ever; ideally we should focus on ones with WP:SUSTAINED coverage or which coverage singles out as notable and significant in some lasting manner. --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your response. I’m going to reword my point somewhat. I realize the reason for the focus on Trump in the article. True or not it looks like a left-wing hack job because it places the focus on Trump starting in the third paragraph. As the article points out they’re communists/socialists. They’re anarchist to our form of government and our capitalist economic system. Core Antifa considers both democrats and republicans fascists for that very reason. They demonsrated that on Biden’s Inauguration day January 20, 2021. They vandalized the Democratic Party Headquarters in Portland and they protested against both Biden and Trump at the same time in Washington DC. The news blogs I contribute to include The New York Times, Politico, the Washington Post and more. When Wikipedia is used as a reference it commonly doesn’t last long before it gets challenged and disregarded in all those unless it’s a one-sided discussion. The people in those blogs don’t care about the media organizations opinion of Wikipedia. They care about what the reference to Wikipedia claims. I suggest toning it down, a lot. Perhaps donate one section about Trump alone and not right at the beginning he doesn’t deserve that much focus. Thanks again. Adrahn (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC) How can they be communist/socialist and anarchist? I think you are conflating anarchist with anti-capitalist in this case. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC) The Wikipedia article states “A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists” And I explained how when I wrote “As the article points out they’re communists/socialists. They’re anarchist to our form of government and our capitalist economic system.” Adrahn (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Most of their notability stems from the fact Trump and the American Right talked about them. It's like critical race theory. No one had ever heard of it before it became a right-wing talking point. But you are welcome to draft a better article. TFD (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC) That’s true however I live in the PNW so I knew of them long before Trump decided to run for president. As my previous article suggestion shows, The first known to adopt the name antifa in the United States was Rose City Antifa (RCA) of Portland Oregon in 2007. Adrahn (talk) 15:04 31 August 2022 (UTC) @Adrahn Wikipedia itself doesn't use Wikipedia as a reference because it's crowd source and changes rapidly. However, universities often run projects getting students to edit Wikipedia and one of the major values of Wikipedia is that articles normally provide reliable sources that can be used for further study. And of course we offer various points of view in our articles. I know, for instance, that a number of good archaeologists I know value relevant Wikipedia articles. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC) The problem with Wikipedia and much of the media these days is, the writers inflict their biased political views in their writing. That only serves to create more hate, discontent, and division in the U.S. Adrahn (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Add first to adopt name Antifa in the U.S

I suggest adding something to the effect of: The first known to adopt the name antifa in the United States was Rose City Antifa (RCA) of Portland Oregon in 2007. —Adrahn (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The article currently says In 2007, Rose City Antifa, likely the first group to utilize the name antifa, was formed in Portland, Oregon by former ARA members. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa (RCA) Website

Claiming Antifa is "Legitimate"

No other articles on ideologies try to say in Wikivoice that an ideological movement is "legitimate". It is undue and irrelevant for the lead when everything else is highly sourced yet only one citation is being used to try and justify Antifa. How one person thinks of Antifa does not belong in the lead. The single source for claiming that "some scholars" say Antifa is "legitimate" is one man who wrote a book. That should not be misrepresented as multiple people when it is a single one. Bill Williams 12:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Other articles do not start out by saying that a major aspect of the movement is violence and breaking the law, which is generally seen as illegitimate. Do you think it the article about the Republicans said, "Some scholars view it as a legitimate political party," that would show an undue bias in favor of them? TFD (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Their violence is irrelevant to legitimacy or illegitimacy, it's heavily sourced. Calling Antifa "legitimate" has a single source in the article. Bill Williams 12:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed this post earlier as it's really a complaint against the article subject, not actually a request to correct the article. It's not just "a single" source, which you would realize if you'd read the article itself (specifically this section).

You clearly came in here swinging to right great wrongs, because your original post here began: This is complete propaganda for Antifa. And you have the audacity to accuse me of "violat[ing] the rules" by removing your WP:FORUM violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You broke the rules by removing a comment on unsourced content in the article. It doesn't take audacity to realize this. Anyway, it is propaganda for Antifa, because the article has a single source calling Antifa "legitimate" and somehow that makes it due for the lead? If you go to the body of the article there is still only one man calling it "legitimate". Bill Williams 12:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no "unsourced" content here, you just don't like antifa so you're pissed off at the phrasing in the lead. If you legitimately think I broke the rules, run off to WP:ANI and see how far you get. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• It doesn't say it in wikivoice? Something that's attributed (even to "some scholars", which is reasonable for a summary in the lead as long as they're named in the article) is not in Wikivoice. And like TFD implied when asking if you'd want similar language on our article for the Republican party, saying that some scholars view it as legitimate is hardly biased in their favor, especially in the context of a paragraph that makes it clear that many people do not. But more importantly, the sentence is necessary for the paragraph to accurately summarize the public reactions section, which does contain multiple scholars defending it as legitimate; without that the impression the paragraph gives would be lopsided. --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It isn't attributed to "some scholars" it's attributed to a single scholar, your babble about the Republican party is irrelevant to the article. No movement talks about how it is "legitimate" in the lead of the article because one person said so. Bill Williams 12:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a reasonable summary of multiple scholars in the reception section. And you are the one who said "we don't describe any other groups that way"; the point is to make it clear why (ie. saying that some scholars view X as legitimate would, on most articles, be viewed as damning them with faint praise, since it carries the clear implication that many do not. On this article that is true, but most of the time it isn't.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• We say "Some scholars argue that antifa is a legitimate response to the rise of the far-right" and reference one who we quote and one more who says essentially the same thing. That's more than one. I can imagine that we could improve the lede to remove the phrase "some" but I REALLY don't think it is supportable that there is only one scholar of fascism who would say in quotes that anti-fascism is a legitimate response to fascism. How about you help us find some more sources to support this claim? Protonk (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You began this thread by saying, "No other articles on ideologies try to say in Wikivoice that an ideological movement is "legitimate"." When it is pointed out to you that if we described the Republican Party in a similar way, i.e., some scholars view it as legitimate, you say that is babble and irrelevant. So why did you bring it up in the first place? The purpose of talk page discussions is not so that editors can abuse their bêtes noires, but to discuss improvements to the article. If you going to bring up comparisons then claim they are irrelevant when anyone else discusses them, we are not going to make any progress. TFD (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Change The Atalntic into The Atlantic

There is a typo in one of the sources which should be fixed. For users who have permission to edit the article: press F3 and search for Atalntic Croxyz (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Change "violent direct action" to "violence" in the lead

Why is Wikipedia allowing editors to sugar-coat how ANTIFA achieves it's objectives? It should also be worth changing "left-wing" to "far left" donnellan Donnellan0007 (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Go find some reliable sources that use the language you like and come back. BrigadierG (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Direct action is an accurate term and I don't believe it downplays violence in any way. It's the term used by antifa activists, and by reliable sources describing them. DFlhb (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is disgustingly biased.

Not even a small criticisms section? 2605:A601:AC3D:E100:41B6:9878:BC09:36D6 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Criticism is found within Antifa_(United_States)#Public_reactions. ValarianB (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

Captain Dangerbuff (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

My request is to change that Antifa is to add that Antifa is an Anarchist, it is an Anti-Fascist group, but it is also Anarchist

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Nonviolent"

TFD reverted me and claimed that the sources state that most activity is nonviolent, however the first source never states this, the second source merely claims that their activity is "both violent and nonviolent," while the third and final source states that "much antifa activity involves nonviolent..." and never says "most." Please self rever The_Four_Deuces and at the very least return it to "much," certainly not "most." However, I think "much" still should not belong there, because a single source using that term is nothing compared to the fact that the vast majority of coverage is describing their violent actions, so "much" is some weasel word that is not often used. Stating that "much" is nonviolent while only "some" is violent is misleading to readers because it makes some kind of comparison that implies there is more peaceful activism than violent activism, something that is unsourced. Bill Williams 02:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The first source used says, "Our team found that antifa supporters generally campaign, organize, and protest, sometimes violently." (KGW8)[39] Does that mean much, some or most is nonviolent? If someone is "sometimes" violent, they are mostly non-violent. If you have another way to phrase it, please provide it. TFD (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If someone is sometimes violent then they are sometimes violent, that is all you can get from it. Nowhere does it say mostly peaceful, sometimes violent means sometimes nonviolent unless you can provide sources claiming it is "mostly nonviolent." The article should simply say some is nonviolent and some is violent because that is what is accurate. Bill Williams 12:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

For example in an ADL article, "Most people who show up to counter or oppose white supremacist public events are peaceful demonstrators, but when militant antifa adherents show up, they can increase the chances that an event may turn violent. There have been instances where encounters between antifa supporters and the far-right have turned violent. Of those counter-protesters who do engage in violence, not all of them support the antifa movement. Likewise, not all antifa supporters engage in violence. Those violent counter-protesters who are militant antifa adherents believe in active, aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements." [40] This means that you cannot simply breakdown Antifa as mostly violent or mostly nonviolent, because their rallies may involve violence or nonviolence that is promoted by people who do not profess support for Antifa. Bill Williams 12:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You can simply replace the current text with "Antifa supporters engage nonviolent political activism..." and then "Antifa supporters also combat..." because both statements are true, since supporters do both. Trying to claim that "most" is nonviolent is not a logical thing to do, because the actions most covered by the media and most substantial in their effects are the violent actions, so "most" is heavily misleading. As I replied to you on my talk page, claiming in Ted Bundy's lead that "most of his actions" were nonviolent when the actions most covered by the media and most substantial in their effects were violent, would only be misleading to readers, even if technically he spent most days doing nonviolent things, that is irrelevant. Bill Williams 12:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

See "Examining Extremism: Antifa," on the Center for Strategic & International Studies website: "When Antifa adherents clash with far-right demonstrators, violence occasionally breaks out."

Much of their activity incidentally is done through the internet, where there is no possibility of violence. There main in person activity is to counter-demonstrate far right rallies, which in some cases leads to violence. It's only in the wacky world of Fox News Channel hosts that there main activity is to use violence against non-violent groups. TFD (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Haven't we had this discussion repeatedly? The sources support the longstanding statement that the majority of their activity is nonviolent direct action, even if you don't personally see them that way. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• What is meant by the repeated change from "violence" to "political violence"? At a glance I don't think that that's what the sources we're using there specifically say, and it strikes me as more emotive phrasing in context. --Aquillion (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Response-to-fascism sentence in the lead.

Since multiple editors have attempted to remove this (longstanding) sentence, we ought to discuss it here. It summarizes multiple significant opinions in the body; we can find more if people think it isn't sufficient, but it's clearly a significant strain of thought about Antifa based on the article as a whole, and can't reasonably be omitted completely from the lead. Possibly its wording could be tweaked to summarize more broad sources, but let's talk it out? This sentence was just discussed here, after all, so removing it with no discussion seems not on. By my reading (and as people said in the previous discussion) it accurately paraphrases the opinions of multiple scholars both cited there and in the section further down. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I support including the "response-to-fascism" sentence in the lead, since it is supported by several scholars. But the sentence makes two claims:

• that antifa is a legitimate response
• and that it is not equivalent to right-wing violence.

Two of the four citations for "response-to-fascism" only endorse the second, not the first (Ben-Ghiat via Bogel-Burroughs, and Vysotsky). Reid Ross doesn't seem to explicitly make either claim. This leaves only one proper citation, Bray.

Citing multiple sources at the end of a sentence, that only support part of the sentence, is fine for factual claims, but not when discussing viewpoints, as it constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. I've tried to rejigger the sentence to correct this, pending further consensus; I don't think my change would be controversial. Penny (from the Chomsky article) also explicitly supports the first claim, so I've added that citation.

I'll add, though it's not directly relevant to this discussion, that Vysotsky agrees with no-equivalence, but further claims that Antifa is an attack on the state's legitimacy (This radical challenge to the legitimacy of the state represents the true threat that militant antifascism poses), which certainly should be included in the body. DFlhb (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The article does not claim that antifa is a legitimate response to the far right, but says, "others claim that antifa is a legitimate response." There is a difference between an article making a claim and saying that some people have made a claim.

Also, there is consensus in reliable sources that antifa violence is not equivalent to right-wing violence. See for example a recent paper from the authoritative bi-partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies: "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."[41] While the Trump administration and the right-wing echo chamber were alarmist, that's just politics, not reality. TFD (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I never said that sentence had any Wikivoice issues or should be removed; just that we should be careful not to mislead readers as to which citation supports which claim; I believe my edit fixed that. Do you see any issues with it?

And I also never disputed that there's consensus for lack of equivalence; not sure where you got that from. I'm not the one who came up with "some scholars"; that was the preexisting phrasing. I do see a remaining problem with the lead (redundancy); I've made a new edit to try to address that.

I'm frankly not sure whether you're replying to me or someone else. If you really are replying to me, I encourage you not to assume what my political views are, or ascribe to me proposals that I haven't made! DFlhb (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The sentence does not belong in the lead, what two sources claim is not significant enough for the beginning of the article, "some scholars" in this case is just weasel words for a minority viewpoint that is rarely endorsed. Bill Williams 23:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

TFD has definitively rebutted that concern, Bill. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I just RV'd Bill on this one again, just weighing in as someone who's been miscellaneously chopping things for NPOV and DUE reasons to say I think the lede is no longer POV'd, and I'm happy where it stands.

BrigadierG (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The last murder linked? or first?

At Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl one of the sources says "For the first time, a self-identified member of the militant movement known as antifa has been implicated in a fatal shooting and is reportedly under investigation in the killing of a supporter of President Donald Trump on Saturday in Portland, Oregon. The left-wing protest movement has resorted to violent measures in the past in opposition to right-wing extremist groups but has stopped short of lethal tactics."[42] On the face of it this looks like misrepresentation of a source. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

In any case it is glaringly undue for the lead; nothing in the sources suggest that this is central to the topic as a whole, and in context it comes across as using news reports in a WP:SYNTHy attempt to rebut the broader and higher-quality analysis of reliable sources discussing antifa as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely the word "last" is completely misleading. The incident should be in article, described carefully. Unsure whether it should be in lead, but if so needs to be neutral and accurate, obviously. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)