Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

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)

Upon further thought, I do believe "direct action" is a contentious term. The term is not used in any of the sentence's three citations. It also seems to be used differently by academics compared to antifa activists themselves: secondary sources seem to think it consists of deplatforming (see every mention of "direct action" in this Wikipedia article), while many antifa activists are quite clear that "direct action" includes physical fights, arson, and violence. The Economist has called direct action a euphemism [1]. I'm unsure if it's appropriate for the lead; while it links to a Wikipedia page that includes examples of violence, should only be kept if the term is truly associated with violence in secondary sources; as it stands, and until proper sourcing is found, it seems more like a euphemistic attempt by primary sources to downplay violence.

This article should likely also gain a "Violence" section per WP:NPOV; there's a tough motte-and-bailey problem editors need to contend with, where most antifa activists seem non-violent, but a few are radicalized and violent, adopting the revealing slogan "by any means necessary" [2]. Both the slogan, and the "wider movement vs most radical adherents" dichotomy need to be made explicit here. The article focuses too much on hoaxes (which, while well-sourced, have quite low notability on their own); the "Analyses and studies" section is also unusual and may constitute a bit of a WP:POVFORK; surely, we can integrate that content into a better article structure? The likely first steps are coming to consensus on the article's basic structure. I'll start by proposing we take the unusually placed "Activities" and "Notable actions" out of the History section, since the movement does not seem defunct. We could also have a subsection on each well-sourced violent incident, to be consistent with the hoaxes section. DFlhb (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting analysis, and not what I expected. I'm gonna go ahead and make some bold changes based on the following source analysis. Here are the citations for mentions of direct action in the article at the moment:

1. https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/what-antifa-is-what-it-isnt-and-why-it-matters/ - Uses "direct action" in quotes when describing "Antifa supporters' beliefs"

2. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ - "They prefer direct action: [antifa supporters] try to break up [white supremacist] gatherings, including by force."

3. https://web.archive.org/web/20170821010134/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-trump-gets-wrong-about-antifa/537048/ - "antifa activists generally combat white supremacism not by trying to change government policy but through direct action. [antifa supporters] try to break up white-supremacist rallies, including by force." (these two articles were written by the same author, Peter Beinart)

4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40930831 - No mention of direct action

5. https://web.archive.org/web/20170906050854/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/antifa-left-wing-faction-far-right.html - Uses "direct actions" in quotes while describing rhetoric of antifa groups

6. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-was-once-a-byword-for-tattooed-vegan-microbrewers - The above linked article explicitly calls "direct action" a euphemism

From this, I conclude that the weight of sources means that the sourcing in this article does not support direct action in WP:WIKIVOICE when referring to violence.

BrigadierG (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I will also note that while the Wikipedia page for direct action appears to explicitly describe violent direct action, this is worryingly unsourced, and toes the line of being WP:OR. BrigadierG (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for going through each source and breaking it down. I also agree with your change.

I agree that the Direct action article isn't airtight, though the dissertation cited in the Violence section (Loadenthal) has more than 70 pages of references. I don't have the time, but digging out those references and citing them directly; or fleshing out the article based on them, might prove highly fruitful. DFlhb (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should simply be referred to as "violence" since direct action is described by sources as a euphemism that only confuses readers who don't know the definition of some jargon that Antifa uses. Nobody besides the violent actors themselves would use such a term to describe their actions, and plenty of :sources refer to it plain and simple as "violence."

https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa "use violence... violent activity... they do view violence as a legitimate option... the use of violence... violence occasionally breaks out... Antifa extremists primarily use violence..." with plenty more in detail throughout the source.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/year-protests-portland-residents-waning-patience-antifa/story?id=77511470 this and the source above show how even Antifa uses the term "violence" to describe their actions, with a member stating "The use of violence is a tactic of how we keep our communities safe" and later "The use of :violence is there to maintain safety..." among other examples.

https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_race-america_antifa-protester-implicated-killing-trump-supporter-oregon/6195248.html "The left-wing protest movement has resorted to violent measures in the past"

And there are plenty more sources, these three took me less than five minutes to type up and describe. "Violence" is clearly defined while "violent direct action" is a confusing euphemism. Bill Williams 01:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. There's also non-violent direct action, and Antifa engages in that, as reliable sources indicate. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, there is substantial coverage of the centrality of direct action to antifa; I'm opposed to the proposed removal from the lead and the body. I think we should roll back to the last stable version of both for now. --Aquillion (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unqualified "violence", support retention of "direction action". One compromise would be "direct action including both non-violent direct action and political violence". Sources support direct action, and that this can include violent and non-violent, illegal and legal actions. Examples to follow. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC) anarchists and Antifa participants do not put their hope in governments or the police—themselves arrangements of institutionalized authority—but in their own direct action This physical commitment, in the form of “direct action”, is distinct from more liberal forms of anti-fascism, which are less confrontational, and often make appeals to institutionalized political actors and to the state. Stanislav Vysotsky is right to point out, “It is this willingness to engage in direct confrontation and violence that defines this movement as militant as opposed to other movements that choose to oppose white supremacists through non-confrontational demonstrative actions and juridical cooperation with the state”.[26] When asked what he understood by the term “militant anti-fascism”, one Portland-based Antifa activist told us: I mean anti-fascism based in direct action that is not beholden to the state Antifa can best be understood as activists who organize direct, confrontational opposition to fascism out of a distinct ideological and/or emotional response... Within the ideological framework of practitioners, mutual aid is considered to be just another form of “direct action, which is understood as “using your assets and personal capabilities to directly implement the change you desire, instead of asking someone else with formal authority to make the change on your behalf.”... While the term direct action does not necessarily imply a violation of the law, illegal activities including assaults, vandalism, squatting, sabotage, trespassing, and theft are all included under the rubric... As the Pacific North West Chapter of the Antifa group Youth Liberation Front noted in a recent tweet, “Most of Portland’s ‘mutual aid’ is more direct action than Portland’s public ‘direct actions’ are.”[3] Those are scholarly sources. Here are other RSs: While the methods of Antifa have become the object of much heated political discourse, the group’s ideologies, particularly its insistance on physical direct action to prevent violent opression, are much better understood when seen in the framework of a struggle against violent discrimination and persecution began almost a century ago. This New Yorker article uses the term "direct action" again and again. And: Contemporary antifa groups represent a direct-action wing of existing anarchist organizing. In other words, most of them are anarchists who specifically focus on confronting fascism. His comments are laced with references to "direct action," a more confrontational activism in response to police violence or threats from right-wing vigilantes. On what "direct action" means in the wider anarchist milieu, see The purpose of these tactics is twofold: intervening in society to immediately accomplish goals (also called ‘direct action’) and illustrating a vision for a better world (also called ‘prefiguration’).[4] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support this compromise, but would rephrase it as "direct action including both non-violent protests and political violence" to avoid repetitiveness. And I agree that unqualified "violence" (as opposed to "political violence") is suboptimal since it implies random, undirected hooliganism as opposed to instrumental violence meant to achieve specific goals. DFlhb (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Digital Activism covered in previous sentence

First time editing so sorry for any infractions.

The article states that “Most antifa political activism is nonviolent, involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing. Some who identify as antifa also combat far-right extremists and, at times, law enforcement, with tactics including digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage.”

I feel digital activism can be covered under “nonviolent activism”, as the second sentence’s intent seems to be underscoring the more “unethical” tactics, of Antifa.

- Altostrato (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Murder

@Aquillion How is a high-profile murder by an antifa activist that has its own article not DUE for the lede? X-Editor (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor, if you're seeking to add new material to the lead, WP:ONUS is on you to make the case for it. (And you shouldn't expect us who didn't partake of the BRD to trawl through diffs to know what murder you're talking about.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's the murder I was talking about. The ONUS is simple. It was a high profile murder that has its own article and it was the first murder by a modern contemporary antifa activist. X-Editor (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

While the incident is likely high-profile enough to deserve its own section in the body, even as someone that believes this article is currently POV'd to hell and back, I don't think any specific incident involving antifa is significant enough to be lede-worthy. BrigadierG (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A murder with its own article isn't lede-worthy? Also, why do you think the article is POV and what would you propose as a solution to fix POV problems? X-Editor (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It simply does not have significant coverage in sources discussing antifa. We don't throw every flash-in-the-pan news event where the subject is mentioned straight into an article's lead, nor do we devote multiple massive paragraphs to them. Antifa is a topic with a ton of high-quality coverage; if you think it deserves so much focus you should be able to find more than a handful of contemporary news reports and the like. --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.

Since this is barely covered in the body of the article, I don't believe it belongs in the lead. I agree with User:BrigadierG that it should be covered in its own section; it's very clearly due, as a number of reliable sources have described Reinohl as an antifa activist (NYT, NPR, Guardian, AP).

Even if the body were expanded, I have a slight preference (pending further arguments) for keeping it out of the lead, for dueness issues. DFlhb (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added info on the killing in the "notable actions" section. X-Editor (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not even sure where to begin. It doesn't have significant secondary coverage, only primary news reports; it lacks sustained coverage of any sort; and most of the coverage only mentions antifa in passing. Adding it to the lead is simply impossible to justify based on existing sources. The paragraph you added is also WP:UNDUE (and redundant, since it is already covered in the "Analyses and studies" section); most of the sources don't even mention antifa and the ones that do generally only do so in passing. No matter how important you might personally believe this is to the history of antifa, the sources simply do not agree - look at the sourcing we use for other parts of the article, which tend to be in-depth coverage from multiple high-quality sources discussing antifa specifically. You've attempted to devote more space in the "notable actions" section to literally anything else there, despite having barely any sources that even mention antifa; this is textbook WP:UNDUE weight. More than that would require in-depth secondary coverage about antifa rather than just news articles with passing mentions. And we absolutely cannot use any sources that do not mention antifa - that would be clear WP:SYNTH. Please be more careful when copy-pasting material from tangentially-related articles. If your assertion is that this is the most notable Antifa activity to ever occur (which is what you seem to be expressing by making it the largest part of the relevant section), you will need far better sourcing to back that up. This has been discussed repeatedly (you should check the talk page archives for previous discussions!), and the existing coverage in the analyses and studies section was the result of extended discussion; you at least need to demonstrate a new consensus to change that by adding more. Certainly from my perspective doesn't look particularly more WP:DUE now than it did back during those discussions given the lack of any significant coverage since then - it was a flash in the pan in terms of coverage, nothing more, and doesn't deserve more coverage than it already had in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • It is not even organized action by a group. It is reminiscent of a lone wolf attack in motivation, but the incident stopped at just one victim. :
    • "Lone actor terrorists are ideologically driven, with political or religious motives, and are intended to create fear and influence public opinion. Lone wolf terrorists may sympathize with and consider themselves part of larger groups, but they are usually not active participants." Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  It would have been helpful if you said all of these good points when the discussion first started. X-Editor (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

RS don't consider this incident of great signficance to the topic, but it does get mention. For example, the ADL website in its article on antifa says, the extreme right has "murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there has been only one suspected antifa-related murder."[5] I would expect to see greater coverage in rs before giving it greater coverage in this article. The rs of course does not have to be the ADL. TFD (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

To pile on, this doesn't appear to merit mention in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Support the consensus well articulated by Aquillion that this would need to be mentioned much more in strong sources about antifa before we include it in the lead. If it goes in to lead, needs to be very concise and not misleading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to cosign several of the points above; this may be (as in I'll allow for it, but don't say it must) be significant enough for a brief mention in the body of the article, but it is not a significant enough part of the full story of the antifa movement to merit prominent space in the lead. --Jayron32 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Lots of good points already, but I just want to stress that the killing of Danielson was never legally determined to be “murder”, as the suspect claimed self-defense and was killed before he could be tried. There is no reason for it to go in the lede anyway, but just wanted to make sure that point was included in this dicussion.VibrantThumpcake (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples of far-right extremists

@BrigadierG: I think the parenthetical "such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists" you removed here is worth keeping in some form. As recent and ongoing discussions around some politicians' biographies suggests, there's room for a good deal of disagreement surrounding precisely who is or isn't part of the far right. As such, specifying that antifa targets are largely people well outside of the political mainstream, rather than those who might be considered far-right but who occupy a less marginal position, seems useful and informative. I'd be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Civil rights organisations

@X-Editor: While, as you note here, the source does indeed say "most," there's a difference between "most groups" and "most established groups" that gets missed in your version. If only a minority of groups are established groups, then a majority of established groups is still a minority of groups. As such, we can safely say "some" but we're potentially misrepresenting the source if we say "most". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is based entirely on original research. We go with what RS say, and ADL says most organizations. X-Editor (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you that determining the meanings of these common words didn't require any research on my part. Maybe an example would help: if a source says "most American men are tall," we can't use that source to say "most men are tall", although it does make a similar claim and does say "most" and "men". The latter claim could be true, but it doesn't follow from the first. In this case, the "most groups" claim is plausible, but not what the source says. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevant recent coverage

• Levinson, Jonathan (October 27, 2022). "Newly un-redacted report shows how feds politicized response to 2020 Portland protests". Oregon Public Broadcasting.
• Cameron, Dell (November 5, 2022). "Homeland Security Admits It Tried to Manufacture Fake Terrorists for Trump". Gizmodo.

Should these reports be incorporated into this article? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Capitol Attack

Should the line "In posts on Parler, a social networking service used primarily by the far right" include the word "allegedly" before "used" or should there be a citation to support that claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.137.1.10 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I've removed that clause. I'd say it's generally acceptable to include a brief uncontroversial summary without a source, but it should typically mirror the wording used in the relevant article (in this case Parler), and in this case doesn't really seem necessary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Article on antifa and Twitter

This recent study may be of use for this article:

• Merrill, Samuel; Copsey, Nigel (2022). "Retweet solidarity: transatlantic Twitter connectivity between militant antifascists in the USA and UK". Social Movement Studies. doi:10.1080/14742837.2022.2142547.

– Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

current Antifa violence

Use of the word Nazi twice in the OP is twice too many. Not going anywhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have found information online that there are people associated with Antifa that are calling for violence against Elon Musick claiming he is a fascist for shutting down twitter accounts associated with antifa and calls for violence. things like this have been shared, https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1596067914201051137?s=20&t=SDVFQ07bR1JznkqvHKrIug and antifa calling for violence, https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1596272845138825217?s=20&t=SDVFQ07bR1JznkqvHKrIug there are other pictures from the internet of posts where people call for the burning down of Tesla dealerships due to Twitter removing accounts. this does not seem anti-fascist to me, this seems very fascist. it was what the Nazi brown shirts did in Munich in the 1920-1930s, during the beer hall riots which is where the Nazis got their power Freespeech1776 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC) maybe we can take a look at that if any reliable sources report it soibangla (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Second the motion. We certainly can't use a couple of Twitter claims about "people associated with Antifa" from Andy Ngo, of all people. "Ngo's coverage of antifa and Muslims has been controversial, and the accuracy and credibility of his reporting have been disputed by other journalists. He has been frequently accused of sharing misleading or selective material[10][11][12] and described as a provocateur.[13][14]" -- MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC) I read this Twitter thread earlier today about a different right winger pushing Ngo's claims that Antifa is going to commit arson against Tesla facilities, when in fact they're calling for nonviolent protests. Ngo is not credible. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

San Diego DA conspiracy case

This is still a developing story but USA Todaydescribed it with "a criminal case emerged, one that now stands to have an impact far beyond San Diego. Experts say it could be a landmark prosecution that changes how American law enforcement tackles the much-misunderstood movement known as Antifa." 11 have been indicted by a Grand Jury and the developments should be added to the article.

San Diego Union - Tribune: Experts say San Diego case likely first to use conspiracy charges against antifa

Los Angeles Times Alleged ‘Antifa supporter’ sentenced to prison for violence at San Diego pro-Trump rally Fix&Support (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say we should include this if or when experts start saying it is a landmark case that changes how law enforcement engage with antifa, not that it could be. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and in any case there’s no reason not to wait. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Claim that most antifa protests are non violent

Is that correct? Citation is given to left wing news outlets. 45.124.5.17 (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. And those aren't "left wing news outlets", they just aren't right wing outlets. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of a cited source

Unproductive thread that has been going on too long

The line "Historian Mark Bray, who has studied the antifa movement[...]" presents Mark Bray as some sort of neutral historian. Visiting his Wikipedia page clearly shows that this isn't the case, as the book is essentially a guide on how to be antifascist. Something like "Mark Bray, a historian and proponent of antifascism[...]" or something along those lines, as currently it hides his political bias. 97.121.153.33 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Are you claiming that being pro-fascist is what we seek? I tend to trust historians who are against fascism. Heck, I trust all people who oppose fascism better than those who support it. --Jayron32 18:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC) No. I'm just saying that the wording currently makes it seem like he's neutral. He's not neutral. If you want a politicized article then by all means, have it. Perustaja (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC) What is your evidence that Bray is not neutral? --Jayron32 12:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Of course there is no intent to be pro-fascist, just as there is no intent to be anti-fascist (which this article definitely falls towards currently). The article should be neutral, while your initial reply very clearly shows you want it to be non-neutral. Surprising coming from an admin. Go to his website, read his quotes, but to be honest there's no point further speaking to you. We have different goals and you want the article to be self-serving. I'm glad the rest of this website is largely not like this article. Perustaja (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC) The neutral position is that "Fascism is bad". --Jayron32 13:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Jayron32 The neutral position is that "Fascism is bad". I do not know you so I do not know whether you are being intentionally ironic. In the service of others who may be as dense as myself, I would note that having an opinion on a subject (that it's bad) is the opposite of neutrality. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Does whether he is neutral matter? Whether he's reliable and noteworthy is what's important, and whether we report it neutrally. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Yes, because what he is saying in this article is not entirely objective. If he was presenting empirical, statistical data then it would not matter. However, this article is full of quotes of him when he is a self-described anti-fascist. It's very clear he wants to put them in a good light as opposed to presenting a more balanced view of them, because he is one. It's very easy to differentiate between which quotes from him are objective and which are him excusing hateful conduct, which tarnishes the article. e.g. "Dartmouth College historian Mark Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, credits Anti-Racist Action (ARA) as the precursor of modern antifa groups in the United States." Very easy and objective. This needs no form of disclaimer. However, as examples "Historian Mark Bray, who has studied the antifa movement, stated that "[g]iven the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions." He has not merely studied the movement. He is a part of it and is self-described as such on his website. Why is someone who is very clearly having their opinion expressed here as a part of public reaction also being quoted for objective information? The conflict of interest is pretty obvious. "According to Bray, while "confident that some members of antifa groups have participated in a variety of forms of resistance" during the protests, it is "impossible to ascertain the exact number of people who belong to antifa groups."" Note the language of "resistance" instead of illegal, violent, hateful, etc. There are more but I won't make this any longer. In quotes like the above 2, it is very obvious that his language is non-neutral and he is in favor of the movement. As such, his quotes should have a disclaimer stating that he is at the very least adjacent to the group and in favor of its tactics. For instance, should we take quotations from a fascist author that are very clearly subjective, add them to a neo-fascist group, and then present him as a neutral historian? Honestly, most of his quotes belong under public opinion with disclaimers, because what he has written has merit, but it is clearly subjective, opinionated, and it skews the message and tone of the article away from "what is antifa?" to "here is how antifa really isn't that bad, in fact for each bad thing they've done hear what Bray has to say to excuse it" which I have never seen on another article on this site. Perustaja (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC) I think historians rarely provide (only) empirical, statistical information. Several (most?) of uses of uses of Bray here are attributed. His book has an article, wikilinked the first time he's mentioned, which describes the book as partisan. All of the other scholars and commentators cited here have their own views, and we don't give "disclaimers". The only example you've given of anything he says which you think might be wrong is the use of the word "resistance", but the alternatives you propose ("illegal, violent, hateful") are extremely non-neutral and generally considered words to watch here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) It is also very telling that my initial suggestion, which was very reasonable given the quotations, was met with "do you want us to make it pro-fascist?". Which really tells how rotten to the core the handling of this article is to be honest. No real discussion of objectivity, just immediate reaction. BobFromBrockley actually started a serious discussion on it. Perustaja (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Starting a "serious discussion" on this smacks of false equivalence. The 'Neutral' in WP:NPOV doesn't mean we presume that both sides must be treated equally, nor that we should insult readers intelligence by over-stating obvious points. An academic who opposes fascism doesn't have a "conflict of interest" just as a doctor who opposes cancer doesn't have a 'conflict of interest' when debunking smoking lobbyists. It is not "reasonable" to subtly undermine the legitimacy of a source in the way you've proposed, and neither is it impartial just because it is presented as such. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Per Grayfell, these kind of sealioning-type arguments are growing wearisome. Fascism is a harmful philosophy. The neutral position is that it is bad for humanity. "I just want the article to be neutral" is not what is being argued here. What the OP is doing here is a form of denialism, claiming that fascism is some harmless thing, and that people who oppose it are somehow under suspicion because they do so. To the contrary, I would hold anyone under suspicion who held any position that didn't see fascism as a harmful philosophy. --Jayron32 13:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry is this article about anti-fascism? No, it's about Antifa as an organization. Your perspective is flawed. Your logic is also flawed because I could replace "fascism" with whatever I have deemed to be bad, and go argue that other articles on this site should present those things as bad, because they are objectively bad. Perustaja (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC) It is not undermining a source to present it as it is. Bray is not a neutral party and the quotes of him are subjective. I never said both sides need to be treated equally, you seem to be strawmanning in some way. I simply said that a subjective quote defending violence should have a disclaimer. Or should I go to the fascism article and put quotes from neo-fascist authors along the lines of "fascist protestors may have been violent, but these actions stem from injustices" etc. it slants the tone of the article. Again, the article heavily reads like "how antifa isn't that bad" and not "what is antifa and what do they stand for". Bray's quotes are filled with unnecessary political commentary. Perustaja (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Bray's quotes are already sourced and attributed to Bray, and your hypothetical about neo-fascist authors is about as clear-cut an example of false equivalence as I could imagine. One irony here is that the article on fascism does cite at least one fringe sympathetic academic, A. James Gregor, multiple times for multiple points, without any in-body attribution. To bend over backwards to add even more distancing language to quotes from Bray would be asking for special treatment of this article without any coherent justification. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) From Wikipedia's "Fascism" article, here is A. James Gregor: "Attempts [of Mussolini's Fascist movement] to hold mass meetings were ineffective and the organization was regularly harassed by government authorities and socialists." That is as pro-Fascist as it gets. From Wikipedia's "Antifa" article, here is Bray: "[The] vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists." Here is Bray again: "[g]iven the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions." Do you still think there is an equivalence? Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Similar to Harry, I was unable to find any quote along the lines of Bray's quotes in this article. And, if there were, I would also disagree with those. I think the point stands and is valid still. Bray's quotes on his opinions should be left out of anything other than the public opinion section, and given a disclaimer. Perustaja (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Historically, "antifascism" was often used as a mask for pro-Communism, which is just as bad as being pro-Fascism. Thus, historian being against fascism does not make him reliable or trustworthy. So if Mark Bray supports Antifa, at the very least that should be noted in the article.Picard578 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Fascism being bad isn’t the issue here, the issue is that Mark Bray is not simply an objective third party reporting on antifa, but an activist and supporter of their cause, so this should be taken into consideration and made clear when he is quoted in them. This included a controversial appearance of his on Meet the Press back in 2017 where he endorsed the more violent actions of antifa. In response, the the President of Dartmouth College made a public statement denouncing his views after the college received a number of concerned calls and letters since they viewed Mark as speaking for the college itself https://president.dartmouth.edu/news/2017/08/statement-faculty-letter-concerning-mark-bray Digital Herodotus (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Right. And I don't understand @Jayron32 and his POV here. I never, ever said that the article should be neutral for neutral sake. What I did say was that, a comment defending violent political actions should probably have a disclaimer. This isn't talking about the Warsaw Uprising. These are about politically charged people fighting on the streets. Perustaja (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC) @Digital Herodotus@Seconded. @Jayron32 asks what evidence there is that Mark Bray is not neutral. Perhaps that he published a book, Antifa, The Anti-Fascist Handbook, which begins with the epigraph, "Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be destroyed!” However, Jayron32 earlier defined neutrality as believing that "fascism is bad," which is literally the opposite of the definition of neutrality. That is why it is hard for you to understand his POV: he uses words to mean their opposites. Considering this handicap, we must be easy on him. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC) I'm still unclear which specific Bray mentions in the current article are considered problematic and what alternative is being proposed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Sure. I would simply suggest that anywhere the words "historian Mark Bray" appear, they should be changed to "Antifa member Mark Bray." He wrote a book that purports to be the handbook for the movement he is advocating. Describing him as a historian alone is equivalent to quoting the Manifesto and describing Marx as a historian alone. It is true that both men are historians, but both men are also ideological polemicists, and it is as ideological polemicists that they are notable, not as historians. This should be clear when looking through the works by Bray that are used as sources in this article. Take this interview: MATTILDA BERNSTEIN SYCAMORE: In Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, you’re not just presenting a historian’s view, but advocating for militant anti-fascism — including the use of force when necessary — to challenge white supremacist violence in this country. While a book like this might be expected to circulate on the radical left, it’s extremely rare to see such an unabashed radical stance in mainstream media. What do you think has made this possible? MARK BRAY: [...] Certainly, it’s unusual for a book that explicates and supports a politics of direct action beyond the state or the police to make it onto best-seller lists. Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it’s clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions. (part of the above quote is used in the Wikipedia article) The current source refers to him as an advocate for Antifa, yet this does not appear in the text of Wikipedia's article. The Washington Post praises Mark Bray's work The Anti-Fascist Handbook for "Its justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists." The work is clearly more than a history, something evident when paging through it, or even just looking at the title: it is more polemical than historical in nature, and it seems clear to me that Bray does not consider himself separate from Antifa, though if someone can find evidence to the contrary, I will be happy to hear it. As such, it is wrong to quote him as if he is describing the movement from the outside. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text [...] It should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." I do not disagree that Bray is a valuable source; but I think it should be clear that when he is describing Antifa, he is describing a movement that he is himself of. I have been warned previously against using one Wikipedia article as an example for how another should be written, but as this has been done previously by @Grayfell, and I have been shown no explicit rule against it, and as I think I have given ample reason why the state of the article should be changed, I will bite the bait: the Alt-right article quotes Greg Johnson (white nationalist) a handful of times; he is described as an "alt-rightist" twice, an "alt-right ideologue" once, and as a publisher. I think this is fair, because it is factual. He is never referred to as a professor of philosophy, or a philosopher, although Bray is referred to as a historian, but that's the editors' at Alt-Right's problem. In similar fashion, I think Bray should be identified as an antifa member, an antifa supporter, or as an antifa ideologue, anywhere in which "historian" currently appears. Harry Sibelius (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Sorry, you lost me at "antifa membership". Antifa is not an organization. It doesn't have dues or maintain rolls or have official meetings or anything like that. --Jayron32 12:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC) @Jayron32Well, then you will definitely have to make serious edits to the article, as the word "member" is used 10x to describe members of antifa, including by Mark Bray. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC) That doesn't change anything. There are members of Antifa groups, sure, and I fixed some text to make it clear that the quotes were coming from a member of a group speaking only for that group. What sources do you have for claiming that Antifa is an organised group? Doug Weller talk 12:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC) @Doug WellerI don't think you did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all you seemed to have changed was: "According to one group member, antifa's identification research on whether an individual or group is [...]" to "According to a member of the NYC chapter of Antifa, their group's identification research on whether an individual or group is [...]" We were discussing Mark Bray. It was already clear that the individual was a member of Antifa before your change. The only substantive difference is the addition of the detail that the Antifa chapter is in New York City. There are many organised Antifa groups. Aside from there being many Antifa groups, there are many people who are not official members of these groups, but ally themselves with the Antifa cause, both ideologically and through their actions, and refer to themselves as Antifa. I think you and everyone else commenting here knows this, and would concede it under different circumstances, but are attempting to make some kind of issue out of the fact that these many groups are not part of one, single, overarching group called Antifa, which, as far as I am concerned, no one here suggested. You are claiming that one has to be an official member of an Antifa group to be considered Antifa. The sources used in this article do not suggest that one has to be an official member of any literal group to be considered a member of that group ideologically, at least if one is a right-winger; is this logic, which seems to me fairly self-explanatory, only applicable to the right, and not the left? If so, why? Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC) I was just dealing with your mention of the use of the word 'members' in the article. As for your last paragraph, I'm saying to be called a member you need to belong to a group. Antifa is not a group, so I don't understand your point. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC) You seem to be going off on a tangent, making it difficult to determine what you actually want. (The addition of is this logic [...] only applicable to the right, and not the left? If so, why? also smacks of WP:RGW, which is just inflaming matters.) Maybe start a new section with your proposed changes and the citations to back them, then we can refocus and move forward. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

CSIS's recent report links antifa with "far-left" and violence

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.

---

Bad title I know. I would say this scared me since CSIS previously stated that antifa made less violent attack. Is it worth changing some tone or wording according to it? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 00:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In context, the source groups antifa with all other far left actors. Per the source, far left actors were more likely to use violence (by a broad definition that includes property damage) in 2021 than in previous years. Predictably, these acts were much less likely to be fatal, or to use lethal weapons (which means guns), than those from the far-right. Per the source, only one far-left attack in 2021 was fatal, and that attack was tied to Black Nationalist groups, and since anarchism and nationalism are opposed, Black Nationalist groups are not typically grouped with antifa by analysts. (The source is about 2021, but the first two examples of violence are from 2022 and 2020.) The authors' use of a single incident to try and plot a trend strikes me as very sloppy.

Strangely, the source treats "ethnonationalist" groups as separate from both far-left and far right, while also specifically describing white nationalism as far-right. But they apparently don't include the Black Nationalist attack as part of this ethnonationalist group. Why? Instead they treat it as far-left.

Despite issues like this, the source could be useful, but it should not be over-stated to support information it doesn't directly support. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not an ideal source because, while it talks about anti-fascist groups generally and Rose City Antifa specifically, neither of these is precisely the subject of this article. Though they're probably talking about the same groups and individuals we talk about in this article, the language used leaves open the possibility they're discussing anti-fascist groups that wouldn't be considered antifa groups. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Considering antifa is a broad group which does include far-left memebers including communist and anarchist who fly communist, soviet, Maoist ect flags and symbols, I don’t think it’s at all far fetched to at the very least label them “far-left” Digital Herodotus (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Includes" but doesn't "consist of". It also includes people who are not far-left. So "includes" is by no means a valid reason to call the group far-left. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The description should read something along the lines of “leftist to far leftist” then because from the description, it makes it sound like this is some left of center protest group and not a group of communist and anarchist who riot and have been involved with shooting incidents, assault, terrorism charges and other serious crimes and anti social behavior. Digital Herodotus (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What sources do you have that can be used to label the antifa movement as "leftist to far leftist"? We will want to be able to attribute that label, right? King keudo (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Digital Herodotus when were they charged with terrorism? What was the outcome? Doug Weller talk 10:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you not consider communism and anarchism far left? Digital Herodotus (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, here is an article from the Counter Exfremist Project on Far-Left violence which specifically named antifa along with other factions, groups like Red Neck Revolt and the John Brown Gun Club

https://www.counterextremism.com/content/far-left-extremist-groups-united-states Digital Herodotus (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The article you provided doesn't call antifa "leftist to far left" or designate them as terrorists. Also, anarchism, communism, whatever the case may be, what we "consider" these ideologies to be doesn't matter, what matters is what the reliable sources say about antifa, and what can be verified. The article you provided doesn't call antifa "leftist to far left". The article uses the term far-left as a broad term to encompass protestors and general groups that embrace a left-wing ideological stance. It also doesn't label antifa as terrorists, and does state "There are multiple groups in the United States that affiliate with the Antifa ideology, but they have no formal organizational relationship, formal leadership structure, or shared tactical approach" which belies the idea that the article is making any of those claims about the antifa movement. King keudo (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

“The president’s desire to label Antifa a terrorist organization highlighted the problematic nature of modern far-left groups in the United States, which are largely less organized than their predecessors”

I also never called for Antifa to be called terrorist now, just that they be called far leftist for their inclusion of communist and anarchist. Digital Herodotus (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

So no charge, just another accusation by someone with a reputation of making wild accusations. We need sources, the fact that some anarchists participate doesn’t make the movement far left. And unless you know which communist party your communists belong to, you can’t even call them far left. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This doesn’t make sense, someone does need to belong to an official political party to be a far leftist. I was asked for a source for the far left claim and I provided one. I don’t appreciate the strawman argument with the “terrorist” line, something I never called for, but I will assume this was just an honest mistake. Digital Herodotus (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You said Terrorism charges but didn’t back that up. Now you are saying what? You have sources for far leftists that don’t belong to any party but then where does “communists” come in? I’m confused. I do know that not all communists are far left. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

“I do know not all communist are far left” Do you believe not all Nazis are far right as well? Digital Herodotus (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

How do define far left? Doug Weller talk 17:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Again how do you define far left? Doug Weller talk 21:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

“Antifa is a contraction of the phrase “anti-fascist.” It refers to a decentralized network of far-left militants that oppose what they believe are fascist, racist, or otherwise right-wing extremists”

https://www.csis.org/analysis/who-are-antifa-and-are-they-threat Digital Herodotus (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Here’s another “Most antifa adherents today come from the anarchist movement or from the far left” -ADL https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/who-are-antifa

I can find some more references to antifa being far left if you guys would like. Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

When the ADL wrote “today” it was 2017. See their glossary definition [https://extremismterms.adl.org/glossary/antifa?_gl=1*1aay3dw*_ga*MzY3MzM2NjE0LjE2NzQ0MjMzNDA.*_ga_S9QB0F2PB5*MTY3NDQyMzM0MC4xLjEuMTY3NDQyMzM1MC4wLjAuMA..] “ A decentralized, leaderless movement composed of loose collections of groups, networks and individuals who are vigorously opposed to fascism, and focused on countering right-wing extremists both online and on the ground. While some antifa adherents have engaged in violence or vandalism at rallies and events, this is not the norm, despite disinformation campaigns that suggest otherwise..” Doug Weller talk 21:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok well I have posted two sources from the ADL and CSIS both explicitly referring to antifa as far left. Do you find these sources unacceptable and if so why? You aren’t really giving a good reason for not including this information into the article. Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

“Short for "anti-fascists," antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left-leaning movements that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.”-PBS https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-is-antifa-a-look-at-the-movement-trump-is-blaming-for-violence-at-protests

Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What’s wrong with the second paragraph? Are you really arguing that everyone who takes part in Antifa demonstrations is far left?

Goodnight. Doug Weller talk 22:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

“ Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform.”-CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html Digital Herodotus (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to recap, CNN, PBS, the ADL, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Counter Extremism Project have all referred to antifa as “far left” in all the sources I provided. Does anyone have any real reason as to why the article shouldn’t be edited to read something along the lines of “Antifa is a left to far left anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement in the United States.”

I don’t see how this is at all an unfair characterization. Digital Herodotus (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

One more, here is an article by Michael Kenney, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, and Colin Clarke, an extremism researcher at the Soufan Center, a nonpartisan research group. This is often referenced by other news organization in their reports on antifa.

This is how they describe the ideology behind the antifa movement “ Despite the small size of the Antifa movement, its members do not follow a single ideology. Anti-fascists express political beliefs commonly associated with the far-left end of the political spectrum. Such beliefs include different varieties of anarchism, communism, and socialism.”

http://warontherocks.com/2020/06/what-antifa-is-what-it-isnt-and-why-it-matters/

Digital Herodotus (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you justify using an old statement by the ADL instead of its definition in their current glossary? Doug Weller talk 09:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

To help cover some of what you're discussing here, I want to be sure to point out the FAQ at the top of the talk page, but also here where Q1 covers previous conversations about this very issue, just in case you have not had the chance to review it before. I hope it helps! King keudo (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

ADL referring to the group as far left in one article in a detailed article to describe antifa and then not using it in a brief description does not invalidate the the use of it. This is a very poor excuse, also, what about all the other sources, do you need me to find more? Again, does anyone have any real reason why this shouldn’t be included in the article? Digital Herodotus (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the previous objections aren't "real reasons"? Because so far, your suggestions have not been convincing to anyone else reading this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I was asked for a source that referred to antifa as far left, I provided multiple ones, and I haven’t heard any reason as to why those sources aren’t acceptable. Wikipedias isn’t governed by the personal views of editors, but a set of rules and practices and I was asking if there were any of those that these sources don’t gel with. Digital Herodotus (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I proposed describing antifa as “left to far left”, a more than fair concession, and was asked by King keudo to provide some sources that described antifa as far left. I provided multiple ones from CNN, PBS, the ADL ect. all describing antifa as far left. Now I’m asking, is there any violation against wikipedias terms and rules of editing that this would violate? Not the personal views and opinions of certain editors. Digital Herodotus (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You've been given reasons why those sources aren't acceptable. The fact you reject those reasons does not mean those reasons weren't given.

The key violation of the rules would be WP:RSCONTEXT. Each case you've provided uses the term "far-left" in a throwaway manner or in a broad "left to far-left" all-inclusive manner, which precludes simply declaring all of antifa "far-left." It does not provide enough context to declare "antifa is far-left" as a blanket statement.

Your original argument was: Considering antifa is a broad group which does include far-left memebers including communist and anarchist who fly communist, soviet, Maoist ect flags and symbols, I don’t think it’s at all far fetched to at the very least label them “far-left”

In other words, you are seeking to label the entire movement as "far-left," while the cites you've provided either point out that the far-left is a subset of the movement, or outdated sources that have been later corrected (ie. the ADL source).

Finally, Wikipedia operates on consensus, ie. the personal views and opinions of certain editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t been given reason, one person said that the ADL source doesn’t count because they pointed to another article by the ADL that didn’t use that particular wording, this does not invalidate the use by the ADL in anyway. Even if you don’t want to use the ADL source at all, there is still the CNN, PBS, CSIS, as well as the article from “War on the Rocks” I posted by two experts on the matter who are regularly quoted in reports on antifa.

Again, I am calling for antifa to be referred to as “left to far left” which I have stated multiple times now.

Also, consensus is not a simple count of votes, it’s a means to figure out if a particular edit violates rules of Wikipedia.

“In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy.” - wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT

And

“Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.”-wikipedia:DETCON

Once again, is there a particular rule or standard of Wikipedia editing that my suggested change would violate? Personal opinions of editors are not valid reasons, I’m checking to make sure I am not overlooking a certain rule. Digital Herodotus (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t been given reason

That is objectively false. You've been presented numerous reasons, but you reject them. That and Wikilawyering isn't going to get you any results. You're trying to lecture someone who has been editing since 2006 on how Wikipedia's consensus model works. I suggest reconsidering that tactic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I have missed the specific reason you have given me for why my sources are not acceptable for describing antifa as “left to far left” could you please repeat them? You being an editor here is also not a real argument or reason here either. Digital Herodotus (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that you already admitted that the far left was a subset of antifa, once again, why would you be opposed to labeling antifa as “left to far left”? Digital Herodotus (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the argument, which is your sources are not calling antifa far-left. They are pointing out that individuals who lay claim to the antifa movement can include people who fall under the far-left designation. These sources do not say "antifa is far-left". That is significant among reliable sources, and so it's significant here. That being said, I am still relatively new to editing, so I might be missing something regarding contextual observations and interpretations, but I spent my first 6 months or so doing nothing but reading talk pages and trying to understand how editing policies are put into work, and this looks like an original research or interpretation by an editor, not supported by sources. My apologies if I am the one missing something. King keudo (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HandThatFeeds

[[6]]

You were the one who brought up the consensus page, I was simply reminding you, or pointing out if you didn’t know, that consensus is not based around simply the most people who agree get the final decision, but as a way to better determine if a edit violates certain rules.

Digital Herodotus (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I brought up the FAQ because it covers the exact same arguments you're attempting to use. Consensus has been found among editors, and part of changing consensus if bringing in new information and arguments that properly address the argument being made, and are represented in reliable sources by their weight - reliable sources are not calling the antifa movement far-left, and none of the sources you gave call antifa "far left". They all say antifa can have far left individuals in it; not that 'antifa' is far left. King keudo (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to teach someone who's been here for nearly two decades how consensus works. Bad look on your part. Also, why are you linking to my user page and WP:NPA? Neither of those are relevant here.

I do not see a compelling argument for including "left to far-left" in the article. Just labeling them as "left" is sufficient and supported by the sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

“left, and none of the sources you gave call antifa "far left".

This is factually not true. Please read through my post again, because I provided the exact sentence or paragraph of each source that explicitly calls antifa far left. If you wish I can compile them into one post to make it easier to read. Also, maybe the link you provided to the Q&A is broke or I am doing something wrong, because when I clicked on it it just brought me right back to this talk page. Digital Herodotus (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ is at the top of this page, and contains links to previous debates about this topic & why "far-left" has been rejected each time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds your accused me a wikilawyering for some reason, after you were the one that brought up the consensus page. How am I doing that exactly? Digital Herodotus (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you'd read that page you'd know the answer. You are repeatedly demanding others adhere to your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules, while showing no actual understanding of them yourself. You then reject what experienced editors are patiently explaining to you, and still demand to know what rules your suggestions violate. That is classic Wikilawyering, attempting to declare the rules agree with you and everyone else is wrong.

Frankly, at this point, my WP:AGF is running out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Your sources:

"Contrary to how it is often portrayed in the media, Antifa — short for anti-fascist — is not a single organization." "Despite the small size of the Antifa movement, its members do not follow a single ideology" https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/what-antifa-is-what-it-isnt-and-why-it-matters/

Well, we can't call them all far-left now, because this source you used literally says members don't follow a single ideology.

"Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left – often the far left – but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."

I mean, while 'lean left' is consistent with left-wing, "often far left" is a weaselly way of saying these individuals can be included. https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

That's just two of your sources. These sources do not call antifa "far left" - they include quotes from politically charged individuals who call antifa that, but antifa is not being called that by reliable sources. For the point, too, just because one editor is pushing a specific viewpoint does not mean consensus has been overturned or changed. King keudo (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The warontherocks full quote, which you conveniently left out is “Despite the small size of the Antifa movement, its members do not follow a single ideology. Anti-fascists express political beliefs commonly associated with the far-left end of the political spectrum. Such beliefs include different varieties of anarchism, communism, and socialism. Historically, anti-fascism has been associated with the larger anarchist movement.”

Also, accusing the CNN source of being Weasley is your personal opinion and not at all a valid reason to not include it. This discussion is entering into a sphere where I think we should seek a mediator is because instead of attempting to reach a consensus, it appears to me that you are simply looking for excuses not to allow this information into the article for purely ideological reasons. I believe that is the best step forward. Digital Herodotus (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't "conveniently" leave anything out. You yourself just quoted "its members do not follow a single ideology" and "Such beliefs include different varieties of anarchism, communism, and socialism" You cannot deiced unilaterally that this means all of the antifa movement is far-left. I have no further ways of trying to discuss this with you, I'm sorry. The sources you're giving simply do not say what you want them to say. I am not seeing your arguments born out in the sources you've given, without interpretation and synthesis. King keudo (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This editor has made numerous accusations such as the above. Warned before about not showing good faith. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have states over and over again that I’m not calling for antifa to be described as simply only far left but as “left to far left” and my sources do explicitly back this up. You have not given a valid reason, you quoted one article and deliberately left out the part that used far left, and then you claimed that the CNN article was “weasely” You are making up excuses now.

This has gone beyond the point of good faith discussion. I will seek third party mediation and arbitration as well if it comes to it. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

Hi, I would like to change the following:

However, the ADL stated that "it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose", noting that "White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms" and have been responsible for hundreds of murders in the United States while "there have not been any known antifa-related murders."[15] In 2020, the ADL noted that while there have been hundreds of murders by far-right groups in the last few decades, there has only been one suspected antifa-related murder.[129]

To the following:

However, the ADL stated that "it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose", claiming that "White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms" and have been responsible for hundreds of murders in the United States while "there have not been any known antifa-related murders."[15] In 2020, the ADL admitted that here had been one suspected antifa-related murder.[129]

The use of "note" in the first sentence suggests that the claim of no murders committed by antifa is an uncontested, observable fact, but the second sentence clearly contradicts this claim, conceding that there may have been one murder. Clearly both cannot be true. Thus, if you are using the ADL as a source on the subject, it must be made clear that the ADL is stating an opinion, not a fact, since the ADL is in disagreement with itself on the nature of this fact.

In addition, the second sentence, as it is, reiterates claims from the first sentence, very redundantly: "[White supremacists] have been responsible for hundreds of murders in the United States ..." is followed in the next sentence by "There have been hundreds of murders by far-right groups ..." Why is it necessary to state the same claim, from the same source, twice, in the same paragraph? Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read MOS:WTW. "Claiming" and "admitted" are both words to watch. To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability. On the other hand, "noting", although more neutral, is also a word to watch, as it implies we agree with it. I will simply change the "noting" to "adding". The apparent contradiction is because the first statement is earlier, so this can be fixed by simply adding a date. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, regarding "note" v.s. "claim." I would still ask: why not simply remove the earlier statement by the ADL in favour of the later statement? Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

BecUse the first statement is still basically accurate. Of course we need something about there being one related murder. “Admitted” isn’t anywhere near what they did, Doug Weller talk 10:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

long off-topic argument about whether “antifa” has murdered anyone

A comment - Antifa has not murdered anyone. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC) That's a very specious claim, and I think you can only hope to justify it by playing semantic games. The article in question states, with sources, that Aaron Danielson's murderer identified as Antifa. Are you going to claim that the killer did not really count as Antifa, because he is not known to be a member of a specific Antifa organization? Do you also claim that Dylann Roof's victims don't count as victims of neo-Nazism, because he was not a member of any neo-Nazi group? Many, many Wikipedia pages will need to be changed, if this is the case. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC) You may be conflating antifa, describing a recent, narrow movement, with anti-facism, a very broad movement starting in the 1920s, and by comparison, neo-Nazism, a post WWII movement. And, self-identification is of little value in an encyclopedia. Murder is a legal term and we must be careful with its usage. Has antifa itself (if there is any self) been convicted of murder? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC) @Objective3000I am not sure at all what point you are trying to make. I am not referring to the German Antifa from the 1920s. Aaron Danielson was killed in 2020, in the United States. The Wikipedia article makes it clear that "Antifa" refers to a broad movement, made up of organized groups as well as individuals. I don't know how you can pretend to not know this. You are making a very silly little straw-man, asking that I prove that a political organisation itself has been convicted of murder, which is not legally possible. You know that I am talking about an individual supporter of this movement, which is what this Wikipedia article states that Antifa is. Your claim that self-identification has little value to an encyclopedia is absurd; the sources used in this article disagree with you, the Wikipedia article as currently written disagrees with you, and this is not presupposed in any other article I have read on Wikipedia regarding political violence. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Please do not make statements like: “I don't know how you can pretend to not know this” and “You know that I am talking about “. And, self-identification is of little value against an organization whether or not you think such. Also, I said nothing about German antifa, which is a current movement that originated in the 1970s. If you are attempting to gain consensus, try another tactic. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC) @Objective3000Alright, but I still don't know what your point is. You seem to be quibbling about the difference between "anti-fascism", which you say is old, and "Antifa", which you say is new. Why? Harry Sibelius (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC) @Objective3000On the issue of self-identification, the sources currently used in the article contradict this. Are you suggesting they be removed? Harry Sibelius (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Reference #15 was published in 2017, so when it says To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders, it was entirely accurate because the killing of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl took place in 2020, three years later. Accordingly, there is no contradiction whatsoever between the two statements made years apart. Your suggested wording In 2020, the ADL admitted that here had been one suspected antifa-related murder is not neutral because the word "admitted" in this context implies that the ADL had to be cross-examined and persuaded to "admit" something. That is misleading. When they said in 2017 that no killings were associated with this group at that time, that was accurate at that time. And when they said in 2020 that one killing was associated with this group, that was also accurate at the time that was written. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC) @Cullen328Sure, but what's the point of relating the outdated claim? Why not just use ADL's most recent claim and delete reference to the old one?Harry Sibelius (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC) But that's not what you proposed, Harry Sibelius. Instead, you proposed non neutral wording implying that the ADL made a mistake that they had to correct. Perhaps you should make a new edit request. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC) @Cullen328Will do. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC) @Cullen328@Doug Weller By the way, I understand and grant your point regarding "admitted," and that the murder in question had not yet occurred at the time of the original statement, and hence could be misleading. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC) References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Likely no consensus, please get a consensus before requesting. Lemonaka (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Obvious Antifa vs Proud Boys Bias

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse to insert WP:FALSEBALANCE because Fox News said Antifa were the equivalent of commie Al Qaeda or something Dronebogus (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈænti(ˌ)fə/) is a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement in the United States. It consists of a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups that use both nonviolent direct action and violence to achieve their aims.[1][2][3] Most antifa political activism is nonviolent, involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing. The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States.[1][11][12] It has been called a street gang[13][14] and was designated as a terrorist group in Canada[15][16] and New Zealand. Why are Proud Boys declared a far right strictly violent street gang terrorist group, while ANTIFA is declared a highly decentralized left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement that is mostly non-violent? This page clearly paints ANTIFA in a positive light. In the first sentance, please change 'left wing' to 'far left' as antifa is very clearly a self identified FAR LEFT group. Please also remove the entire biased paragraph only mentioning the positive, or at least add a sentence about the MANY violent activities. 2601:243:702:4D50:3EFA:6492:1103:95FC (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC) "Why are Proud Boys declared a far right strictly violent street gang terrorist group" probably because, if that is the wording used, it is supported by the sources, as is the Antifa position. Antifa is a broad left wing conglomeration - there will be far left elements, but significantly more people that take part are your average run of the mill "liberal". In contrast Proud Boys are, by definition, specifically recruited into chapters for the organisations explicit goals. Koncorde (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Saying that the proud boys are a group that 'engages in political violence' while antifa 'use both non-violent direct action and violince to achieve their aims' clearly reflects a bias that can't be solely explained by the sources, as they both say the same thing, but in a way that downplays the violence of antifa. Portealmario (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Not to try and stifle any possible article improving discussions, but we try not to claim a precedent exists or that the way other articles are written determine how this article exists. We utilize reliable independent sources and how a consensus of reliable sources refer to a subject. Any issues with how the Proud Boys article is written or maintained should be discussed at Talk:Proud Boys, not here. The subject of this article, Antifa (United States) is described how reliable sources describe them , with weight given to the descriptions and word usage that is significantly covered and verifiable. You can use the in-line citations and the reference list at the bottom of the article to verify the information being utilized; if you come across any references that are broken or appear to be used incorrectly, bringing those up on the talk page helps to improve the article. To change how antifa is described in this article, reliable sources will need to be presented showing that most reliable sources are shifting to this perspective. Do you have any sources showing this shift? King keudo (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

Hi, I would like to change the following:

"According to the ADL, "most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive."[15] In 2017, the ADL argued that antifa's use of "violence plays into the 'victimhood' narrative of white supremacists and other right-wing extremists and can even be used for recruiting purposes."[15] However, that year the ADL stated that "it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose", adding that "White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms" and have been responsible for hundreds of murders in the United States while "there have not been any known antifa-related murders."[15] In 2020, the ADL said that while there have been hundreds of murders by far-right groups in the last few decades, there has only been one suspected antifa-related murder.[129]"

to:

"According to the ADL, "most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive."[15] In 2017, the ADL argued that antifa's use of "violence plays into the 'victimhood' narrative of white supremacists and other right-wing extremists and can even be used for recruiting purposes."[15] However, that year the ADL stated that "it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose", adding that "White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms [...]" [15] In 2020, the ADL said that while there have been hundreds of murders by far-right groups in the last few decades, there has only been one suspected antifa-related murder.[129]"

I don't think it is relevant that in 2017 the ADL believed that there had been no antifa-related murders, since more current information from the same source is already displayed on the page. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm alright with this change. However, just to be clear, it took me several minutes of comparison to figure out what you were actually changing. Might have been more helpful to just state which bit you wanted to remove from the paragraph, or highlight the change, or something.

This is how to {{Font color||yellow|highlight part of a sentence}}.

I'll apply that to your suggestion above, hopefully that's alright. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeedsSure, will do in the future. Thanks. Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

ADL source

To explain my recent edits, the ADL source cited throughout the article was archived in 2017, but has since been updated significantly. Here's a more recent archive from this month:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20230213095136/https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/who-are-antifa

The tone has pretty significantly shifted, and the newer page includes as the second key point: Persistent disinformation campaigns about antifa distort public perception of the movement.[7]

The older version of the ADL page is, frankly, weird enough that it's no great mystery why the ADL updated it.

Lacking a secondary source about this change, I don't think the article benefits from preserving the older content, so I have simply removed it. The new source should be evaluated on its own merits and cited accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The archived version is still cited as one of several sources in the "antifa targets" footnote. Should it be removed or updated there too? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about using Conor Friedersdorf as a source

His claims seem unique, so I'd say Wikipedia:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Undue seems fair to me. I would almost go so far as to call the article we cite fringe, possibly. He wants to grade antifa along the same lines and merits as the KKK, despite acknowledging how unrelated they are. King keudo (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Also agreed. Per #Major contradiction in definition I have removed some of this content. More work is likely needed. Grayfell (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Consensus here is clear so will delete the citations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Major contradiction in definition

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.

---

Part of the definition section reads: ""The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recommends that the label antifa should be limited to "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries" and not be misapplied to include all anti-fascist counter-protesters. Journalist Conor Friedersdorf makes a distinction between "self-described members of the group" and "anyone who shows up in the streets to protest against fascists", arguing that "Antifa and antifascism are no more synonymous than being a member of Black Lives Matter and believing that black lives matter"."

This is inconsistent with the article's first paragraph: the phrase "Most antifa political activism is nonviolent" ignores these fundamental definitions (the only definitions as applied in this article to the United States.) That only "some" combat far-right extremists, etc., needs to be supported by basic semantics; the term is not applied by the ADL et. al in this sense.

This article either requires better definitions, or fitting the lede to describe Antifa as violent (those who are non-violent are merely, as the ADL states, misapplied "anti-fascist counter-protestors.")

Mostly, I think the inconsistency is major in the descriptor of "Most antifa political activism is nonviolent" which clearly is not supported by any mentioned definition of antifa.

I suggest that this article, given the contradictions between reliable sources, gives weight to both interpretations;

Interpretation A): Antifa is mostly a non violent movement (as in the lede)

Interpretation B): Semantically speaking, antifa refers to only those seeking "physical confrontations"; i.e., violence (as in the definition section)

Weight to both interpretations = something along lines of: "Antifa has both been described as a movement which is mostly non-violent, and one described as a movement defined by "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries".

Ultimately, the term "antifa" itself needs to be semantically consistent. And, if there are multiple definitions from RS, the lede should give weight to them instead of definitive statements such as "non-violent." Zilch-nada (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, in favor of "B". Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There are at minimum two problems with this proposal.

Per #Not sure about using Conor Friedersdorf as a source, there isn't even consensus that his opinion should be cited at all.

Just as importantly, the current version of the ADL page says something very different from what it used to. Per the source as of February 13, 2023:

The label "antifa" is often misapplied to include all counter-protesters. Violence perpetrated by anarchists or other unrelated actors is often misattributed to antifa supporters, which makes it especially critical that the public, reporters and law enforcement understand how antifa and the militant element of the movement fit within the larger counter-protest efforts. Doing so allows law enforcement to focus their resources on the small minority of actors who engage in violence without curtailing the civil rights of individuals who want their voices to be heard. [8]

The most up-to-date version of that source is saying the precise opposite of what the older version was implying, and we have to go by reliable sources. To ignore that change and use an older, archived version of the website would be cherry-picking.

I have updated this particular use of the ADL source. Since Friedersdorf's comment no longer adds anything in this new context, and since there is disagreement that it belongs at all, I have removed it. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the sources being out-of-date / unreliable (I just looked at them from a perspective of consistency); removing these sources is removing Interpretation B as above, thus leaving us with interpretation A in the rest of the article; i.e., consistency.

But this article perhaps needs more of a semantic basis for this interpretation (of non-violence) in the definition section, or, at the very least, better definitions that do not contradict some fundamental points - as previously. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

An old linguistics professor of mine described semantics as the most frustrating branch of the field. All we can do, as Wikipedia editors, is go by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't really see why there's a contradiction between presenting one definition in Wikipedia's voice and attributing other views to the ADL and Friedersdorf, respectively. But it looks like it's now moot as neither are currently cited. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts @Grayfell @Harry Sibelius @Zilch-nada The old source uses the term "group", which is improper. From what I have read it is a decentralized movement of autonomous groups. If antifa is a movement a not an organization with a membership list and leadership some statements make no sense.

In this source for example "antifa" is an umbrella term for anti-fascist groups:

"Redneck Revolt is leftwing pro-gun club that claims basic knowledge of weaponry is necessary for self-defense and to confront the far right and fascists, bringing it under the wide umbrella of Antifa (anti-fascist) groups."

https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy/redneck-revolt

It seems clear that it is impossible, by the structure of what antifa is, to prevent the existence of violent or extremist factions. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2023 (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.

Dubious

The sentence beginning, "A majority of individuals involved are...", needs more sourcing. How was "majority" determined?

Does the cited source say this?

If so, what is the evidence cited by the source: A statistical poll? Boxes checked on registration forms? Speculation? MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There are seven sources cited directly at the end of the sentence which support the statement. It is clear you haven't even bothered checking the sources; so I'm not sure what you want anyone else to do. --Jayron32 17:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 Is there a reason why "anti-government" is replaced with "anti-authoritarian"?

I also did not understand the relationship between destroying other people's property and challenging the police: "sometimes, law enforcement,[2] with tactics including digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence and property damage."

For example, the source says:

"The group is known for causing damage to property during protests. In Berkeley, black-clad protesters wearing masks threw Molotov cocktails and smashed windows at the student union center where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.

Crow, who was involved with Antifa for almost 30 years, said members use violence as a means of self-defense and they believe property destruction does not equate to violence"

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

This passage should be rewritten: "Some who identify as antifa also combat far-right extremists (such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists) and, at times, law enforcement, with tactics including digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."

From the way it is written it sounds like they damage police property, but that is not what the sources say. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Will you please stop replying to months-old, dead conversations? Either start a new section or just move on instead of beating a dead horse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start new discussion. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)