Jump to content

Talk:Antifa (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Watchman21 (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 5 June 2020 (→‎"against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Summary of lead sentence sources on antifa political affiliation

I think it may be useful at this stage to take stock of what our lede sources state regarding the political affiliaton of antifa.

This should set the WP basis for further edits to the section in case discrepancies arise.

  1. Mic: "militant elements of the left"
  2. WaPo: "far-left activists"
  3. NBC: No statement on political leaning
  4. Kiro 7: No statement on political leaning
  5. Kansas City Star: "militant leftist activists"
  6. CNN: "lean toward the left -- often the far left"
  7. NYT: No statement on political leaning, but describes black bloc as anarchist subset among "broader left-wing protests".
  8. Wired: "Far-left extremists"
  9. NYT [NB-B]: "militancy on the left"
  10. Atlantic: "leftist activists"
  11. Time: [Interview] "antifascist resistance is based in the left" but can involve "response from a lot of different communities"
  12. BBC: "far-left protesters"

Of note: The Time article is an interview of a comic book author who has no specialty background in politics or history, is not notable, and is not explicitly affiliated with antifa. It's questionable what value this source has in an encyclopedic text.

As of yet we have no statistical or quantitative sources to warrant claims such as 'predominantly' or 'majority' left. All WP:RS that do make a claim commit to a general description of the group as either "leftist" or "far-left". If a quantitative claim is to be made, then a WP:RS should be found to support it.

Watchman21 (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo "Although often referenced as a monolith, “antifa” is not one organization, but a loosely linked collection of groups, networks and individual people who support aggressive opposition to activists on the far right."July 2019 or "loose collection of hard-line anti-fascist protesters," August 2019.
NYT "on the left" July 2019 in an article called "What Is Antifa? Explaining the Movement to Confront the Far Right"[1]
But I agree, there is no way ever to get stats on this. But it clearly has supporters who are not far-left, so that's out, and we say it has liberal supporters. Black bloc doesn't = Antifa. The Time author is Lily Rothman[2] Doug Weller talk 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the quantitative aspect, if we can find a source that shows a substantive minority (beyond individual case studies or first party anecdotal accounts) are not left-wing, we should be able to justify 'predominantly left-wing' in the lead description. Otherwise we should probably refer to the existing consensus. I'll see if I can find a suitable one over the next few days. Watchman21 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having supporters that are not far-left does not mean they cannot be far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng: there is no "they" except the supporters, it's not an organisation. If they aren't far left they can't be far-left. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And many appear to be anarchists. I never thought of anarchists as leftists. No state versus big state, in simplistic terms. O3000 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the majority of the supporters are far-left we call them far-left even if a small minority are only left. O3000 anarchism is often considered a far-left ideology. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, who says the majority of supporters are far-left? These people don't seem to be great philosophers or pol-sci students. Horseshoe theory comes to mind. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is militant anarchism just standard left wing now? PackMecEng (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's circular reasoning: they are militant because they belong to antifa. TFD (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are militant because that is how RS describes them as well as the tactics they employ. PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, you are saying that antifa contains far left elements because by definition anyone who is on the left and belongs to antifa is far left. TFD (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. What I am saying is RS describe them as far-left and things like being militant and supporting anarchism are traits of the far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to "predominantly left-wing" but do object to "far left". My suspicion is that various editors inserted refs into the lede to justify "left" or "far left" rather than found a good selection of RSs and summarised their descriptions. Otherwise would NBC Bay Area, the Kansas City Star and KIRO7 local news really be your go-to sources on how to describe an emerging social movement? It is also striking that most of the sources cited there (I think CNN is the only exception) come from August-September 2017 when antifa emerged into mainstream attention, and reflect ill-informed news sources struggling to summarise what was to them a new phenomenon. That is why the person interviewed by Time, who has been an antifa activist since the 1990s, is actually a more reliable source for this particular use than a local radio station. (See my very long comment from 13 March 2020 in the Capitalisation RfC further up this talk page on why using sources that actually know about antifa are more appropriate than sources that would be generally seen as reliable but in this instance might not be well-informed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid the term far left because unlike far right it does not have a clear meaning. Basically it means more left than I am. So to the average Fox News viewer, it means the New York Times. TFD (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick update re. use of the term 'predominantly left-wing'. I've been unable to find:
  1. A quantitative RS to demonstrate that there are a substantive minority of Antifa members who are not left-leaning or left-wing.
  2. A case-study-type RS to demonstrate that there is even a single member of Antifa who identifies this way.
  3. Even anecdotal examples in popular blogs, commentaries or grass-roots social media posts that don't qualify as WP:RS.
For further policy context, there are no exclusion criteria for left-wing ideology among the other axiological descriptions of Antifa in the article. Anarchism is not an exclusion criterion, as someone has already pointed out, given that ideologies such as anarcho-collectivism do exist.
Every RS that commits to a political description of the movement refers to them uniformly as left-wing.
I think we have conclusive criteria to refer to the prior consensus and describe them as just 'left-wing'. Any quantitative elaboration would fall foul of WP:NOR. I'll implement these changes shortly unless anyone can find a good source. Watchman21 (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this line of argument completely. Antifa is ideologically diverse and not attached to any one movement. If any ideology predominates, it is anarchism. Although some anarchists consider themselves left-wing and some sources consider anarchism in general to be left-wing, most anarchists reject the association with the left and see themselves as neither left nor right. Therefore any source which notes anarchists among antifa by definition shows that calling it left-wing without qualification is problematic. "predominantly left-wing" is a consensual description that encompasses these different points of view, whereas "left-wing" is far more contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources you reject as problematic are WP:RS. To disqualify them you'll need a RS with higher epistemic standing, like a quantitative source from a peer-reviewed journal. I couldn't find one, but perhaps you might have better success.
If you want to use anarchism as an exclusion criterion, you'll need epistemology rather than sociology. You need to show that the two are incompatible, and disprove the legitimacy of ideologies like anarcho-communism. Watchman21 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Looking over the ref's above, it looks like most folks are talking about this guys as "far left" or "leftist". Why are we calling them "left wing"? Can someone point to previous discussions on this topic? NickCT (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought 'leftist' and 'left-wing' are synonymous. 'Leftist' may be more of a casual term. Watchman21 (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Antifa far-left?, where I provided links to the five prior discussions to the last person who asked this question (as it pertains specifically to "far left"). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say none of those are particularly impressive or came to any kind of resolution. What I did notice is many uninvolved editors all saying the same thing and the same small group of dedicated individuals stonewalling. Does an RFC have to be held to solidify what the sources and majority of people say? PackMecEng (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a discussion doesn't result in a consensus then the status quo remains—that's common sense. Though for what it's worth I think the August 2018 discussion was quite productive (surprisingly, considering it began with a load of nonsense posted by an editor who got themselves indef'd for legal threats the following day) and fairly clear-cut in its support for "left" and rejection of "far-left". Which isn't, of course, to say that we should be bound by it today, only that a new consensus would have to be arrived at to change that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with that is there was never consensus for just about anything. So yeah defaults to status quo but status quo here is basically meaningless. I was more making the comment so people do not get mislead into thinking there was an actual consensus for excluding far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the scholarly literature on (U.S.) antifa and found very little support for describing antifa as "far-left". Neither Mark Bray's Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook nor the introduction to Bill V. Mullen and Christopher Vials' US Antifascism Reader use "far-left" or "far left" at any point, with the exception of a reference to an interview with Swedish antifascists in Bray (p244). Likewise, none of the five articles in Society's symposium "What Is Antifa?" (Volume 5 Issue 3) use either phrase. Stanislav Vysotsky's American Antifa, as the first monograph on U.S. antifa narrowly construed, ought to be an invaluable source for this article, but unfortunately isn't published until July. Vysotsky's 2015 article "The Anarchy Police" also never uses "far(-)left"; the article is clearly in some sense about the subject of this article, but never names its subject "antifa", so probably can't be used in this article. The only scholarly source I was able to find that describes antifa as "Far Left" is Adam Klein's "From Twitter to Charlottesville" in the International Journal of Communication. One can make of these findings what one wishes: I'm of the view that articles and books by academics published by major publishers or in established journals are better sources than news articles and opinion pieces, but all of these sources have their drawbacks (neither Bray's book nor Mullen and Vials' is exclusively about the subject of this article; the Society articles are brief interventions; Klein is apparently out on a limb in the matter at hand). This is also not intended as a commentary whether "left" or "predominantly left" is preferable, though I might weigh in on that at a later date. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng raised concerns about the existing consensus, which I think does have some merit. The page did have something of a consensus but one that wasn't definitive. I'm open to reviewing it (perhaps with an RFC, if that's what's needed) given that it's predicated on a questionable premise.
One overlooked issue is that 'left' and 'far-left' are not mutually exclusive, the latter being a subset of the former. This means that sources describing antifa as 'leftist' cannot be used as evidence against the proposition that antifa are 'far-left'. Several quality sources describing the movement as 'far-left' may be all that's needed to justify a lede description to that effect. Watchman21 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Watchman21 and PackMecEng: - Support RfC
Arms - re "I would have thought 'leftist' and 'left-wing' are synonymous." - I'm not sure about that. I think "leftist" is a more general term. If you told me someone was a "left-wing" politician, I'd assume they were center left or left. If you told me someone was "leftist", I'd assume they were anywhere from the center-left to the radical left. If you look for definitions of leftist sources will say anything from simply "left-wing" to "radical left". NickCT (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wandering off-topic
That's just your personal ideolect. The terms are broadly synonymous; if you review a bunch of good dictionaries' definitions, you'll see that. When a degree needs to be indicated, that has the be done more explicitly: far-left, left-leaning, a bit left-of-center, etc., or one can't be certain the reader will walk away with the same interpretation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: - So, from the first 6 Google hits for "define leftist", there's Collins which says "Socialists and Communists are sometimes referred to as leftists" and Urban Dictionary (not necessarily a "good" dictionary) which says "A person belonging to the political left and usually identifying with the radical, anti capitalist, or revolutionary sectors of left politics". I don't think those definition a necessarily encapsulated in just the term "left wing".
But more importantly, I think the main point is that in this case a degree does need to be indicated. So why not use "far-left"? NickCT (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collins is a leading dictionary, but doesn't appear to contradict the idea that "left-wing" and "leftist" are synonymous. UrbanDictionary, though, is primarily a joke website written by teenagers. Anyway, I wasn't arguing against being specific about degree, just arguing against the idea that either "left-wing" or "leftist" reliably implies degree. We possibly should be degree-specific, but following the sources on that. I'm not sure I see a clear source agreement on this. It seems fair to me to say that various sources consider antifa a far-left faction, while others don't. We could quote some of the better sources directly. I just hope in the long run we are not conflating antifa as a specific movement or sub-movement (which seems to differ a lot from country to country), with anti-fascism generally. Libertarians, for example, are by definition anti-fascist but also by definition right-of-center on economic policy, even if also classic-liberal in some ways on socio-cultural matters. These things can also change over time; I learned a few years ago that the straight edge movement has a bunch to do with environmentalism and even vegetarianism these days, when those agendas were not connected with it at all in the 1980s when it originated (at that time, it was only about smoking, drugs, drinking, and casual sex). Social movements are a moving target, so source age may be a factor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: - "doesn't appear to contradict the idea that "left-wing" and "leftist" are synonymous" - So you think calling Communists simply "left-wing" is OK? Is it OK to call fascists simply "right-wing"? I don't think we're necessary disagree on definitions as much as the degree of specificity that's appropriate. I wouldn't call a fascist just "right-wing", in the same sense that I wouldn't call a serial killer just a "criminal". Sure fascist may be a subset of right-wing as serial killer is a subset of criminal, but it definitely seems a little misleading when you use terms which are so ambiguous and broad.
"Libertarians, for example, are by definition anti-fascist but also by definition right-of-center on economic policy" - Well.... I guess it depends on the brand of libertarianism. For instance, civil libertarians might not hold right-of-center economic view points.
Agree groups change with time, but that doesn't really impact what sources are calling this group today. NickCT (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't say "communists", it said "socialists and communists", and "socialist" and "left-wing" and "leftist" are used interchangeably by many people, especially those right of center. You seemingly didn't bother to look at the same dictionary's entry for "left-wing" [3], which includes: "Synonyms: socialist, communist ....". See also the corresponding "More synonyms of left wing" list at the same site [4], giving "left-wing" and "leftist" as synonyms. So, I stand by what I said about Collins and their definitions. And it's just one dictionary; looking at other major ones shows comparable results. I don't know why we're arguing about this. It is not difficult to understand that "left-wing" and "leftist" both fail to automatically imply "far-left" to many readers. If you mean "far-left", then write "far-left". Next, civil libertarians are not, as a class, libertarians; this is a fallacy of equivocation, in which the compound "civil libertarian" has a different origin from the isolate "libertarian", and in which the fragment "libertarian" of the first has a different meaning that the stand-alone label "libertarian". (In the first, "civil liberties" is a specific and innately plural term of art with a unique and synergistic meaning; "civil libertarian" is simply the adjectival form of this, which in turn can be re-nouned as a person descriptor, and that is a backformation from the adjective, in turn from the original noun phrase. In the second, "libertarian[ism] is directly derived from a philosophical and singular concept of Liberty in a broader and rather Platonic or archetypal sense.) Most civil libertarians are not libertarians, though libertarians must be civil libertarians, since civil liberties are a subset of the general politico-philosophical approach to liberty espoused by libertarians. (On the other hand, Libertarian Party members might individually be neither libertarians nor civil libertarians, though most would be both. Some here and there are probably just confused kooks who have latched onto a third party just because it's a third party. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To extract my on-topic points from the long digression above: We possibly should be degree-specific as to "leftiness", but must follow the sources on that, without engaging in WP:SYNTH to get at a "desired" answer that the sources don't actually agree on. I'm not sure I see a clear source agreement on the matter (only on the American antifa being left of center), and I don't agree that sources saying "leftist" or "left-wing" can be counted as supporting of "far-left", "left extremist", and other degree-qualifying descriptions. It seems fair to me to say that various sources consider the US antifa a far-left faction, while others don't. We could quote some of the better sources directly. I just hope in the long run we are not conflating American antifa, as a specific movement or sub-movement, with anti-fascism generally nor with other groups (characterized by rather different politics) who also go by "antifa". It is better encyclopedia writing for us to have a short paragraph on RS interpretations of how far left US antifa is, rather than just pick an interpretation that suits a present-majority editorial viewpoint and run with it as if it were the only RS view.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well this article is on American Antifa so I would suspect that we would use the left-right definitions from America. Though I will note the source list above shows a clear majority going with far-left or a varient of that. Are there any sources that specifically say they are not far-left? I note some use left wing by itself but I do not think I have seen any that dispute far-left specifically. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there be any sources that specifically say they are not far-left? Would there be any sources that specifically state they aren't warlocks? O3000 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo, CNN, and BBC do not call Antifa warlocks, so that's obviously beside the point. But WaPo, CNN, and BBC do all call Antifa "far-left". So we should certainly ask whether any sources say that they aren't "far left", since, if there aren't such sources, then we have a strong argument here that we should at the very least mention that they are sometimes described as "far left" in mainstream media. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Watchman21's bold initial post is misleading and even worse, unsourced. For instance, last year a Portland reporter for the BBC (in other words, someone close to the action) wrote "There is no one antifa organisation or political philosophy. They're a mixed bag of anarchists, socialists and communists."[5] I agree that it's unreasonable to insist on finding sources that say they "aren't far-left but are..." WaPo calls them leftists here.[6] Here CNN, in an article explaining Antifa, calls them "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."[7] Doug Weller talk 13:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Bray, a credentialed academic expert on the subject—one of those rare birds which, reading the bulk of this discussion, one would think didn't exist—defines antifa thus: "It’s basically a politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right." One could take "pan-left" as a refutation of "far-left", i.e. as indicating that antifa includes people across the left (though of course I don't accept the premise that we have to find concrete refutation of "far-left" to not include it). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @User:Doug Weller. Thanks for your feedback. Do you not agree that 'far-left' is a subset of 'left'? If so, then the idea that the two are not mutually contradictory follows necessarily. 'Antifa are left-wing' cannot be a counterposition to 'antifa are far-left' for that reason. If you dispute that, then your issue is with logical truisms like entailment for which we don't usually cite sources. Watchman21 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Arms & Hearts. I think that's thinking roughly along the right lines.
I've just looked at your Bray source. 'Pan-left' here seems to be referring qualitatively to the political subgroups of the left (communism, socialism and anarchism) rather than a quantitative allusion to degrees of leftness, such as 'moderate-left' or 'far-left'. If 'pan-left' was referring to degrees of leftness, then the author would be contradicting himself by his use of the term 'radical' to describe the same group. ie. One can't be moderate-left and radical-left at the same time, unless one has a different understanding of radical to the textbook definition.
I think you've (inadvertently) found a further source supporting the idea that antifa are far-left. But I'm sure there are opposing views out there. I'll do a literature review if I have time and see if I have better luck. Watchman21 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You can certainly be on the left and not a socialist, communist, or anarchist.
  2. Pan-left would seem to suggest varying degrees of leftist ideology cooperating; not a specific degree of the left.
  3. I don’t think we should be labeling a movement with a greater degree of specificity. Indeed, pigeonholing folks should be avoided even with actual political parties..
  4. The anarchists in the woods with AK-47’s waiting for a race war are rightists.
  5. BTW, editing pings into a previous edit often doesn’t work. O3000 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute point 1. Your point 3 has some merit. I originally wanted 'far-left' in the lead sentence, but I think the lede now looks better overall with 'left-wing' (any reader can infer how 'far-left' antifa are from the rest of the opening paragraph) but this is just a personal preference. Like your own remarks here, all of this is ultimately subject to policy.
I'm not convinced by point 2, unless you can think of better arguments. Radicalism typically refers to the extremes, or even the fringes, of partisanship. If 'pan-left' refers to the degrees of leftist ideology (including moderates and nominal followers) then it would be a contradiction for the author to describe the movement as radical in the same phrase.
I think point 4 is true, but not very relevant here. Showing that some anarchists are right-wing doesn't disprove the proposition that anarchists can be left-wing as well. I think Bray himself implies this in the source we're talking about.
Thanks for point 5. I'll bear that in mind in future. Watchman21 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Bray source isn't very clear, but I think the most reasonable interpretation is that by "pan-left radical" he means "across all radical left groups". In any case, I for one don't see why we need to pick one label. Why not just say that they've been variously described and list the most common descriptions (left, lefist, far-left, radical left, etc.). Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sound to me. However elaborations like that probably belong elsewhere than the WP:LEADSENTENCE. Watchman21 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and it would grow starting with anarchist. O3000 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

antifa is so very obviously Far-left that having an argument about it is astonishing in itself. How many “left-wing” people or organisations advocate violence? That’s right, none. Case closed. Please can the lede be *corrected* now. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 22:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any academic sources about antifa's political position? Because if so, they should certainly be preferred over news sources. Furthermore, while the far-right is a defined topic with books and articles written about it, far-left seems to be more of an ambiguous term which basically means more left-wing than social democracy, so certainly left-wing, or even militant left-wing, would be more appropriate than far-left.--Davide King (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any peer-review type sources to the contrary, so there's no policy basis to exclude the sources you keep deleting.
Adding WP:RS doesn't require consensus. Deleting WP:RS (especially if deleting multiple sources in a controversial article) should be done after establishing some kind of talk page resolution, which you haven't done here. I prefer 'left-wing' from an aesthetic point of view, but if multiple RS corroborate the idea that antifa are 'far-left' then, in the absence of good evidence to the contrary, policy dictates the article text should represent the sources.
Your own arguments here, concerning the ambiguity of the term 'far-left' seem to be your own OR. You've provided no source in support of them, or an adequate exposition from an epistemological point of view, so I don't think they can be applied here. Watchman21 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to have them included in the first place, this discussion is still going on and others have disputed your edit, so it is not just me and what should be done is reverting to the status quo ante and leaving just left-wing while we discuss it here. I'm not opposed to have the main body talking about its far-leftism, but I think predominantly left-wing is just fine and does not exclude far-left nor its more moderate, admittedly centre-left minority. Furthermore, all the refs you cited were related to Trump's comments and they're contradicted in the main body which also describe the movement simply a left-wing, including some liberals and social democrats. That's no original research, but what the article's academic sources actually say and a point also made by The Four Deuces.--Davide King (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't usually need consensus for adding RS. That's rarely (if at all) controversial in even the most disputed articles.
You can try to dispute their status as RS, or question whether or not they are represented correctly in the article, but wholesale removal of RS, stating 'lack of consensus for inclusion', will just be reverted eventually because it isn't based in policy. I also recommend you actually read the RS you keep deleting. It's the authors describing antifa as far-left, not the authors reporting on Trump's views of antifa. Watchman21 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but again, you have been reverted, we are discussing it here; why not simply wait for the discussion to be over and a broad consensus to be reached? I never implied to mean that the authors were reporting on Trump's views of antifa but that may fall under recentism. Either way, only three of your given 12 sources in the OP say far-left, so how does that support your edit?--Davide King (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We now have many more than 3 sources describing antifa as 'far-left'. Two more were found during the course of the discussion above, which happen to be good quality RS. Even at that point, I think the polemic was starting to favor the 'far-left' crowd.
Where do you think they stand now, with the latest news cycle, with all the new RS supporting the 'far-left' camp?
But my contention here is not 'far-left' versus 'left-wing'. It's about your deletion of source material without adequate justification.
At no point, during the discussion above, was any requirement set for all RS to require consensus before we include them. That means there is no precedent or consensus in support of your argument here. One way or another, those sources are eventually going to find their way back into the article, and they happen to corroborate the 'far-left' description whether we like it or not. Watchman21 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We still have 5 (in the OP) and perhaps more that simply say left-wing or describe antifa as a broad left-wing movement, including both the far-left and more moderate-left viewpoints. The ones added in your edit still fall under recentism. Doug Weller disproved the rest.--Davide King (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was discussed above as well. A source describing antifa as 'left-wing' cannot be used as evidence against the proposition that antifa are 'far-left', because the latter is a subset of the former. That's actually a key premise in support of the 'far-left' camp.
I suppose you could try to argue that 'left-wing' can be inferred from context to mean 'moderate left', depending on the article, or that one is some kind of synecdoche (or metonym) for the other, but that would probably be pushing it. Watchman21 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be argued for the reverse; after all, both the far-left and centre-left are still left-wing, which seems to be the only agreement between sources (antifa is left, but how far left? Far-left or still simply left?). Either way, I reiterate that, unlike far-right, far-left is an ambiguous term and the only thing the literature seems to agree is that it is to the left of social democracy, or to the left of the left. You cannot easily discount this in the discussion, nor I think it is something that can be underlooked or that should be easily underestimated.--Davide King (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't quite work the other way, unless you want to contrive meaning from context or figures of speech to make 'left-wing' imply something more specific than it actually is. Your argument regarding the ambiguity of 'far-left' probably needs a source.
Even then I think you'll need a consensus on where it fits in with policy. Watchman21 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Left-wing doesn't exclude far-left while far-left may exclude many sources that refer to antifa as something broader. I think The Four Deuces can better explain you the ambiguity of far-left.--Davide King (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably too inductive. If you're going to argue knowledge theory in the setting of Wikipedia Policy, you'll need something that's either a truism or axiom, or something deductive. Watchman21 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what exactly you are implying, but why not simply say both? There seems to be no real overwhelmingly sourcing in favour of either (in the OP, they are more left-wing than far-left), so why not writing predominantly left-wing and far-left? If I had to choose only one, I would say left-wing, but I would be fine in mentioning both.--Davide King (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::::It's not even true. Read WP:UNDUE for instance. It's generally necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. There's also a lot of trivial detail one could add to almost any article on the basis of an RS. Then there's WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY, and WP:AGE MATTERS - the latter mainly deals with academic sources, but it's true for most. I've seen and removed outdated stuff in many articles that had reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We've gone over this above. If there is any question over whether or not a source qualifies as RS (for example, it trips WP:RSBREAKING) then you're obviously entitled to contend it. The issue is over deletion of sources, without a policy basis, citing 'no consensus'. Watchman21 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As argued by Doug Weller, WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS would still apply.--Davide King (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to read the sources, then read the policies, then explain why the sources fall foul of those policies. Watchman21 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop acting like that or assuming I have not actually read them. We just have as many sources saying left-wing, so why not considering or counting them? Considering the controversial nature of the article and of what is happening, it would probably be better to wait and not rush. Again, you read WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS.--Davide King (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize where we stand, you haven't managed to defend any of your reasons for deleting this source material (other than the fact that they describe antifa as 'far-left'). When asked to explain how those sources are against policy, you refuse to carry any burden of proof.
So you'll need to explain, then, why it is you're otherwise justified in reverting other people's work. Watchman21 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I literally told you it is because of WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS; and basically I completely agree with Arms & Hearts' comments below. You seem to ignore the whole discussion above and the other users who support simply left-wing, acting like it is only me opposing far-left. Also, if your issue is with predominantly, I have removed that and left simply left-wing. Finally, you may venture in original research and/or synthesis in claiming that pan-left actually supports far-left.--Davide King (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I just checked this article today and I noticed that “far-left” had been expunged from the lead, despite it being in the lead for as long as I can remember.

The fact that we are even having this conversation is laughable. There would be no opposition (and rightfully so) to labeling far-right groups as far-right, because we have multiple reliable sources reporting them as such. And as Watchman21 provided, there are multiple sources calling Antifa far-left. This has been part of the lead until now.

I’m going to call this out for what it is. Editors are just blatantly trying to whitewash this article now. Restore far-left to the lead. Larry Sanger is correct about his sentiments. At this point people aren’t even trying to hide their true intentions. In before I get multiple replies accusing me of being a Nazi or a far-right extremist. CatcherStorm talk 23:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CatcherStormCan you move this comment up above my subsection to the main discourse since this is focused on a very specific item? Bastique ☎ call me! 00:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CatcherStrom, it's simply not true that far-left was being expunged from the lead; going back to August 2019 and as of May 2020 it was still left-wing. We literally have a FAQ at the top of this page linking to no consensus in using far-left. Far-left also has a different use and literature than the far-right which is much more clearly defined while far-left is more ambiguous and the only thing the literature agree is that far-left is more left than social democracy, or left of the left.--Davide King (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To put this tortuous thread in summary:
  1. Multiple WP:RELIABLE SOURCES now describe antifa as 'far-left'. Many more will likely arise with the present news cycle.
  2. Those sources are being deleted arbitrarily. No-one has so far substantiated a good reason why they are against policy.
  3. No quantitative sources, or other good evidence, have been found to the contrary.
When I started this thread, it was before the flood of new news stories on antifa, stemming from current events.
A consensus was needed at that time because the arguments for and against were much more ambiguous.
What is happening now is that good sources are being deleted because their inclusion in the text would render a consensus unnecessary. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog, and is just more evidence in support for a 'far-left' description in the lede. Watchman21 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Watchman21: How have you reached the conclusion that "No quantitative sources, or other good evidence, have been found to the contrary", when you replied to my two comments above (17:14, 23 May 2020 and 14:21, 25 May 2020) where I did exactly that? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment isn't evidence against the idea that antifa are far-left. Or to put it epistemically, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. You need positive evidence that antifa are something other than far-left, which none of your sources really fulfill and one of your sources actually refutes.
We've discussed your second comment (concerning the Bray source) above.
So far the most cogent interpretation of 'pan-left' is that it's describing the different types of leftism (communism, socialism etc) rather than degrees of leftism (moderate, far-left). Bray actually describes antifa as radicals in a general way, implying that he actually supports the 'far-left' position.
You've, inadvertently, been finding more evidence in favor of the 'far-left' description than against it. Watchman21 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you're missing is that some sources are better than others. To be specific, works by established experts on the subject are more valuable than explainers rushed out by CNN and the like. Perhaps I haven't made that point explicitly here (as I have further down), but that's the reason I've emphasised above the need to consider accounts in scholarly work over news media accounts. If a term appears fairly often in the latter but seldom in the former, that's a very good reason not to use the term, and instead to formulate alternative wording based on the better sources. Given that, in your view, sources that refrain from calling antifa "far-left" cannot be taken as indications that antifa is not far left, should we read your #3 above as saying that no sources have been found which actively reject the idea that antifa is far-left? Don't you think that's an absurd requirement? We don't require sources saying "the moon is not made of cheese" to say the moon is made of silica, alumina, etc. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arms & Hearts, thank you for your comments. I completely agree and you explained it better and more concise than I ever could.--Davide King (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your moon analogy suggests to me you haven't understood the topic.
We've laid out from the beginning that, if a quantitative source to the contrary is found, then that would qualify as good evidence against the idea that antifa are far-left. None of your sources really qualify for that, which makes your moon analogy all the more strange.
Platinum standard sources won't help you if they don't actually support the propositions you need.
That support can be explicit ('antifa are not best described as far-left') or tacit ('antifa are predominantly moderate partisans'). That isn't in any way an unreasonable evidentiary standard. Otherwise your issue is with propositional logic, not me.
Simple tallies on the frequency of usage of terms won't really help you either. All the sources have qualitative differences in context, objectives, narrative, linguistic style, and so on, that need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis if you want to infer linguistic usage. You'll also need to run the gauntlet of explaining why this kind of systematic review isn't OR. Watchman21 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having to explain an analogy rather defeats the point of analogising in the first place, so perhaps better to forget that. Perhaps, taking a step back, the issue is that you believe that sources that do not describe antifa as "far left" are simply missing that information, that the absence of such claims isn't in itself meaningful, and that those sources aren't making qualitatively different claims from sources that do describe antifa as "far-left". In other words, you think that because "far-left" is a subset of "left" (which is probably too simplistic a picture, but that's mostly beside the point), that sources that use "far-left" are making the same argument as those that use "left", only to a greater degree of precision. In this context, what that would mean is that news organisations' introductory pieces for the general reader are for some reason going into greater depth on this issue than books by experts. This is very unlikely to be the case; what's much more likely is that news organisations' pieces prefer "far-left" out of some combination of sensationalism and poorer comprehension of the issues and terms. Arguments along the lines of "it's just logic, and if you disagree with me you're disagreeing with logic" miss the point – what's at issue isn't the reasoning but the presuppositions you're working with. I certainly agree though, for what it's worth, that "tallies on the frequency of usage of terms" are of no use (I don't think they're even possible); much better to identify the best sources we have and work from there. (This section is far too long and muddled, I've just spent almost as long looking for the comment I was trying to reply to as it's taken to write this. There was support for an RfC on this last week, then the discussion was overtaken by events. An RfC still seems like a sensible direction in which to head.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After all that effort coming up with a rebuttal, you've probably realized by now, that, for your argument here to work, you need to assume that 'left' is figurative for something more specific than it actually is. That kind of defeats the point of the whole topic.
Non-specific terms don't magically become more cogent and precise by virtue of the fact they're spoken by academics.
If your academic sources are less linguistically precise than your news sources, then either your basic rule of thumb on source quality is wrong, or there are factors such as context, purpose, vernacular, and other idiosyncrasies within your sources that have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Watchman21 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's becoming apparent that this discussion isn't leading anywhere, and, frankly, you're veering into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory, so perhaps we can leave it here. I had hoped you'd respond to the parenthetical process point, however. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to talk this over on my talk page if you want to discuss it further. Watchman21 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CatcherStorm: I see no reason to believe you're a nazi, but you do seem to have (1) a poor memory and (2) a preference for social media callout culture nonsense over assuming good faith, neither of which are conducive to collegial, collaborative work. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

accuracy of "militant" as a broad brush

From my own experiences, "militant" describes only a portion of Antifa activists so this is why I'm commenting here. The use of militant to describe the movement, despite the multiplicity of sources used to justify it, is deceptive. Many of those that claim affiliation do not engage in militant-like activities and nor are all their activities militant (food distribution, mutual aid for example). But however factual this anecdotal evidence is, it is not allowed on Wikipedia. (PS, I know a notable figure that died in 2018 but there were no notices. Is he still dead? I still can't figure out how to get this edited... True story)
But sources there are as someone in particular, probably in this discussion lumped together in a fine footnote.
However, in closer inspection, many of those sources used to justify "militant" actually use the word to describe the activities of particular members, not the group as a whole. Additionally, CNN describes their positions as follows: "Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many people espousing those beliefs support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get out their messages." ( Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/tech/antifa-fake-twitter-account/index.html ) The use of "militant" in the lead is deceptive and should be removed entirely or changed to "sometimes militant". Bastique ☎ call me! 22:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a joke. We currently have “predominantly left-wing”. Which could be interpreted as including some right wing elements. So obviously that’s a ridiculous use of words. antifa’s logo has two flags, one representing anarchism, one representing communism. So by their self-identification as well as multiple RS’s it is both accurate and fair to describe them as militant far-left.

PROPOSAL for the reasons above, the words “militant far-left” should be used in the first sentence of the lede. Boscaswell talk 22:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boscaswell, have you even read what Bastique just wrote above? I think that raised was a point worth discussing. I also don't see how that would imply including some right wing elements, for we literaly writes how [i]ndividuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views[23] and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism.[24][31]--Davide King (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that, Davide King But there are people who read the article who don’t actually read this discussion as well, and it’s those people that I’m thinking of. I’m not going to get bogged down in a silly argument where the nth degree is argued about until everyone is so fed up with it that the original ideas are long forgotten. It’s a brilliant way of shielding the real issue. That is precisely what has happened on this very thread. Boscaswell talk 02:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boscaswell, I am sorry to break it on you but Wikipedia works by consensus and reliable sources. You may think that militant far-left is a fact but that may not be reflected by either consensus or reliable sources, especially academic ones which have more expertise about the movement; in other words, as succinctly put by Arms & Hearts, works by established experts on the subject are more valuable than explainers rushed out by CNN and the like. Your same argument that people who read the article do not actually read the discussion is valid for literally every other article and is not specifically tied to this; either way, I think the lead is pretty clear. As can be seen by Acalamari's comment below, not everyone agree with the militant wording in the first sentence and militant has been changed to militancy and added along with digital activism in this edit by Seddon.--Davide King (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, those words should not be used in the lead sentence and wanting to use Bastique's argument to support your non_NPOV change is staggeringly absurd. Acalamari 07:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough RS now to justify 'far-left' in the lede, so not only do I support this, it's likely inevitable in the long term.
For now though, the deleted RS in question need to be restored given that Davide King hasn't given any good policy reasons for why he's deleted them.
The wording of the lead should be set to the state it was before the latest news cycle ('left-wing' - no quantitative source has been found to justify 'predominantly left-wing'). Then we can take stock of all the new sources re. 'far-left.' In the absence of good arguments to the contrary, I will be implementing these changes shortly. Watchman21 (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watchman21, you do know that one is supposed to be against fascism, right? Fascism is bad. We settled that last century. There was a war and everything. Guy (help!) 11:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watchman21, Arms & Hearts just gave you some interesting responses, so please stop acting like it is only me opposed to far-left. I reiterate that all the sources you added were from news sources and all after what is happening which may violate WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS; not only that but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and that does not overwhelmingly support far-left as you seem to imply. As argued by Arms & Hearts, some sources, specifically academic ones, are better than others. Finally, I already removed the predominantly wording and just left left-wing, even if I did not think that would have excluded far-left and I was open for it to read predominantly left-wing and far-left.--Davide King (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to explain how the sources are in breach of WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS. Otherwise you're not really justified in reverting other users' edits on this topic. Watchman21 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're all related or contigent to Floyd's death and protests as well as Trump and others' call for terrorist designation, i.e. from 31 March. Also in relation to this, as per talk page implies that consensus has been reached but that is not the case. You may argue that [t]here are enough RS now to justify 'far-left' in the lede but other users disagree and we are still discussing this.--Davide King (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's specific details on recent events in those articles (eg. how many protesters in a protest as it unfolds) that are subject to WP:RSBREAKING, not general propositions such as the status of antifa being far-left. What about AGEMATTERS or RSPRIMARY?
Regarding your removal of 'against those whom they identify as'. The ADL source uses the same terminology, and describes how they target police, whom they consider as right-wing-by-proxy. I'll be reverting your changes unless you can raise good objections.Watchman21 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watchman21 you might want to see the discussion below. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll send any further commentary there. Watchman21 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But don't you think that identification may be based mainly on that? And why should we use such sources rather than academic ones, even if more sparse? Or even, why can't we find a wording that include both? As for the rest, thanks PackMecEng for linking to the discussion.--Davide King (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Watchman21: I'm rather concerned on your use of your 1RR quota to undo my change that was a perfectly fair edit and reflective of the original sources before we became a victim of circular referencing and nor taking the time to notify me of your reversion. Additional: Given my change wasn't a simple removal and was reflective of the sources my change seems aligned with both the concern of undue weight given to some of Antifa's tactics but recognises the presence of them, I've reinstated my change. Seddon talk 15:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I've seen are Bastique's comments above, re. use of the term 'militant. He seems to be aware his arguments rely on non-source inductions, implying the topic is likely to be controversial. I didn't see any feedback for it.
Feel free to revert it, but I don't think it's going to stay removed in the long run given how many RS use the 'militant' description summatively. ie. It'll resolve itself without need for an edit dispute. Watchman21 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now we just had "FBI report indicating "no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence", further indicating we need better sources than antifa's WP:RSBREAKING in relation to Floyd protests. That is why we need to be extra careful with this article.--Davide King (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not relevant here. All it does is question whether antifa were involved in DC (presuming it's accurate and corroborated by other sources). It has no bearing on the general proposition that antifa are far-left. Watchman21 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the fact that those sources are coming out with the protests, that news organisations' pieces prefer "far-left" out of some combination of sensationalism and poorer comprehension of the issues and terms, i.e. could it be that more sources are using far-left because of the protests escalation rather than an actual analysis? A few given sources talk equally or more about the protests and what is happening than antifa. Even then, one source states [t]he 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 so it does not support the far-left label alone. One source also reads: Antifa groups resist far-right movements such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They monitor and track the activities of local fascists and expose them to their neighbours and employers. They also support migrants and refugees and pressure venues to cancel white power events. No mention of allegations or that those whom antifa is engaging with are not really far-right or racists.--Davide King (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue along those lines, you'd need to show that the authors' opinions of antifa, accrued over years of life experience, have been influenced sufficiently by a breaking event to render a source wholly unreliable, or more so than the margin of error (sensationalism, click-bait etc) already priced in to the probity of news sources in general.
That's either presumptive or an impossible burden of proof, and in either case likely to be shot down as OR.
Also, none of these sources are 'breaking news' (ie. stories being reported as they happen, or within minutes).
The ABC source doesn't contradict the proposition that 'antifa target those whom they consider far-right' but you need to direct your talking points on this topic to the correct section below. Watchman21 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For one, why using those sources in the first place rather than ones focused only on antifa and that specifically discuss its political position? Surely sources that discuss antifa's political position are preferable to news sources that simply mention far-left once in the text; and we could just as easily find a decent number of sources using left-wing as shown in the opening post. Furthermore, we write both in the lead and Ideology sections that antifa subrscribes to left-wing [not far-left] ideologies and the only statement that references its political position is that of the Anti-Defamation League (Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks) which seems to support simply left-wing, or not only far-left in practice.--Davide King (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find those sources, feel free to include them. We've been looking for quantitative sources from the start of this thread. We've already covered your other talking points above, so I won't repeat them here. Watchman21 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for me to find them, it is in the OP which already includes more sources in favour of left-wing than far-left, so why not using them? Why not simply state militant anti-fascist and discuss the political position in the main body? Why not including both left-wing and far-left? This is something you never answered. Nor did you answer to the fact the lead section needs to be a summary of the main body which seems to contradict the far-left claim.--Davide King (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again we've already covered these points. At least three times, in fact, over the course of this extraordinarily long thread. It will end up even longer if we repeat dialectical points. Watchman21 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you good luck with what you’re trying to do, Watchman21. Davide King’s user page indicates that he is an anarchist. I’ve had disagreements with Guy before now. In my experience, there is little point in arguing anything with him. He is an Admin, but as indicated in his post several posts up, there is no question as to where his sympathies lie in this instance, and that is with antifa. So there are two there who will I imagine use every trick in the Wikibook to make antifa appear to be an organisation that merely opposes fascism in a warm and cuddly manner. Never mind that the two flags in its logo represent anarchism and communism - those flags are just incidental and don’t mean anything, because some irResponsible Source says that they’re warm and cuddly. Boscaswell talk 23:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to for any of that and I think this comment may violate some rules whose name or link I cannot remember now. Either way, I have not been accused of what you are implying, not even by Watchman21, with whom I was simply respectfully discussing. Anyway, all of this is moot as I precisely put None in the Infobox as a joke and anarchism in parenthesis to match that of Religion (None: atheism) because of anarchism's opposition to authority and dogma, so it does not mean much. I do not even know why you are here; you do not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. I guess an academic and expert source (Bray 2017) saying that [t]he vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent while nothing that 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 is just yet another irResponsible Source, huh?--Davide King (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content not supported by sources, self-published sources: needs to be taken care of, stat

In the lead section, there is an inaccurate description that says that the group encompasses adherents of "liberalism" (and the article is inaccurately classified in the "liberalism" category). But the great majority of the sources (including the cites that are used supposedly to support the statement (!) obviously counter that, e.g.:

  • Vox (Bray interview): "'They have no allegiance to liberal democracy': an expert on antifa explains the group ... As I said before, anti-fascists don't have any allegiance to liberalism"
  • WaPo (Bray article): "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."
  • WaPo (Lozada): "Conservatives or even moderate liberals who oppose fascism do not find a warm welcome."
  • NY Times: "Its adherents express disdain for mainstream liberal politics, seeing it as inadequately muscular, and tend to fight the right through what they call 'direct actions' rather than relying on government authorities."

There's also newly inserted cites to sources of insufficient reliability:

  • "Knouff, Matthew (2012). An Outsider's Guide to Antifa" — which is a self-published book published through the vanity press Lulu.
  • And there's also a new cite to a book called Antifa and the Radical Left which is also not usable (it is a book chapter, riffing on Reddit, by a self-described "freelance writer" cited to a publishing company, Greenhaven Publishing, that describes itself as primarily a publisher of "books on social issues for middle school and high school students.").

Objective3000, or others, can you help take care of this? This kind of stuff needs to be removed without delay. It is illustrative of the influx of low-quality, or downright misleading content, that takes place whenever a new subject is in the news. Neutralitytalk 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But, I'm up against 1RR at the moment. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies and Muboshgu: Sorry to ping you, but since you've recently helped out on this article or talk page, could you please consider assisting on the above? The editor who repeatedly reinserted the above unsourced/badly sourced content is non-responsive, there's no consensus for any of this challenged material, and this is a high-profile article at the moment, so I think this needs more active intervention from others. Neutralitytalk 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality, I only added this article to my watchlist this weekend, and I'm not that familiar with it. I am looking into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, removed. I see it was added over this weekend and it is not supported. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I've been reverted by Mt.FijiBoiz, who should join this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The antifa page clearly needs work, particularly due to the increased traffic it is receiving after this weekend's events. Self-published sources, none of which I am responsible for, must be removed. As for the inclusion of liberalism as an ideology, I believe it should stay. Three (3) credible sources, which were cited long before this weekend, claim that while the entire American antifa movement and most international antifa movements hold no "allegiance to liberal democracy", some in the American antifa are liberals and subscribe to modern liberalism despite liberal anti-fascists often feeling unwelcomed. antifa is not a centralized group with one clear ideology (with the exception of anti-fascism). However, the inclusions of the liberalism category and portal may be unnecessary as it could be seen as not reflective of those entire movements. Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mt.FijiBoiz: Three separate editors have objected to your edit, which is not supported by the cited source. Given that, there's clearly no consensus for inclusion of the challenged material (the onus of which it is on you to establish). Please remove the challenged text and the category. I would really prefer not to seek sanctions. Neutralitytalk 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted my edits. Now please read the sources that were cited or edit the Ideology and activities section which also makes reference to some members being liberals and social democrats. Thanks! Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To the extent that there are some indications that "some members are liberals," that belongs (if at all) in the body. Neutralitytalk 03:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: The sentence in the lead about the movement's ideology has major problems. The references that state the members of the movement subscribe to the anarchism/anarcho-communism, communism/Marxism, and socialism ideologies are all from the aforementioned non credible Antifa and the Radical Left book — the only properly cited ideologies are anti-capitalism and social democracy. Should we remove this sentence? I feel that the rest of the article does seem to cover the movement's ideological aims pretty well. Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk)
Neutrality: I removed the Greenhaven Publishing-published and non-credible source. Feel free to re-add the content (hopefully with credible sources) if needed. Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk)
Neutrality: Antifa and the Radical Left is published by Greenhaven Press, which is not a self-publishing platform. NedFausa (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa: Has Greenhaven Press been deemed a credible source by Wikipedia? The discourse on this talk page makes it appear that it has not, though this may be incorrect. My apologizes for describing it as a self-publishing platform if that is not the case. BTW, NedFausa have you received any of these weird anti-ANTIFA, pro-QAnon messages? – I fear they will be followed by massive amounts of vandalism on this page.--Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from their Wikipedia page, Greenhaven Press is a reputable publisher. If you have reason to suspect otherwise, please cite WP:RS. NedFausa (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The particular source being cited here is a random book chapter by a self-described "freelance writer" in an anthology of opinion published by Greenhaven, which describes itself as being geared toward a young audience. There's worse sources out there, to be sure, but it's not a top-quality source by any stretch. I would use it, if at all, only with in-text attribution. Neutralitytalk 14:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality, please sign your comment. --Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk)

The Sullivan chapter in Antifa and the Radical Left is a republication of this piece in a publication called Rooster. I agree that it isn't a reliable source for contentious issues, as it's unlikely that a book consisting of reprinted online essays from minor publications could have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we require per WP:REPUTABLE. (I would say the same about the other essays in the volume, of which about half are pro-antifa, though it's possible that some are by experts or previously published in better sources.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the arguments on the reliability of the article in Antifa and the Radical Left, I have removed the phrase "(particularly anarcho-communism)" from the second paragraph in the lead. While all of the other ideologies mentioned are corroborated multiple times in clearly reputable sources like The New York Times, The Atlantic, and the The Washington Post, the anarcho-communism claim is only mentioned in Antifa and the Radical Left.Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QAnon

Did anyone else who edited this page get weird messages on their talk page from an unregistered IP user, saying something like "you aren't safe" or "Qanon supporters get retweets and Antifa associates get the Patriot Act. God is good. <3"? I'm pretty sure QAnon trolls will heavily vandalize this page as this week progresses. Please remain vigilant for this. --Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk)

Far-left

]] Some editors have recently chanted the description in the lead describing anti-fascism as far-left rather than left-wing (which I already thought was pushing it), claiming that the documentation in reliable source of claims about antifa by Donald Trump - a well-documented liar] - is the same as documentation by reliable sources. This is astounding ... and makes no sense. Opposition to fascism is no more far left (or even left-wing) than opposition to communism and Marxism is far right, or right-wing. Historically centrist parties on both the right and left have opposed fascism - let alone left-wing and far-left groups. I'd suggest the lead be fixed. Nfitz (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't conflate opposition to fascism with the Antifa movement. Those are not synonymous. There are many organisations that oppose fascism but are not connected with or sympathise with Antifa. Sjö (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a discussion about the appropriateness of "far-left" in the lede at Talk:Antifa (United States)#Summary of lead sentence sources on antifa political affiliation (or scroll up past the dozen or so edit requests). It would be sensible to keep discussion of this to that section. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz Please don't bring your political views into Wikipedia. Sentiments like yours are usually the problem and source of conflict itself. And this has nothing to do with Donald Trump regardless. Numerous reliable sources describe ANTIFA as being far left. - Cement4802 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't mentioned my (generally centrist to centre-right) political views, User:Cement4802. Virtually every reference you restored quoted Donald Trump - don't pretend that this has nothing to do with him - also please review WP:CITEKILL; I'm glad to see that consensus has confirmed that far-left is inappropriate.. Thanks, User talk:Arms & Hearts ... I looked for a discussion and was surprised not to see it - I assumed the edit was too recent ... gosh ... almost need a separate page for the edit requests! Nfitz (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANTIFA is a HOAX

If this were not the case, you would find the group listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website listing of hate groups and terrorists as such.

Civil War re-enacters are not listed there either. Putting on a costume and taking part in a riot, blaming vandalism and other acts on the other side is nothing more or less than theater, to give credence to the idea that your opposition is instigating both political unrest and / or criminal activity.

Why there is even a Wikipedia page devoted to what basically is a reality TV tactic to boost ratings and fire up President Trump's base is testimony to the efficacy of the tactic.

Far left activists, if they do anything, only push for getting the largest number of voters registered to vote, where it is the far right tactic to try and suppress this, or provide an excuse for demonizing their opposition. Danshawen (talk)danshawen

I second the motion to have the entire text of the Antifa article permanently removed, or until or unless the SPLC agrees with identifying the group with left-wing activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danshawen (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the SPLC lists hate groups, it does not list terrorist groups per se. antifa is neither a group nor does it practice hate as defined both by the SPLC and U.S. legislation. TFD (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Evidence https://qz.com/1839337/new-evidence-links-civil-war-reenactor-to-fake-antifa-threats/ Danshawen (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)danshawen[reply]

So, your "evidence" is an article where one guy blamed Antifa for his own actions. That... does not constitute evidence the entire subject is a hoax. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Danshawen you can't second your own motion. Since you left the second unsigned were you attempting to pass as an anonymous user to create the illusion of support? Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And on the subject of this section, obviously there should be an article for Antifa. It is mentioned in numerous reputable sources and at high levels of government. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if antifa had made the threats, it would not have met the criteria for hate. As the Hate crime article says, these can "include, and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation." Being a civil war re-enactor is not included. TFD (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The splc is hardly a reliable source for anything, let alone the sole deciding factor in domestic terror. AnticomWa (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is considered a reliable source. You can take this to WP:RSN O3000 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:AnticomWa has been blocked as a sock of User:GirlishDriver. SPLC is certainly a reliable source, and is listed so at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Southern Poverty Law Center. Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant lies in the lede

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

Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-capitalist[29] views and subscribe to a range of ideologies such as anarchism (particularly anarcho-communism), communism and Marxism, socialism, and social democracy."

I'm sorry, but who wrote this. Sounds like somebody fox news would regurgitate on a slow news day. This is pure right wing propaganda and needs to be removed immediately. How wikipedia allows something like this is beyond me.46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it incorrect?—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 14:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, it is. It also reads like something an alt right youtuber would write, and the citations link to a whole bunch of other citations, and a book of questionable reliability. This is propaganda. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How would you rephrase it and please provide sources. TFD (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the ideologies listed are corroborated multiple times in reputable sources (which I recently made easier to see by adding quotes to the references). But I think "(particularly anarcho-communism)" should be removed. It's mentioned only once in a book that is not well known, as part of an article written by a freelance writer who does not have bylines in notable political sources. I do not think it merits inclusion in this page. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the debate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#Content not supported by sources, self-published sources: needs to be taken care of, stat, I've gone ahead and removed it. To several users the merit of the single source is debatable. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the sentence about tactics, all of the tactics mentioned are listed in reputable sources. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
False. As stated in the next section, those tactics, especially the "physical violence" part, are listed in three year old breaking news stories which are NOT reliable sources. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(retracted). 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should strike this comment or back it up with a report to WP:AIV. Accusations of vandalism without evidence are personal attacks and can result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(retracted)46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Physical violence" removed from lead

I have removed "physical violence" in the litany of defining characteristics of Antifa in the article lead. It is not verified by the cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Physical Violence" absolutely belongs in the lede. AntiCom88 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AntiComm88 has been blocked for having a racist username. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Also a sock - striking text Nfitz (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The removal has been reverted here. Please cite recent mainstream RS that verifies the instigation of violence by Antifa. If it "absolutely" belongs, it should be easy to provide such recent sources. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is supported by the mega cite in the lead [28]. For example some of them are CNN, AOL, BBC, and NPR. It is supported in the body by the Activities section. PackMecEng (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually those 3 year old citations do not support violence as a defining characteristic. You could help out here by citing specific text from recent RS sources, so that we can reconcile the conflicting views on this. I have found none. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those citations are problematic. They are almost all explainers hurriedly published by poorly informed mainstream media sources when "Antifa" suddenly hit their radar in 2017. I think we are far better using better informed sources, e.g. actual experts, rather than see our old mega cite as eternally canonical. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are informed and widely accepted RS. You do not get to discredit RS for no policy based reason. Not how it works, full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My policy based reason is Remember that all breaking news stories are primary sources. They are, by definition, being published very close to the events that the document. Most breaking news stories from reputable news media are independent primary sources. "Independent" does not mean "secondary". Plan to replace all breaking news sources in the future with solid secondary sources. Just like the citations dated 1 June 2020 added to the lead today, the August/September 2017 sources added back then might be OK for specific facts -- but are poor for a measured characterisation of a complex movement in the lead, where we want to give a serious, considered assessment, which should be based on tertiary and really informed sources not on ephemeral news items. In the case of a contemporary political movement, that might be political scientists or contemporary historians. Are you really arguing that this or this are really the most robust sources we can find for the lead? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not sources I cited so no idea why you would say I am arguing for them? Seems like you are setting up a straw man argument. Don't do that and perhaps you should strike the implication. But anyhow the sources that I actually did give are obviously robust sources that work just fine for the lead. You can try RSN I suppose, otherwise the long standing consensus version and sources will just have to do. PackMecEng (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue might not be that there's anything wrong with those sources per se, just that even better sources exist which contradict them. Mark Bray, for example, is quoted to that effect in the article ("The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent"). It's not unreasonable to think that a published expert on the subject is a better source than a CNN primer. But I haven't received the CNN etc. sources in any detail. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right Arms & Hearts. Apologies PackMecEng if I appeared to be making any personal accusation. Just to recap, Specifico said we lacked recent decent sources; you replied that "the mega cite" in the lead was fine, highlighting three of the better refs in that cite; I suggested the mega cite (by which I meant the mega cite as a whole) is problematic as it is dominated by rushed and ill-informed primers. My point is not specifically about the sources you give, but about the sources in the lead in general, which I don't think are robust for the lead. I think we need better sources, e.g. actual academic experts. That's not a straw man argument. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


From the same book you also have him saying on page 169 the justifications for their use of violence. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that they sometimes use violence and arguing that it's justified doesn't contradict the claim quoted above. "The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent" implies that a minor part of anti-fascist organising is violent. So I'm not sure what your point is. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just that your source is kind of contradictory while noting above that most RS describe their use of violence. Given the sources in the lead and the strong support in the body do you think it is not something that should be in the lead? PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a case to be made for removing it. But I don't have a specific proposal for how this issue should be covered in the lede or what sources should be cited. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddlesticks. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The removal should NOT have been reverted. This shouldn't even be discussed. Thia is exactly what i meant by the lede containing blatant lies. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the answer is to make it clear that they are mostly peaceful (given that Brey, who is an expert cited, emphasizes this fact.) The current list gives the impression that these things are all they do - which isn't really what the sources say - the other sources are biased a bit towards WP:RECENTISM / man-bites-dog coverage that naturally focuses on the most sensational parts, but even they don't directly contradict Brey on this. Longer-term coverage means noting these aspects but avoiding giving them such overwhelming weight. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean not really. Most RS say they are violent, the fact that you found one or two sources that say they are only kind of violent does not really over rule the majority. We do not promote fringe viewpoints like that. PackMecEng (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This has been discussed in the past. In a July 2019 comment I listed many high-profile sources that detail the willingness to use violence which indeed is a defining character of "Antifa". Discounting sources like BBC because they're 3 years old is nonsense. Experts on extremism, the Anti-Defamation League, go into a lot of detail about violent tactics in their Who are Antifa? article. --Pudeo (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is absolutely no justification for removing "physical Violence" from the lede. AnticomWa (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pudeo, here is the context for that comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_10#Lack_of_mention_of_violence It was clear then that there was no consensus for what you argued, and Doug_Weller and Simonm223 gave strong policy-based objections to your suggestion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata infoboxes should be avoided

Basically because there's no. Intros over them, no need for them to have reliable sources. If I had time I'd find a current discussion on them in another context, but I don't. In any case, infoboxes should reflect OUR article, not the views of Wikidata editors. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Members" is generally inappropriate

as Antifa is a movement, although there are groups within it that presumably have members. The use of the word presents a false picture of the movement. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can be a "member" in a loose network. But "individuals involved" works too. --Pudeo (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of cleaning up the article to avoid "member" whenever possible. Of course it must remain within direct quotations or as otherwise used per cited source. NedFausa (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

The United States government has declared this organization a terrorist organization. It needs to be added to their bio. 73.120.250.228 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Once something definite and significant happens, if anything at all does happen, then we can cover it. I sort of doubt that they will be quite hubristic enough to officially designate a completely non-existent "organisation" as a terrorist organisation but maybe they will designate some specific Antifa related groups which do exist and pretend that that is the same thing. Trump's tweet is, at, best vague and, at worst, incoherent. Until anything official happens we can't possibly predict what, if anything, will need to be added to the article so it makes sense to hold back for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacist tweet pretending to be Antifa, US gov't & designation, Antifa positions

See this. "A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of "Antifa" was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said Monday. The company removed the account."


"On Sunday, Trump tweeted he would designate Antifa a terrorist organization, despite the US government having no existing legal authority to do so."

"Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many people espousing those beliefs support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get out their messages." Doug Weller talk 09:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to come here and post same thing. When someone linked to the Twitter debacle yesterday citing only a Fox News article written by Gregg Re I was both mystified how this wasn't listed as an opinion piece, nor how the writer could be a lawyer, nor how his Twitter feed could be promoting so much un-journalistic content.
It is clear that for contentious content reliable sources needs to actually provide legitimate coverage, not merely barking out the content of a Twitter feed. Koncorde (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be in there as well as the fact that antifa had little if any participation in the demonstrations. TFD (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the division by countries?

Why is there not a single article about antifa? As it is, there is Antifa (Germany) and Antifa (United States) and the general Antifa is just a disambiguation page. Yet, there are Antifa movements pretty much in every occidental country. Why divide pages according to countries this way? MonsieurD (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Post-World War II anti-fascism serve that purpose? Part of the issue is that, while there are anti-fascist groups in most places, they aren't necessarily known as antifa outside the U.S. and Germany. In the UK, for example, similar groups exist but the name isn't at all commonly used (though there was a group called Antifa, now defunct, mentioned in the Anti-Fascist Action article). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's right A&H. The post-WWII article used to be called "Antifa" and then after a considerable tussle in the talk page in August 2017 it evolved into what it is now. See the talk page. I guess the Antifa page, now a disambiguation page, would be the place to discuss creating a new general article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Antifa members are trying to divide by countries because they are trying to argue that it cannot be listed as a terrorist organization because its not international. Which is wrong on both aspects

1) American groups are able to be considered domestic terrorists 2) Antifa is international as you can see by the antifa riots in London and other countries. Prefix-NA (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa Riots in London? You mean the what the UK Daily Express, a pretty right-wing UK newspaper, calls the "George Floyd protests"? You've got an interesting way of describing them. The Daily Express has two articles that are relevant, one telling people where they can find the protests and calling them peaceful,[8], the other describing "Antifa' as meaning anti-fascist and saying this:
"The antifa movement in the United States is a militant, left-wing, anti-fascist activist movement.
Antifa groups are opposed to neo-Nazis, Neo-fascism, white supremacists and racism, and are often seen as having anti-government tendencies.
The movement is known for traditional forms of protest such as rallies, but are not opposed to violence."
Please show us a link or some reliable sources that says that the US has a mechanism for designating groups are domestic terrorists, and how that would work with a movement. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right"

I would like to discuss this wording again as when I did last time, it did not got any response. I think we should make clear that antifa's actions are indeed directed against right-wing extremists and not merely against anyone they think or believe to be. For example, that wording may be true for the German Antifa which seems to be subscribing to the social fascist theory and may consider fascist not only the far-right, but it doesn't seem to be true for this antifa which includes social democrats. Considering the hoaxes perpetrated against antifa and how the far-right and white supremacists pretend to be antifa, I think it would be helpful to clarify that wording. For instance, The Four Deuces, wrote: I don't find a problem with the source. The ADL article says, "Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life."[9] While that could be re-worded in a neutral tone, the essence is correct: antifa counter-demonstrate far right demonstrations and argue with the far right online. I note too that the ADL calls the objects of harassment "right-wing extremists," while this articles refers to them as those whom antifa identify as such. We should accept the ADL description.--Davide King (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that in a way it's casting doubt on their judgment, but it's also clearly neutral per WP:NPOV. Won't this have some WP:BLP implications, since for example Tucker Carlson is mentioned in this article as a target of their direct action, and he's not a right-wing extremist? --Pudeo (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pudeo, thanks for your comment. Of course there are going to be instances like these, where antifa activists, real or pretenders, involve direct action against people who are neither fascist nor racist, but those seem to be isolated; and while it should be considered, in that specific case it seems to be related to the antifa group Smash Racism D.C. and racist is included in the lead, not just right-wing extremist. Considering the name of the group and Carlson's views on race, I don't think it would have those implications. I'm not arguing that anyone attacked by antifa is a right-wing extremist (antifa is not an organization and individuals have pretended to be part of it to cause negative reactions towards antifa, so we would probably never known whether those who attacked someone that sources describe as not being fascist, racist or otherwise an extremist were really antifa or a pretender, or something else) but we should make clear when sources refer to those targeted as correctly identified by antifa as such. Either way, I think we can have a better wording to reflect that their targets are most of the time indeed right-wing extremists or racists, without implying that there may be rare exceptions. In my comment back in November 2019, I highlighted how in the main body those targeted were indeed far-right or sources have described as being racist or extremist when discussing it, for example the ADL calling the objects of harassment indeed right-wing extremists.--Davide King (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it should be stated as 'whom ANTIFA consider fascist, extreme right wing etc etc.' Views on what is fascist are completely subjective - often in the west - a mundane middle ground policy, business or politician is labelled as fascist by ANTIFA aficionados - despite the label being illogical.Reaper7 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except sources clearly discussed the targeted views and that often times it matches with that of antifa:
  • [...] February 2017 Berkeley protests against alt-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos
  • "far-right group Patriot Prayer's" and "far-right activist Joey Gibson"
  • [...] 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 "certainly used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists"
  • [...] Berkeley protest on August 27, 2017 [...] to confront alt-right demonstrators
  • [...] February 2019 [...] Stone Mountain, Georgia as a white supremacist, neo-confederate rally planned [...] was cancelled
  • Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists [not those whom antifa identify as such] both online and in real life
--Davide King (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. Doctors treat patients, but sometimes they mistreat them. Police uphold the law, but sometimes they break it. Note that Carlson is publisher of the The Daily Caller which publishes articles by by far right personalities.[10] TFD (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support Davide King's proposal. It seems to me to stray into MOS:SCAREQUOTES and WP:WEASEL territory to say "those whom they consider". As per TFD, we don't say "the police arrest those they consider to be criminals" (even though sometimes the police arrest non-criminals). We don't say Anti-communism is "a political movement and ideology opposed to people it considers to be communist". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a past discussions that covered this here which made the point that several RS identify cases where they misidentify people. Which is why a clarifier is needed, as noted above it could also have BLP implications. Something to the effect of well they attacked so and so, clearly they must be one of X bad group. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no mention of that in the main body and I think Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces' above comments stand still. Maybe we could simply add that sources agree with most, many, whatever antifa's identifications, but that there have been cases where they misidentified people; even in the latter cases, was it really antifa or was it a far-right in disguise to give the movement bad publicity, or neither of the two? Something to the effect of well they attacked so and so, clearly they must be one of X bad group seems to be your own assumation, but I agree with The Four Deuces' statement I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. All actions listed in Notable actions include some far-right or something to that effect; the only exception may be Carlson, but that was related to racism, not specifically to fascism or right-wing extremism; and Carlson's view on race have been controversial. Also, as pointed out by The Four Deuces, Carlson is publisher of the The Daily Caller which publishes articles by by far right personalities.--Davide King (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But sources do take note when they screw up, which appears to be often. For example attacking Bernie supporters, attacking a Jewish man, and 2 Mexican-American Marines. I think it is important to note that who they attack appears to be largely subjective and the consequences of those attacks have real impact on the innocent victims. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces' comments apply; accidents happen. Why do you claim who they attack appears to be largely subjective? Why would not those be the exception rather than the norm as you seem to be implying? You wrote that sources do take note when they screw up, which appears to be often but if that was true, especially the often part, surely that would be reflected in the main body? It is not though; and I can only assume good faith and say that those are considered undue. The non-organisational nature of the movement, the oftentimes use of alleged and the fact that the far-right and others have pretended to be antifa or promoted hoaxes about antifa makes it more difficult. However, many sources also confirm antifa's identifications; you can see that in how many incidents in Notable actions include far-right or similar qualifications used by sources rather than merely being identified as such by antifa. Anyway, I hope Bobfrombrockley, The Four Deuces and others can reply back too to get more input and feedback.--Davide King (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah not really. I mean I gave RS supporting that part if you think it is undue for the body well okay, that is not really relevant to this discussion though. Until then I suppose we should stick with the long standing consensus version. I am not seeing any compelling arguments to change are you? PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah not really what? I did not say I think it is undue but rather that, assuming good faith, the reason why it is not included is probably because it is considered undue. As you can see from the main body, we do not cite every incident involving antifa and this was already discussed many times for why several incidents were left out and so on. Well, I think Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces gave some compelling arguments which I believe warrant some discussion. There is also evidence of individuals pretending to be antifa and of hoaxes, some of which are discussed in the article, so I think that should be considered, but you do not seem to consider that at all and seem to believe most of the time antifa misidentifies people.--Davide King (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great find a source that relates people pretending to be Antifa to the sources I gave. I do not think that is a thing for those, so nothing to consider. Also I have to ask are you going to ping them in every post? PackMecEng (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Davide King, sure, it's subjective. They should first check on the central register of fascists, to make sure the person they are targeting is a genuine Nazi. Guy (help!) 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we have three examples of antifa actively attacking people they mistakenly thought were far right and one example where they protested someone who is a friend of the far right but probably not a member. But there are according to the Wikipedia article 200 antifa groups, each of which have numerous members and they each have attended many demonstrations. So really we are saying that since they are only 99.9% correct, we need a qualification. It seems like a red herring to me. Does anyone question that white supremacists, anti-Semites and racists are far right? Normally we report what reliable sources say without our own editorial comment. TFD (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about their numerous attacks on the press or left wing groups that disagree with them? RS seem to document it frequently enough to be something to worth a distinction. PackMecEng (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a policy against original research. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." The ADL does not reach the same conclusion as you, that antifa carries out numerous attacks on the press and left wing groups. You need a reliable source that says that. We don't put in the lead of Police officer that they frequently shoot innocent people because although it happens it is not a typical function they perform. TFD (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, The Four Deuces, I agree about that. None of the given sources use such wording nor do they dispute that antifa is engaging against fascists, racists and those on the far-right, so the wording should reflect this rather than somehow implying antifa just goes attacking anyone who disagree with them. AOL includes this:

"In our research, we determine someone to be a fascist, Alt Right, White Nationalist, etc. based on which groups they are a part of and endorse," said a group member. "Nazis, fascists, white nationalists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes are specific categories, even if they overlap or are subsets or each other. Our main focus is on groups and individuals which endorse, or work directly in alliance with, white supremacists and white separatists. We try to be very clear and precise with how we use these terms."

And yes, PackMecEng, I do not see why I should not ping at least once users when I mention them in my comments so that they can get a notification and be able to reply or correct me if I wrote anything wrong or that they disagree with.--Davide King (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TFD I gave sources above but sure here is a source for attacking police and the press.[11][12] Also please read and internalize WP:OTHERSTUFF. What happens in the lead of another, unrelated article does not matter here. If you want to take up that fight over there, well go right ahead. Davide the difference is you are just repeating that I agree with them and pinging them over and over. Not really making a statement or asking for clarification, more seems like calling for backup. But eh was just curious which it was. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, forgive me for English not being my first language and not being a trained debater; I am just not good at those things and I believe other users can explain my point better than I could, which they did; and also because Bobfrombrockley did not reply to yours and other objections, so I am curious to hear that. However, you claiming I am not really making a statement is misleading if not outright false as I literally wrote in the above comment None of the given sources use such wording nor do they dispute that antifa is engaging against fascists, racists and those on the far-right, so the wording should reflect this rather than somehow implying antifa just goes attacking anyone who disagree with them. and linking a quote.--Davide King (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, English is technically my second language as well. When I said not really making a statement I was more referring to not commenting on statements they made pass agreeing with them. If I misread you on that, my mistake. PackMecEng (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay and thanks for clarifying. 😊 I just think Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces can probably give you a more informed and better reply. I do not consider myself to be a good enough talker and debater on talk page, but I still try to do what I can help and hopefully give a contribute. I will try and write that of course antifa engages against people whom they identify as such, but I do not think there is no need to state that, or that it can be worded a bit differently without implying antifa engages and attacks against anyone who disagree with them (I am not necessarily saying that currently it implies that but that it may been seen or read as implying that). Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body, I am not sure that wording is supported by the main body as the great majority of actions listed in Notable actions had indeed to do with the far-right and racists; so until that is changed and reflected in the main body, I do not think or believe it is appropriate to have that wording in the lead. Finally, I believe that hoaxes, false reports of antifa's involvement, far-right pretenders and so on need to be considered and weighted in; do we have confirmation that antifa really did mislabel them, that antifa was indeed involved? If so, are they notable and/or weighted enough? Or are they undue and the exception to the rule? I do not think a wording change would imply antifa were 100% correct or that there were no errors.--Davide King (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One source that is used to support the far-left claim also reads: Antifa groups resist far-right movements such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They monitor and track the activities of local fascists and expose them to their neighbours and employers. They also support migrants and refugees and pressure venues to cancel white power events. No mention of allegations or that those whom antifa is engaging with are not really far-right or racists.--Davide King (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We only have According to the Los Angeles Times, they have engaged in "mob violence, attacking a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis" in the main body (again, those Trump supporters may not be white supremacists or Nazis for the Los Angeles Times, but they may be considered racists and right-wing enough for other sources), a little too little for the lead to support the current wording. Only a minority of sources seem to use a qualifier; the rest pointly state they are fighting fascists, racists and the far-right, period. Indeed, only the Anti-Defamation League states Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as "Nazi" events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature (this seems to be because, as reported in the same source, Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump, yet many sources would consider them still racist or right-wing enough to fit the far-right mold; in other words, antifa is not attacking centrist or centre-left people just for not being left-wing enough; they are overwhelmingly engaging very right-wing people where the difference from right-wing and far-right or racist is much smaller) but also that antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life without any perceived or other qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments: 1) As PackMecEng notes, this was discussed one year ago, but with a rather different emphasis. The issue then was a lead that said "label". There was a consensus to change this to the more neutral "identify", but it was not an enthusiastic consensus. I think it is worth re-visiting. 2) Of course there are documented examples of mis-identification. If they are noteworthy instances (e.g. if there is , it would be fine to mention these examples in the relevant section of the article. (See WP:NOTEWORTHY, which says whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies, i.e. is there significant RS coverage of the incidents, meaning a single source would not suggest noteworthiness.) Similarly, of course there are documented examples of media and others mis-identifying perpetrators of violence as "antifa", and so on. For this to go in the lead, I think we would need to see that the weight of reliable sources mentioning this as part of their general descriptions of the topic of the article. My take on the sources is that these incidents are untypical and exceptional, so including in the lead would give undue weight and violate our neutrality policy. It is true that, strictly speaking, What happens in the lead of another, unrelated article does not matter here, but I think it helps to think through the logic of our policies to ask if an article about, say, Fossil Hunters would state in the lead that sometimes they find things that aren't fossils or that non-fossil hunters are on occasion mistaken for fossil hunters: such instances would obviously be atypical of fossil hunters and so might be in the body of the article if widely commented on but not in the lead. 3) I think it is good practice to ping people you mention as Davide King has done, and bad practice to describe other editors' reasonable comments as "fiddlesticks". Let's keep it civil and avoid the ad hom. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis was on using that word in the lead to avoid WP:LABEL basically, they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it. You think they are undue and that is fine but at this point I have shown several RS pointing out their failings in that area, hard to pull the undue card at this point isn't it? Again WP:OTHERSTUFF does apply, what happens in unrelated articles has no bearing on what happens here. The examples given do not even apply to this situation so I am not sure why you would even want to use them? Finally fiddlesticks is similar to "well darn", fairly minor to warrant civility caution or calling it ad hominem. Don't do that. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring with the above, the ADL source states:
[Antifa] can also target law enforcement with both verbal and physical assaults because they believe the police are providing cover for white supremacists. They will sometimes chant against fascism and against law enforcement in the same breath.
It's probably pointless arguing WP:UNDUE if a key source exposits antifa targeting fascists-by-proxy. Watchman21 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main body only has two sources mentioning antifa sometimes (not often) misidentifying (the Los Angeles Times and the ADL), so your statement that they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it is not supported by the main body. Neither of you replied to my argument that the given sources do not seem to support that wording, for they do not add a qualifier like we do (which seems to be a truism) and in the lead only the ADL mentions the misidentification (again, in the case the ADL is talking about they did not confuse a leftist or centrist for white supremacists but Trump supporters which other sources have described as a part of them being racist and right-wing populists which often times overlap with the far-right). Nor you replied to my argument that the wording may indeed imply that antifa is going against anyone who disagree with them, including centrist and other leftists, when that is not supported either by the main body right now. We have only the Los Angeles Times in the main body.

Why not simply remove that wording and adding although sometimes there have been instances were antifa was mistaken (duh!), although I am not sure if this is lead worthy (the main body does seem to be enough to support the claim in the lead) and I agree with Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces arguments that any reasonable reader would [not] assume that they were 100% accurate while it is far more likely, considering the controversial nature, that a reader may assume they attack anyone who they deem as fascist, racist, or on the far-right and are often mistaken, when this is not supported by the main body. If there are documented examples of mis-identification [...] [and] are noteworthy instances, they should be added to the main body after a discussion and consensus; until then, no matter how you may imply they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it, that is not supported by the main body right now and is undue, misleading and a truism.--Davide King (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per The Four Deuces, I note too that the ADL calls the objects of harassment "right-wing extremists," while this articles refers to them as those whom antifa identify as such. We should accept the ADL description. Since the phrasing is talking about [a]ctivists engag[ing] in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment, we should indeed accept the ADL description which is specifically about this and not about whether antifa is good or bad at identifying them, which is discussed later and as such can be described later, either in the lead or in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not going to be tenable. The ADL clearly describe systematic targeting of police by antifa. That cannot be disparaged as an isolated incident or a 'one-off' example of misidentification, because it's a direct allusion to the movement's modus operandi. The article also uses similar terminology to the status quo:
In Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists, antifa activists have aggressively confronted what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups. Watchman21 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We make no mention of the police in the lead. The quote you cited still reads that [i]n Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists, not those whom antifa identifies/d as being white supremacists or right-wing extremists; the qualifer is used later only for authoritarian movements and groups but we do not say they harrass authoritarian movements and groups, we say people [identified] as fascist, racist, or on the far-right; so clearly antifa is engaging against white supremacists or right-wing extremists, not merely what [antifa] believe[s] to be authoritarian movements and groups. Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces can probably give you a better answer as I believe them to be more informed and I am curious to hear their response to some of the objections you two raised. I still believe we can work towards a better wording without implying that they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it which is not supported by the main body. Because that is what it may imply and we should be careful about it.--Davide King (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Authoritarian groups' is a pragmatic allusion to the fascists and the far-right in the same statement. The existing lede is likely a re-ordering of that statement for brevity. It would be pointless explicating it any other way given how clearly antifa's mission statement is explained in the rest of the article.
If you contrive the term to mean something other than 'fascists' and 'white supremacists', then you're giving evidence in support of the proposition that antifa's attacks are less discriminate than their mission statement, and arguing (inadvertently) for the lede to remain as it is.
What other authoritarian groups would they be targeting? The police? Watchman21 (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For one, the ADL calls the object of harrassment—which is exactly what the lead phrasing is discussing—right-wing extremists while we refer to them as those whom antifa identify as such. Why should not we accept this ADL description? As this first noted by The Four Deuces, I hope that can be clarified. If correct identification by antifa is actually much higher than misidentifcation, I do not see why we should add a truism like that. Even for those two examples of misidentification, do we have sources specifically about the incident which may actually argues against misidentification? Trump supporters and Trump himself may have been described as being authoritarian, far-right, racist and right-wing populist, so I do not see how that is a misidentification by antifa; it is a misidentification only for the Nazi and white supremacist claim which is what the ADL and the Los Angeles Times seem to imply (the Los Angeles Times also use sometimes which could be used to imply that antifa's identifications are more correct than wrong and so it makes no sense to have a qualifier in the lead that may imply the reverse is true). You are also ignoring all the other given sources for the claim which make no such qualifier. If we can use news sources to support the far-left claim as you did, I do not see why all the other news sources which make no use of such qualifier should be discarded in favour of the ADL.--Davide King (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or worse, keeping the sources which make no such qualifier to support the qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is a bit muddled. Most of it just ignores the dialectic we've covered, as if it never happened. So I won't repeat the points here. I'd be very happy to go over anything you don't understand on my talk page. Watchman21 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I hope Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces can reply back too and probably express better my same points; or maybe your rebuttals convinced them and so the discussion would be over but let us wait until then. Of the six references used to support the wording, only the ADL uses it. Even then, the ADL also still clearly uses, without any qualifier and refers to right-wing extremists as the subject of antifa's harassment which is the topic of the sentence. All those sources may support the [a]ctivists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment wording but not the people whom they identify qualifier because they do not dispute antifa's claims.--Davide King (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 mentions of right-wing extremists in the article. The second and third aren't relevant to your point. The first talks about the presence of antifa at events held by right-wing extremists and is part of the very same statement that supports the lede in its present form. You'll need something other than that to prove what you need to prove. Watchman21 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

186.77.136.51 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa is not a group of people. It is a political stance. If you are anti-fascism, you are antifa.

 Not done Well, it's a movement. But no, not everyone that is anti-fascist is a part of this movement. O3000 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of Justice has classified Antifa violence as "domestic terrorism"

From the DOJ itself: "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly." This belongs in the lead and is significant. It comes from the highest law enforcement agency in the United States. I am not sure why this article is trying to obscure this fact.Sy9045 (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because, as the US Government sinks further into tyranny, the reliability of the source becomes worse? Where is the link? Are there any sources in other countries that confirm this? Are they classifying Black Lives Matter a terrorist group as well? What does other "similar" groups mean? Surely anti-fascism is a movement or a philosophy - not a group. Nfitz (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't seem to be aware of that quote. Link? O3000 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google is hiding it of course. Here is the statement from Attorney General Barr. Katabatic03 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make unfounded conspiracy nonsense here. O3000 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose adding this to the lead. Attorney General Barr's statement merely expresses his opinion, which does not carry the weight of law. The U.S. government has not classified Antifa as "domestic terrorists", nor is there any legal authority to do so. All of this is described in detail, with citations to reliable sources, in Section 6.1 of the article space. None of this is significant enough to rise to the level of the lead. We should wait for the Trump administration to actually do something about Antifa besides blustering to score political points in an election year. NedFausa (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being divisive, we could compromise and say in the article that Barr has deemed it a terrorist organization, and that he ordered the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces to treat Antifa as such. Katabatic03 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting Barr's statement: The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly. He does not "deem" Antifa a terrorist organization. As for the task forces, here's what he stated: To identify criminal organizers and instigators, and to coordinate federal resources with our state and local partners, federal law enforcement is using our existing network of 56 regional FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF). He says nothing about ordering the JTTF to treat Antifa as a terrorist organization. I recommend you stop putting words in the attorney general's mouth. NedFausa (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barr's opinion is of course bullshit, because Antifa is not an organization. It's the idea of being opposed to fascism. The trump administration trying to declare antifascists "domestic terrorists" (which will never happen besides the neonazi GOP making empty threats) is open admission that the United States is officially a fascist state. Something the rest of us normal people have known for years. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the personal opinion of William Barr, not a DOJ classification. It says more about the type of people Donald Trump surrounds himself with than it does about antifa. Incidentally, the determination of whether an action is an act of domestic terrorism is made by the courts not by the Attorney General, according to the U.S. constitution. We can of revisit the matter when and if the due process clause is repealed. TFD (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding this to the lead, as dealt with better in 6.1. We should avoid misleading words like "classify" or even "deem", and be clear that Barr's comment refers to the specific violence of recent days and not to "antifa" in general. In the appropriate section, we should also be clear he referred to "Antifa and other similar [un-named] groups". Particularly in relation to the lead, we should also be wary of recentism; we need to give the dust time to settle before even thinking about changing the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

"anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists. As we will see, anti-fascists have accomplished this goal in a wide variety of ways, from singing over fascist speeches, to occupying the sites of fascist meetings before they could set up, to sowing discord in their groups via infiltration, to breaking any veil of anonymity, to physically disrupting their newspaper sales, demonstrations, and other activities."

Source: Bray, Mark. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. , 2017. Print. Dance2it2 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more accurate and sites a well researched source by a noted authority. Dance2it2 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The template is for uncontested changes and alerts someone with editing privileges to make a change that the proposer is unable to. You need to discuss the proposal first and get consensus. TFD (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed addition of FBI report

I dispute the addition today to Section 6.1 by administrator Neutrality of a leaked FBI report.

  • This new content appears immediately following statements by President Trump and National Security Advisor O'Brien blaming antifa, among others, for nationwide violence. Neither Trump nor O'Brien had blamed antifa in particular for violence in Washington, D.C. Yet here we have introduced an FBI report exclusively about the DC-area violence as if in rebuttal to Trump and O'Brien. That implication is bogus and violates WP:SYNTH.
  • Neutrality also includes: The report did state that members of a far-right group on social media had "called for far-right provocateurs to attack federal agents, use automatic weapons against protesters". This sentence, which does not mention antifa, is entirely irrelevant.
  • Finally, Neutrality inserts "Nevertheless" before Barr's statement and Trump's tweet as if either the attorney general or the president, or possibly both, knew of the FBI report beforehand and were disingenuously expressing themselves in spite of it.

This newly added content should be removed. The FBI report is specific to DC-area protests, which are not otherwise mentioned in Section 6.1. Including it serves nicely to make Trump, Barr, and O'Brien look venal, but does so dishonestly. NedFausa (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In an effort to be accommodating, I've cut the material you've objected to in bullet points #2 and #3 (although I do think it is relevant). But bullet point #1 clearly belongs. The text clearly references "the FBI's Washington Field Office" and "D.C.-area protests" so I don't see how any reader could be confused into thinking that it's necessarily applies nationwide. If we are going to include (at length) the broad-brush claims of Trump and administration officials, then it makes obvious sense to include the well-sourced mention of the FBI report. If Trump, Barr, etc. had explicitly said that "antifa" was not involved in DC, then maybe we would omit the text here. But they made very broad statements blaming antifa for violence. To omit text that (as the source reflects) at least partially undermines this assertion would not serve NPOV. Neutralitytalk 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what is worth it, I agree and think that Neutrality's argument is reasonable. While there is no mention of antifa in that quote, I think it may still be warranted and worth adding, for it is related to antifa insofar as the main body discusses hoaxes and other attempts by the far-right to undermine antifa.--Davide King (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: so you admit that your intention is to "at least partially undermine" the statements of Trump, Barr, and O'Brien? That is appalling. I am sometimes ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. NedFausa (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa: Please don't mischaracterize the words of others or personalize disputes. As I indicated above, the text, as supported by the reliable source, does undermine the administration's claim. It has nothing to do with "my intentions" but about being faithful to the source material, which says (link: "Trump wants to designate antifa a terrorist organization, despite lack of authority and evidence of wrongdoing" and refers to the FBI being unable "to substantiate antifa involvement in the violence." Neutralitytalk 17:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, that is actually pretty neutral, given the sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, that's a fine piece of 2+2=Eleventy right there. Guy (help!) 21:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing sections

We should probably start collapsing the various edit requests mistakenly asserting that the U.S. has declared Antifa a “terrorist organization”, if not downright archiving them. It’s making this page difficult to read. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an edit notice or consensus note would likely be helpful in avoiding at least some of these comments in the future. I doubt this is going to subside anytime soon. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's an FAQ box at the top of this talk page to which this could be added, though I don't know if anyone ever notices it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Wiki claims ANTIFA has not been involved with any murders, however multiple officers have been killed directly and indirectly by riots and violence incited by ANTIFA. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/retired-police-captain-shot-to-death-at-st-louis-pawn-shop-in-slaying-caught-on/article_d482138c-0224-5393-bd87-9898bebb3fd1.html

Why will no one attribute these murders to ANTIFA? At the very least, trying to imply they're not as violent as they are is being willfully misleading about this violent group who should also be labeled as an extremist group based on this sites own definition of extremist and terrorist organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism 67.3.143.182 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short description edit

I have removed the word "militant" from the short description as it does not appear to be supported by the content of the article. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

The notes in the first sentence on this being left wing the resources cited are hearsay and unreliable 70.55.109.239 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The purpose of the template is to alert a confirmed editor or administrator to make a change you are unable to make after consensus is reached. TFD (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

6.11.1.10 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page is inaccurate and highly biased. It does not list all the violent extremist terrorist actions that Antifa has committed. It does not list the fact that they are in fact, and now labeled as such, a terrorist organization. When will Wikipedia stop being overtly biased, prejudiced and anti American?

 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. TheImaCow (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Militant' in the lede

'Militant' is now contested in the short summary.

My edit on this topic was reverted by JzG citing WP:ONUS and denying a prior consensus on its inclusion.

That can actually be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_4#Militant_description_in_lede

It seems fairly uncontroversial, providing a multiplicity of sources meeting WP:VERIFIABILITY, some discussion, with a final request for objections, returning confirmatory feedback. A consensus should be sought to remove it if it is now contested. Watchman21 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, according to the current version of the lead (after the edit by JzG), "Activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against people whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.". JzG did not exclude it. Should it be there? First, this suppose to be a summary of the body of the page. Is it? After looking at Activities section, I am not sure. Did they actually assault or killed someone, which would result in criminal cases? If they do it systematically (sources?), then the description in the lead was correct. But I do not see it. Hence I believe phrase above must be either excluded from the lead or re-worded. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus refers to its inclusion in the WP:LEADSENTENCE.
At the time it was already mentioned (several times it seems) in the body of the lede. Watchman21 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, it's been a consistent feature of the short summation for years, without much controversy. Watchman21 (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN article says, "Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across." It doesn't say antifa is militant. The problem I have with the term is that it can mean different things. As the Wikipedia article correctly notes, "Militance may or may not include physical violence, armed combat, terrorism, and the like." The article on al Qaeda uses the term militant as a euphemism for terrorist. It's a word we should avoid unless it is clear from the context what it means. TFD (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much ambiguity or discrepancy on its common usage or definition. At least not enough to prohibit its use in an encyclopedic text.
  1. Oxford: "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause"
  2. Cambridge: "active, determined, and often willing to use force"
  3. Collins: "aggressive or vigorous, esp. in the support of a cause"
  4. MacMillan: "using extreme and sometimes violent methods to achieve political or social change"
  5. Wikipedia: "vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"
Your wikipedia quote is an etiological laundry list (ie. speculation on mechanisms by which militancy can arise).
That means you can't really refer to it as evidence that the term is ambiguous. Watchman21 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's ambiguous in the sense that it may mean that they use violent methods or it could mean they don't. If your objective is to convey the message that they are violent while maintaining plausible deniability, then its the phrase to use. It's like when Trump says that Ted Cruz looks like the Zodiac killer, then says he was just making an observation not making a claim. As editors we should ensure that articles are clear and unambiguous and not try to imply information that is not reliably sourced. Now you may believe that antifa are left-wing fascists funded by George Soros. But we cannot say or imply that without reliable sources supporting it. TFD (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above for multiple RS using the term as something that defines Antifa. I mean sometimes they use violent methods and sometimes they do not. Heck the rest of the lead lists violent and non-violent things they engage in so again I am not sure why this would be controversial? PackMecEng (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PackMecEng, so some sources call them militant at least some of the time. The question is, do those sources routinely use the term? What's the balance of sources? I think it's hard to unambiguously establish anything other than generally leftist (and even that is tricky). Guy (help!) 21:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If ideas like 'tendency' are too ambiguous for academic work, you'd also need to throw out induction, agency, modal operations, aesthetics, preferences, counterfactuals, the wave function (probably) and many other things in which deterministic certainty is unnecessary or impossible.
That's clearly not true for the public at large or among academics. Watchman21 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, writing show always be unambiguous and we should not take advantage of ambiguity to present information we know to be unsupported by reliable sources. That's the difference between encyclopedic and alarmist, polemical writing. TFD (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have a brief read through the other articles on wikipedia. Do you think every statement on this website should be expounded to some measure of statistical confidence? Watchman21 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watchman21, depends if they are WP:LABELs and whether there is broad consensus over it. Most RS on climate change deniers will use some variant of climate change denier whenever they describe them. Here, a lot of sources seem to discuss the movement without using anything that could be parsed as synonymous. The secret is always to try to falsify your claim and find sources that contradict militant.
Most of the sources I can find point out that the majority of Antifa protesters are peaceful. ADL, for example, scarcely a leftist source - but then, [https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-antifa-in-america-militant-anti-fascism-isn-t-terrorism-it-s-self-defense-1.7425726 Haaretz says "militant anti-fascism". I think the best thing is to set your searches to look only for sources prior to May 1 this year.
Perhaps the best course is to say that they are often characterised as militant. That's easy to agree with. Guy (help!) 21:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the quotes concerning peaceful protest in the ADL source:
Quote 1 sets antifa apart from the ranks of peaceful demonstrators and discusses their militancy.
Most people who show up to counter or oppose white supremacist public events are peaceful demonstrators, but when antifa show up, as they frequently do, they can increase the chances that an event may turn violent.
Quote 2 establishes a semantical boundary between antifa and the 'majority of peaceful individuals'.
Another concern is the misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries. It is critical to understand how antifa fit within the larger counter-protest efforts. Doing so allows law enforcement to focus their resources on the minority who engage in violence without curtailing the civil rights of the majority of peaceful individuals who just want their voices to be heard.
Quote 3 illustrates antifa militancy again. It's unclear whether some antifa followers could be counted among the ranks of peaceful 'counter-protestors'. Bearing quote 2 in mind this seems questionable. And at the very least it's unquantifiable.
In Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists, antifa activists have aggressively confronted what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups. While most counter-protestors tend to be peaceful, there have been several instances where encounters between antifa and the far-right have turned violent.
The article actually appears to be a critique setting out to disparage antifa. Watchman21 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't know. The group seems very heterogeneous. Some are militants, others not so much. Googling for Antifa AND militant using advanced search finds 472,000 results ($DEITY alone knows how many usable and unique) versus 23,000,000 for antifa NOT militant. So on a strictly numerical Google-based nose count, fewer than 2% of sources that talk about Antifa use the term. I don't know how meaningful that is. Yes, one can quote-mine RS and find articles that call them this, but in the same RS there are more that do not. Do we have any actual books ont he movement? Guy (help!) 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)We could quote everyone's favorite Antifa book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray. Page 62 describes historical Antifa in Italy as the militant antifa organizing model or page 196-200 that talks about militant Antifa like the presence of militant antifa could make others less likely to organize against the far right. PackMecEng (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      PackMecEng, I think we both know those quotes don't label the entire movement as militant, which is the question here.
      Often described as militant: accurate.
      A disparate group of people, including militants: accurate.
      A militant movement: contentious, and contradicted by sources that go out of their way to point out that many protesters are peaceful.
      It's not A or B and nothing else. There are many values of C that we have not yet explored. Guy (help!) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could get behind a wording that does not label the whole group as such. I agree that not everyone involved or every cell is militant, but I think a not insignificant portion are. PackMecEng (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a statistical source (preferably from an accredited journal) I think that may have more traction than a simple tally off a google search. Watchman21 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watchman21, I am not looking for "traction". I am trying to work out whether it is acceptable to say, in Wiki-voice, that this is a militant group, when a very large majority of sources don't use the word. See above for my suggestion. Guy (help!) 21:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to appraise linguistic usage, a basic numerical tally won't be much use. It'll be skewed by stylistic and pragmatic differences between your sources (and various other factors) that you first need to correct for. Watchman21 (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, the term militant is ambiguous and the meaning is normally conveyed through context. A Trotskyist group within the Labour Pary for example called itself Militant. By that they meant they had strong views on social issues and the only law-breaking was refusing to pay the poll tax. OTOH, al Qaeda is militant because they fund insurgencies and terrorist attacks. Readers understand that Militant does not engage in terrorism, while al Qaeda's militancy goes beyond refusing to pay taxes. If no reliable sources say that antifa is a terrorist group, we should not imply that it is. It doesn't make sense anyway to mislead readers about groups we oppose, because that makes readers question everything we say about them. Incidentally Trump supporters have injured numerous people at their rallies, but we don't call them militants. TFD (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a lot of WP:OR and whataboutism there. PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is rare case when I agree with TFD: "militant" can mean a lot of different things, from outright terrorists to "militant atheists". This is just a label to avoid. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." As for whataboutism, it doesn't matter what you are deliberately attempting to misrepresent the sources or genuinely believe that you are following policy and guidelines. I explained why you are not. Specifically, the word you want to enter is open to interpretation and hence does not clearly reflect the sources. TFD (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much actually. Please see the multitude of sources above that directly contradict your unsourced assertions. We follow RS around here and that is how a lot of RS describe them. Again my arguments are based on policy and RS, yours are not. PackMecEng (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you write "Sounds like a lot of WP:OR" when OR is about what is in the article not discussions on the talk page? TFD (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because you were doing original research and if we were to apply what you are suggesting to the article it would not fly because of that. Yes, technically speaking OR does not apply to talk pages, but the purpose of talk pages is to generate content for the article. So if that is the goal OR is less than helpful since it cannot be used for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watchman21, I get it, you are determined to include "militant" with absolutely no equivocation whatsoever. I oppose that. I support including "militant" with equivocation, because that is my reading of the sources. It is completely normal to count search hits when deciding whether a term should be hedged or not in the lead of a Wikipedia article, because we need to know if a WP:LABEL is the consensus view, a majority view, a minority view, or a fringe view. You can find a RS for all kinds of labels that would fall into "thing RS said once" category. In other words, by saying a thing in Wiki-voice, are we ourselves making the judgment?
Since something like "often described as militant" is unquestionably accurate, but "militant" without equivocation is obviously contentious, I'd suggest you might want to bend slightly on this because in an "A or B only" scenario you probably don't get what you want, whereas if we include some value of C - a qualified statement - you basically do. We call this "compromise", and it's something Wikipedia used to do before everything became tribal. Guy (help!) 08:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Any idea what that means and please phrase your reply without using OR? TFD (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done here is provide examples in which the proposition of the term is stretched to the semantical fringes.
It looks misused (or perhaps even used figuratively) in the case of the Militant Trotskyists. That's not a criterion for exclusion, unless we consider the term 'Democratic' no longer meaningful because the DPRK uses it more creatively than we're used to. Nor is it tenable to reject a term because its proposition can be expressed to varying degrees, with or without context, otherwise you'd be ablating most of contemporary English.
If you want to show that the term is not meaningful without context, what you need is a systematic review on common contemporary usage. That's pointless if every word reference we've looked at so far conveys the same basic proposition. Watchman21 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Umbrella term" etc

@NedFausa: I don't think this edit gets it quite right. I don't think you can have an umbrella term for one thing – "umbrella term" implies multiple things fall under the umbrella. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I agree, and have removed "umbrella term" from the lead. NedFausa (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure Arms & Hearts did not mean removing this. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please let Arms & Hearts speak for himself. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, describing this is a single movement (singular) is misleading when the same phrase on the page tells "comprising autonomous activist groups that aim to achieve their political objectives". My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not misleading. A single movement encompasses many groups. Abolitionism in the United States comprised scores of groups, and the Civil rights movement had hundreds. Antifa in the United States is a singular movement. By contrast, Antifa worldwide consists of multiple movements. NedFausa (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to PBS [16], for example, ("What is Antifa?"), this is an "umbrella term for far-left-leaning movements that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.. "Movements". My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the lead, our article refers to Antifa USA as a movement 19 times. Not once do we mention Antifa "movements" (plural) in the United States. Our sources likewise adhere to the singular. For example, ADL refers to "the anti-fascist protest movement known as antifa." (Emphasis added.) Are you proposing that, contrary to the preponderance of reliable sources, we pluralize all 19 occurrences of "movement"? NedFausa (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leading statement in section on activities

The statement "In August 2017, antifa counter-protesters at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia "certainly used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists"" is a correct and direct quote however it picks and chooses a specific part of the paragraph in the source material. It should either be removed or should be coupled with the rest of the paragraph in the source ending "Other counterprotesters included nonviolent clergy members."

June 4 Barr quote

I undid the addition of the quote: diff. My rationale was: "undue and unfiltered comment by an involved gov official". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Adding for clarity: by "rationale", I meant the edit summary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Is your rationale within quotation marks because it's taken verbatim from a Wikipedia policy or guideline? If so, I'd appreciate a wikilink. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was my edit summary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Thanks for your reply. In that case, please provide a wikilink to the Wikipedia policy or guideline upon which you base your rationale. NedFausa (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: I can see this is going to be like pulling teeth. You've linked me to a body of text consisting of 833 words. Could you possibly be a tad more specific? Like, for example, pointing out the part that applies to undue and unfiltered comments by an involved gov official. I'd really appreciate your help with this. So far our discussion has been pretty one-sided. NedFausa (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was added by another editor, and I reverted, providing what I thought was a clear edit summary, and, upon request, the associated policy. The onus in this case is on them to explain why this material belongs in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was added by Arms & Hearts.--Davide King (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Arms & Hearts added the reliably sourced[1] content in question, I inserted a 3-word claim of evidence, increasing the direct quotation attributed to United States Attorney General William Barr from 28 to 31 words. K.e.coffman then removed it. Previously in that same paragraph, a total of 16 words, in three separate quotations, were attributed to the same AG Barr. No editor objected to that content as being undue and unfiltered comment by an involved gov official. Yet K.e.coffman has used that peculiar rationale to justify his removal of Barr's latest statement, which is entirely germane to the paragraph from which K.e.coffman purged it. This new content adds value and perspective to the preceding sentence, which describes an FBI report stating there was no evidence of Antifa involvement in the violent May 31 D.C.-area protests. Following that uncontradicted assertion with Barr's claim of evidence is fully justified by WP:NPOV. I request consensus to restore Barr's June 4 statement.

References

  1. ^ Mallin, Alexander (June 4, 2020). "Evidence that antifa, 'foreign actors' involved in sowing unrest and violence: AG Barr". ABC News. Retrieved June 4, 2020.

NedFausa (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it should be mentioned, it should be paraphrased and sourced to a secondary source. When you present an opinion without any commentary, it makes it appear as if it is definitive. It's likely that Barr is exaggerating because there just aren't that many antifa members out there. TFD (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces: I don't understand. Are you saying that ABC News is not a secondary source? NedFausa (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A direct quote is always a primary source, wherever it is taken from. The ABC article does not just quote the AG but comments on it. If you wait a couple of days, the media will explain the degree of credibility that Barr's comments have received. But even today, they point out that the only people arrested for planning violence were far right. TFD (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces: Would a paraphrase, sourced to ABC News and/or to Reuters, with a minimal 9-word direct quotation work for you?
On June 4, however, Barr said he had evidence that antifa, other extremist groups, and individuals of assorted political leanings were "involved in instigating and participating in the violent activity."
NedFausa (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)&oldid=960860496"