Misplaced Pages

Talk:Antifa (United States): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:06, 21 July 2019 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,820 edits →RfC to add a new section: sig← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 21 January 2025 edit undoA. Randomdude0000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,441 edits Restored revision 1269460224 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk): WP:NOTFORUM/WP:TALK/WP:CIVILTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to toc}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header|index=yes|search=yes}} {{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}}
{{ds/talk notice|ap|long}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{BLP others}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{not a forum}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}}
{{be calm}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=Mid}}
{{WPBS|1=
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=low}} {{WikiProject Anarchism}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=low |American=y |American-importance=Mid |fascism=y |fascism-importance=Mid |class=C}} {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Low|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject Anarchism |class=C |importance=low }} {{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology |class=C |importance=low |Social movements=yes}} {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Socialism |class=C |importance=mid}}
}} }}
{{American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=no}}
{{friendly search suggestions}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}

{{Annual report|]|11,936,594}}
{{Top 25 Report|Aug 13 2017|Aug 20 2017|May 31 2020|June 7 2020|Sep 27 2020|Jan 3 2021}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
|archiveheader={{aan}}
| archive=Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive %(counter)d
|maxarchivesize=100K
|counter=9 | counter=30
| maxarchivesize=150K
|minthreadsleft=4
| archiveheader={{aan}}
|minthreadstoarchive=1
| minthreadsleft=3
|algo=old(7d)
| minthreadstoarchive=1
|archive=Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
__ToC__
{{Annual readership}}
== Extremist organization ==

== RfC: antifa and terrorism ==

{{rfc|pol|rfcid=9F65C65}}

Which of the following is preferable treatment of with respect to terrorism?
* '''Option A (status quo):''' {{tq|By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism.}}
* '''Option B:''' {{tq|DHS and FBI intelligence assessments indicated monitoring of antifa protesters before the ]. By 2017, DHS had formally classified antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence".}}
* '''Option C:''' Exclude both of the above.
* '''Option D:''' {{tq|Per ''Politico'', by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.}}
* '''Option E:''' ???
] <small>(])</small> 17:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

=== Survey ===
*'''Option C''' The statement by Politico has not been verified by any outside source, it's also something of a ] claim considering ]. As such, it has no ] weight. Furthermore, it is a ] statement to create the erroneous idea that antifascist activity is widely regarded as analogous to terrorism. Simply put, the Politico statement is a perfect example of why ] is important to the project - journalistic sources may occasionally be useful, but they often come with biases toward the sensational over the factual. This appears to be the case here. ] (]) 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option B or D''' Politico is considering a reliable source and the claims are not "extraordinary". '''Strong opposition to C'''. ] (]) 19:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*<s>'''Option B''' We follow the ]s like Politico, and do not ] just because a Wikipedian thinks that 0 people have been killed by antifascist action in the US since the beginning of a presidency. ] (]) 19:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)</s>
::Please provide evidence that what I "think" is wrong. ] (]) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::] is specifically about content considered to be "objectionable or offensive‍". I don't think anybody has objected to the inclusion of these claims on anything approaching those grounds, and I don't think you really believe that anyone has. The policy is expressly not about material that runs counter to Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, or is believed to do so. &ndash;&nbsp;] (]) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*<s>'''Option D''' I say mention the terrorism allegation, but attribute it to Politico per ]. I have some issue stating it as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice given the silence of other reliable sources.</s> Cheers. ] (]) 19:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) --Despite having drafted Option D (rather poorly, I adimt), I have been swayed by many of the arguments here that given some combination of ] and ], the best course is to keep this claim out. Therefore '''Option C'''. Apologies for both my flightiness and poor drafting. Cheers. ] (]) 22:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Dumuzid}}, would you care to draft some language, add it as a new Option D, and create a new Option E as ??? ] <small>(])</small> 19:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::{{U|Ahrtoodeetoo}}, I thought I'd run it by you here first, but I would want something like,
::::Per ''Politico'', by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.
:::I think it's important to note the Politico report, but we also have to say that it's kind of murky. Cheers. ] (]) 20:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' Per ], we should not make include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." This story has mostly been picked up in the "echo chamber" of unreliable websites and no one else appears to have seen these secret documents. At most it could only be mentioned with in text attribution saying it was a claim made in Politico not an established fact. ] (]) 20:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, I don't follow. The story was picked up and cited approvingly by , , , and . Hardly an echo chamber of unreliable websites. ] <small>(])</small> 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::I said mostly. It haven't seen the story reported in cable or network news (except Fox) or American quality newspapers. That seems to me that they put little credit in the story or think it is unimportant, both of which are reasons to exclude it. ] (]) 21:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option D''' Attribution might be a better alternative that Option B. --] (]) 21:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option B''' This is reliably sourced factual content. It's highly significant, and the story was picked up by other reliable sources such as , , , and . Option B reflects the source; Options A and D do not. I would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant when it published that antifa's activities were "formally designated" as domestic terrorism. Alas they didn't; but that doesn't mean we should exclude this important information, or add unsourced commentary. ] <small>(])</small> 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
** As was explained to you above, the Politico source ''specifically says'' that {{tq|The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public.}} I'm baffled that you could think that your preferred version is backed by that source while omitting that key aspect, or that you could muse about how you "would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant" while leaving out the one key clarification that the source you're trying to use provides. Without that clarification, you are misusing the source, meaning that B is not a workable option, fullstop - even if you think the source is worth including, you must summarize ''all'' of it. --] (]) 16:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' per Simonm and TFD. Alternatively, if anything is to be included it should be ''Option D''. That way readers are aware of the full context behind the statement.--] (]) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option D''' Except that I'd drop the final sentence unless that final sentence can be sourced. I think attribution is warranted here. ] (]) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::Yeah, I don't like that last sentence either (and I wrote it!), but it feels wrong to leave the "classification" out there as if it were a well-understood and known thing. I'm still mulling. Cheers. ] (]) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*Without additional good sources, I favour '''Option C''' or '''Option A'''. Options B and D are both '''absolutely unacceptable''' based on a single source which is quite likely to be mistaken or mispeaking. We have nothing from the DHS to corroborate the vague claims made by the single source. This is hearsay at best. If a DHS classification list did exist then we can be absolutely certain that other sources would have covered it too. The fact that there is only one source for this claim very strongly suggests that is mistaken. Option B simply gives credence to the unreliable claim and is unacceptable. Option D is its weird, nervous cousin. It makes the claim and then partially walks it back with a caveat that is unsourced editorialising. This is weaselly. Both options B and D are also worded incorrectly by saying "Antifa's activities" which suggests an organisation with agency. Antifa is not an organisation. In short options B and D are both dumpster fires and would need to be reworded even if we had sufficient sources to support what they are trying to say. --] (]) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
::Just to add to the above, I am now leaning more towards '''C''' than A. --] (]) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option B or D''' Seems to be the most reasonable description. I do not think D is necessary but would be okay with it as a compromise. ] (]) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*OPTION A - nothing new has occurred to shift the long-standing text on the 2017 tidbit. I’m thinking it should have been attributed to Politico back when as that seems the source, but the option D goes into an unacceptable too much ‘unclear what that means’ and meanwhile keeping it the same seems OK. Cheers ] (]) 03:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
* '''Option D:''' Its only one sources claim.] (]) 07:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option B''' (invited by the bot) if you can find a second source for that, otherwise A or D. BTW you have a structural problem with this RFC as currently arranged. Roughly speaking the "include" sentiment is divided between three options (A,B,D),and the exclude sentiment not divided and all in C. A fix would be combine results from A,B & D into a "include at least a little bit" sentiment.
::Agreed re:structural issue. ] (]) 22:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' - What we have is an issue where an "anonymous DHS employee" provided Politico with documents they claimed classified "antifa" as a terrorist organization. DHS has refused to comment publicly, and there has been no further corroboration of the story. I don't doubt the Politico reporter was shown documents by ''someone'' in DHS, but whether those documents were legitimate or provided out-of-context is very unclear. Reliable sources can make mistakes or be fed misinformation, so without further corroboration, I don't think it's ] to include this. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''', or, failing that, A. '''Strong oppose to B and D'''; both are both completely unacceptable - they misrepresent the source by giving the impression that the DHS ''publicly'' made that designation, which numerous sources (including the Politico article itself) specifically say it did not. Even with proper wording, it would be ] - this is an ] claim with very little coverage relative to what you'd expect if it was worth including, and at this point it's clear that the story went nowhere and doesn't really say anything meaningful about the topic; dredging up, essentially, a two-year-old article that failed to gain traction doesn't make sense. But the wording proposed in both B and D completely misrepresents the source in a way that makes them flatly unusable as written. --] (]) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option D or B''' - Option D, preferably without the last sentence, unless it can be sourced. ] (]) 17:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose B''' as it states something as fact that cannot be verified and as has been pointed out above suggests that it was a public statement rather than something coming from anonymous sources. '''Strongly oppose D''' for the reasons given by DanielRigal and Aquillion and of course the last sentence isn't sourced. '''Strongly opposed A''' because it's wrong. The FBI and DHS did not report anything. Anonymous figures within those organisation told, not reported, Politico various things. Which leaves me '''Support C''' unless someone comes up with reliable sources other than Politico. If ] applies anywhere, it applies here. Note that I am not supporting terrorism. ] ] 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' per {{u|Doug Weller}} ''et al''. Sources really don't back up the ''Politico'' story, and the whole things smells rotten to me. -- ] (]) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' as above. Just don't see the sourcing for such a label. ] (]) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' per Doug Weller and others. We need context from reliable sources before passing this on, and we shouldn't be intentionally including confusing details just because we can find a flimsy source. ] (]) 22:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' - A single anonymously-sourced claim reported in a single source doesn't appear to merit any ] here, particularly given the inflammatory context of the word "terrorist." ] (]) 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' - per {{u|Doug Weller}}.--] (]) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' - From the news, it is clear that Antifa does have a tendency towards violence, and if the DHS equates "violence" with "terrorism", the source may even be telling the truth. The problem is that most people don't equate "violence" with "terrorism." To most people, "terrorism" denotes random attacks, with murderous intent, on disfavored groups of people, such as 9/11, truck bombings, the Mazatlan or ] shootings, etc. That's quite different from Antifa's preferred form of violence, which appears to be relatively low-level violence, such as thrown objects or nonfatal beatings, against individuals it doesn't like. It's not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend it is.] (]) 01:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
::* Terrorism is defined slightly differently by various major institutions in the US. The Department of State defines it (approximately) as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (). The Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political." ]. ] (]) 04:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
:::*The term used is "domestic terrorism," which as defined much more narrowly by the U.S. government, and would not include this incident. ] (]) 17:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' - per a gross lack of addtional, stronger sourcing failing ] for an exceptional claim. The fact that it was all reported as an internal discussion with no further clarifications means policies are against its inclusion. Goverment agency internal discussions usually can generate all kinds of wild shit out of sheer ineptitude alone, we're not going to list them until an official statement is made. '''Option B and D are ''completely unacceptable''''' for we're going to be responsible for another ]. ]]] 04:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
::I had not heard the term citogenesis before but I was aware that this is a thing that can happen. I am pretty sure that I have seen deliberate attempts to trigger it on this article and several others. It is good to have a name for it. In a post-truth world, editing Misplaced Pages can feel like a step towards editing reality itself. We need to take a tough line on this in order to discourage a pipeline that runs along the lines of: Unsupported assertion from an anonymous source -> Credulous journalist -> One RS source -> Misplaced Pages -> Other RS sources via Misplaced Pages -> Perceived truth. --] (]) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' - per ].] (]) 04:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' cytogenesis concerns appear to be very real... Not currently convinced by any of the arguments for inclusion. ] (]) 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' per Doug Weller's reasoning. Strong oppose to A, B, and D, none of which accurately reflect the source. An accurate sentence would begin, "Anonymous sources told ''Politico'' that..." and of course any sentence that begins like that and ends with an accusation of terrorism would be ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– ]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 17:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

*'''Option D''' without the last sentence: This information has been reported by several reliable sources and is clearly relevant. The claim that this information is somehow exceptional is wrong; on the contrary this classification isn't much of a novelty compared to how this movement has long been classified elsewhere. Antifa, as the term is understood in Europe where it originated, is a loose movement traditionally affiliated with "anti-imperialist" communism ("imperialist" meaning the U.S./NATO/the western world); as such it was seen as a threat to national security in countries like the Federal Republic of Germany. The "Antifa" movement has long been classified as "extremist" and "violent" in German government reports, and is monitored by the ], the agency tasked with matters of domestic extremism and terrorism, as openly stated on their website and in their public reports on extremism. This is the main definition of Antifa/"anti-fascism" published by the federal office:
::{{tq2|Das Aktionsfeld „Antifaschismus“ ist seit Jahren ein zentrales Element der politischen Arbeit von Linksextremisten, insbesondere aus dem gewaltorientierten Spektrum. Die Aktivitäten von Linksextremisten in diesem Aktionsfeld zielen aber nur vordergründig auf die Bekämpfung rechtsextremistischer Bestrebungen. Im eigentlichen Fokus steht der Kampf gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung, die als „kapitalistisches System“ diffamiert wird, und deren angeblich immanente „faschistische“ Wurzeln beseitigt werden sollen. '''''' ("", published by the ])}}
:In order to understand what the term has come to mean, especially in Europe, one has to remember that for decades, the Soviet Union daily used the word "fascism" to describe the western world and "anti-fascism" to describe the Soviet struggle ''against'' the western world (the official name of the ] being one of countless examples: "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart"); as a result "anti-fascism" and "Antifa" took on a specific meaning, unrelated to historical fascism (even social democrats were for years smeared as "fascists" by the Soviets and their supporters).
:The decades-long established official view of the German government on "Antifa" really isn't very much different from what is now reported to be the American government's view on this movement. This is particularly significant since the German government is often regarded as the antithesis to Trump these days. (As most people know, I'm not at all a supporter of Donald Trump, but we should evaluate the relevance of this piece of information based on its merits rather than an automatic rejection of everything the Trump administration does.) --] (]) 03:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
:*With all due respect, is American Antifa really the same thing? Are they just adopting a common moniker? I am not sure (though I am far from an expert) that we can really rely on prior or geographically disparate experience here. Just a thought. Cheers. ] (]) 05:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
:::I doubt that the majority of Americans involved in loose "Antifa" groups in the U.S. have a full understanding of the history of the term/movement in Europe and all its connotations, but on the other hand they have adopted the name and symbols and professed goals of this historical movement from Europe. Regardless, it's noteworthy if the U.S. government considers them to be "domestic terrorists". My main point above was that this isn't very exceptional when the German government has called the similarly named movement in Germany "extremists" and "violent", and monitored them in that context, for decades. --] (]) 05:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
:::: Wow -your arguments on this rfc are by far the most insightful. Thank you, Tataral! --] (]) 22:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option D''' - per verifiable reports in RS, such as , and ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

* I '''oppose option C''' and '''support''' the last sentence of '''option D'''. The rest of it should be mentioned, but worded in a way that appropriatly expresses the uncertainty. I'm somewhat indifferent to the precise wording. ] (]) 20:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' per reasoning by ]. If one or two additional RS, that were not simply précis' of the original ''Politico'' article, could be presented then it could be revisited. ] (]) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option C''' ] (]) 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option D''' per multiple ] ] (]) 03:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' There's only one independent ] - other sources are citing the Politico article and don't constitute independent sources. ] (]) 13:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Option B''' There is a source. Lets not over think this. We have seen numerous cases in which ANTIFA organize to create mayhem and terrorise their political opponents. They frequently talk about using violence against people who hold other ideologies ] (]) 08:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
'''Option A''' and '''Option B''' both work. Im fine with either one. ]]

=== Extended discussion ===
*It's an inappropriate use of ] to argue against the application of ]. The idea that a loose ideological grouping which have killed no people in political violence is considered terrorists by the state without any such indication ''from'' the state is the very definition of a ] statement, and the fact that it showed up in Politico should be making people doubt the reliability of Politico, rather than lending credence to this fringe nonsense. ] (]) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

* Simonm223, there may be an angle to this that you're missing. The fact that a group of people has been labeled as terrorists by the government doesn't mean they ''are'' terrorists. This is especially true in this administration, which lacks credibility across the board. I think this story is comparable to other instances in which the federal government has targeted non-terrorist groups as terrorists, for example . The fact that the Trump administration is targeting left-wing groups is plausible, even likely, and highly significant. It's consistent with Trump's "both sides" rhetoric. And the fact that they would publicly deny it is totally unsurprising to me. ] <small>(])</small> 19:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
** I don't believe the terrorism claims warrant any coverage on Misplaced Pages. They're the patently false delusions of the far-right. ] (]) 21:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::Yes it does, see ] and ]. I don't care who you love or hate, but this page is not for defending terrorists. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 19:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::You've lost me Wumbolo, but the purpose of my comment above is to try to bring us toward a consensus, and I don't know if your response helps in that respect. I don't think anyone here is loving or hating or defending terrorists. ] <small>(])</small> 19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::::I'm also lost, but about the comment about a group of people being labeled as terrorists. R2 I agree with you about credibility, but where were they labelled as terrorists. Wumbolo's post seems an attack on editors who disagree with him. ] ] 20:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::I don't know whether to laugh or cry when asking for reliable sources gets you labeled a friend of terrorists. So which, laugh or cry? ] (]) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::Doug, according to the Politico source, Antifa's activities were labeled as domestic terrorism. In my view this is somewhat akin other left-wing groups that the feds have added to terrorist watch lists in the past, like Greenpeace or PETA. ] <small>(])</small> 20:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{U|Wumbolo}} I'd remind you of ] your belief in imaginary leftist terrorists is irrelevant to whether this is a violation of ] and ]. ] (]) 21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::It would be nice if someone actually described a terrorist act or even planned terrorist act about whomever Antifa is supposed to be. Otherwise, I go with Option E. ] (]) 22:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::I could be mistaken, but don't believe there's any evidence antifa has ever engaged in any sort of terrorism. But that doesn't seem to be a basis for ignoring this significant development, which, in my view, reflects more on the federal government than it does on antifa. ] <small>(])</small> 22:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::I tend to agree, Objectcive3000, but we also have ''Politico'', which might not be a top-tier RS, but I'd say is B+, making a significant claim. I think it definitely merits inclusion, but also needs context to make sure it doesn't veer into ]. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. ] (]) 22:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Which is why I look askance at declarations from this gov't. I suggest we wait a tad and see what comes of this. <small>My own opinion, which is irrelevant, is that antifa is a disconnected bunch of drunken, pissed off assholes with nothing better to do. But, I was wrong when I missed the fun in 1789 at the Bastille.</small> ] (]) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::This isn't breaking news. 2017. FWIW these weren't "declarations" by the government. This was investigative reporting using multiple sources and documents. ] <small>(])</small> 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)*
:*Your version still carries the implication that they have been ''publicly'' designated as domestic terrorism, when the source specifically says otherwise. I'm baffled that you can continue to make that mistake despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you. I don't think the source passes ] at all, but your consistent insistence on misreading it in a way that makes it seem more dramatic and important than it actually is only undermines your arguments for inclusion, since it seems like an implicit acknowledgement that once the {{tq|The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public}} bit is included in the summary (as it would have to be, in any version we put in the article), the whole thing becomes a nothingburger not worth including. --] (]) 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

* {{u|Dumuzid}} I don't know what is meant by "formally designating" something as domestic terrorism, but I suspect it has something to do with . There ''was'' a DHS office that tracked domestic terrorists, and according to the reporting there might still be one. ] <small>(])</small> 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
::I suspect you're right, and I also suspect that maybe the journalist phrased it in a way that the source might not have; all that said, it's still just...terribly unclear! So it goes. Thanks. ] (]) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Do we have anything other than an unconfirmed story almost two years old, not mentioned in any of the major mainstream news outlets and with zero followup? ] ] 09:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
::::This was exactly the point I was about to make. The "concerns" highlighted in the ''Politico'' article amounted to precisely nothing. There was no sign of widespread coverage at the time, and none since. More likely is that it was useful for the Trump administration to portray Antifa in an unfavorable light at the time, statements were made by government officials to that effect, and ''Politico'' and a couple of other Beltway media organs lazily reported them. -- ] (]) 13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::And what are these acts of domestic terrorism they are supposed to have carried out? The ] article says the FBI considered them a terrorist group, then outlines various terrorist actions they carried out such as bombing the Capitol, the Pentagon and various other U.S. government installations. I haven't seen any coverage of antifa carrying out these sorts of attacks. On would expect that Politico's article would at least explain the reasons for the label, if in fact their story is accurate. ] (]) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::Well you see, someone who might or might not have been a member of an antifascist group threw a milkshake at a racist blogger, and that's exactly the same as what the Weather Underground got up to. ] (]) 15:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::It's a plain violation of BLP to call Ngo a racist blogger without providing RS to that effect. Also, they didn't just throw a milkshake at him; they sucker-punched him in the head, repeatedly kicked him. ''Then'' they threw something that looks like milshakes on him. He had to go to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a brain hemorrhage. Relatedly, here is a video of Antifa smashing private property and terrorizing people: . There are, of course, many other examples of this sort of behavior. It's very surprising that people are acting like we've never seen this sort of thing from Antifa. Obviously both 'antifa' and 'terror' are going to be disputed words. But we have RS reporting something about this dispute, and with attribution it seems clearly to be due. ] (]) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Why have you posted a video from an anti-Trump demonstration in January 2017 (see ]) in a discussion about an entirely unrelated anti-fascist demonstration in June 2019? Neither the video nor the description anywhere mentions "Antifa". Are you confused or are you actively trying to mislead people? &ndash;&nbsp;] (]) 17:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::The video was relevant to the question whether Antifa has committed acts of terror, which was also under discussion. I figured some would deny that the black clad "protestors" in the video were Antifa. The matter is disputed. In my opinion, the existence of this dispute is part of why the Politco report is worthy of incusion. ] (]) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I mean finding examples of academics talking about Quillette pushing a bias in articles on race is . Quillette is a racist blog. Ngo writes for a racist blog with articles under his byline including and . Basically ]. ] (]) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::You didn't say he writes for a racist blog; you said he's a racist. That's a violation of BLP. An opinion piece in Arcdigital is not RS for such a claim. Quillette is not a blog. ] (]) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::*Misplaced Pages describes ] as an online magazine, not a blog, but I can't find any description for "arcdigital" which seems to be an obscure (Medium hosted) blog with only 1500 followers. Nicholas Grossman, the author of the article you linked to, seems to be an academic, in the so-called Political Sciences field but he has virtually zero citations and peer-reviewed research. He laments the Quillette article pushes "bad Social Science" - that's quite likely, especially since the entire Social Science field is full of junk research and bad statistics which affect (though to a lesser degree) even so-called "top-studies" like those peer-reviewed and published in the () where less than 1% of "researchers" active in the field get to publish. The argument of "pushing a bias in an article" can easily be used against any publication which chooses to publish this kind of research, statistically week or, even worse, invalidated by future experiments ( ]) if the qualification criteria is just pointing to an anecdote (e.g.: an article presenting what could be junk statistical findings). ] (]) 19:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Shinealittlelight}} This is not a "dispute", it's a clear-cut case of someone drawing connections that are not only original research but also straightforwardly false. You're either not possessed of sufficient grasp of the factual issues to provide anything of worth to this discussion, or you're not attempting to provide anything of worth, but rather to soapbox and distract from the question at hand. &ndash;&nbsp;] (]) 18:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
{{od}} Yes. It. Is. ] (]) 18:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
:With all due respect, I don't think this is one we're going to reach any sort of agreement on. Though I hate invoking it (because I think it very much overused), this is ]. I'd like to suggest we agree to disagree here and get back to what we're doing with the article. Feel free to ignore me, however. Cheers! ] (]) 18:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

:Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. ] (]) 01:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
::Are you trying to imply the actions carried out by antifa are not politically motivated? Also yes calling ] racist is of course a BLP vio and should be removed. ] (]) 02:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
::* TFD - the most commonly used definition in the US is that of the Department of State, e.g.: (approximately) "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (). ]. ] (]) 04:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
::::That's about international terrorism. Domestic terrorism is defined as: to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." Attempts to intimidate a minority population are not considered terrorism, but hate crimes. Attempts to intimidate a political group, such as neo-nazis, do not come under either category. PackMecEng, no, why do you ask? ] (]) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::Because above you mention {{tq|Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized.}} which I took as you implying it was not to change government policy or the like. Is that incorrect? Apologies if I am mistaken. ] (]) 17:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::And again, let's remember ] - this is largely irrelevant to the question at hand which centers on ] when dealing with a statement made by one publication and never verified in another independent source. Frankly US law could call tuna sandwiches terrorism and it wouldn't be relevant to whether Politico is due mention. ] (]) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

== Poorly Structured "Ideology and Activities" section ==

The section "Ideology and Activities" is very long and could be better formed. Most saliently, the sentence "By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism" is embedded in a very long and circuitous set of paragraphs about very different subjects. I suggest each of these (the terrorism accusations, the mutual aid, &c.) be migrated to their own subsections. It would be much easier to navigate at a glance as a result. What do you all think? ] (]) 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
:agreed. it definitely needs better structure. maybe something like the Proud Boys page, where each notable incident has its own subsection. ] (]) 03:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

== IPA Transcription ==

Antifa can be pronounced with either prepenultimate or penultimate stress, all four possible variants should be expressed. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{ping|SapientiaBrittaniae}} I don't really understand what you're proposing (probably largely because I don't really understand IPA). What are the four possible variants? Don't the two pronunciations currently given in the article indicate that the word "can be pronounced with either prepenultimate or penultimate stress"? &ndash;&nbsp;] (]) 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Arms & Hearts}} In General American English, the four possible variants should be as follows: /'æntifə/ /æn'tifə/ /'æntifɑ/ /æn'tifɑ/. Further, in RP English they can be mutated into /'antifə/ or /an'tifə/ ] (]) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

== Willem Van Spronsen ==

I imagine editors other than ] have opinions on whether information about Willem Van Spronsen's attack on a detention centre in Tacoma, Washington belongs in this article. While the article cited in doesn't draw any connection between Van Spronsen and antifa, other reliable sources do, including , who describes him as "affiliated with the Puget Sound Anarchists and local antifa groups" and quotes him as saying, in his "manifesto," "I am antifa". I think a sentence in the article cited to this source would probably be appropriate. &ndash;&nbsp;] (]) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

:It's been pointed out in a few (non-RS) places I follow that while Van Spronsen was not the first person to die in one of these concentration camps, he is the first person to die trying to liberate one. I'd say his connection to antifa activism is notable and I'm certain a RS can be found. Furthermore, while I am generally very opposed to ] ] lists, I'd suggest his activities are significant enough in this instance to warrant mention. That said, I think it's ''critical'' that Misplaced Pages express this action in a neutral way. While some editors may be inclined to vilify him and while others (including myself) may hold his actions as meritorious, Misplaced Pages should do neither. ] (]) 13:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

<s>::I tried to add a partition to this webpage to discuss this, but something wasn't working and it wouldn't publish. In his manifesto he says that he is a member of Antifa so I thought that it applied. I am sorry if I was not good in my edit and this happened near my town so I wanted to add it. I will try to be better. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></s>
:::{{ping|Terrorist96}} When I talked about the need for neutrality it was precisely the sort of inclusion you just made that I was referring to. Please avoid loaded language such as "attacked" and, prior to any public investigation, avoid making unambiguous statements of fact in Misplaced Pages voice. All Misplaced Pages knows for certain is that Van Spronsen is dead in an ICE facility. He was reported to have damaged structures within it. Whether property damage constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and thus subject to ] at this time there's no evidence suggesting he intended harm to any of the human beings in the facility. Finally, I deleted the Epoch Times because they're a garbage source. You have already provided better. ] (]) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::::ETA: please see basically any discussion on this page for why Misplaced Pages does not call anyone, living or dead, a "member of Antifa." Furthermore, if I recall correctly, BLP protection applies to the recently deceased, especially in cases where ] applies. As such, we have to be particularly sensitive in our handling of this incident. I do think it's notable and warrants inclusion, but there are structural limits to how Misplaced Pages ''should'' include it. ] (]) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::IE: We should be particularly cautious in how we describe the deceased, such as calling them a member of this or that group. As it is the event, not the individual, which is notable and the event only is notable in that it draws a parallel between antifascist action and the public perception that the ICE concentration camps are part of a shift in US border policy toward fascist ones. ] (]) 19:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::::I only restored the text by VD88 and added sources to it. By all means, feel free to rephrase it. Additionally, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Epoch Times; see ]. Thanks.] (]) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::Let's put it this way, you didn't ''need'' to include a source from a publication with a long history of fabrication, propaganda and shoddy reporting. You had better sources. So I removed it. ] (]) 19:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

:I am a little unsure of this just because the major tie I see to Antifa is a Facebook post from a Seattle group, but it is entirely possible I am missing something. I see him frequently described as "antifascist," but that, to me, is not the same as being associated with Antifa, unless we are ready to call General Patton and his Seventh Army "Antifa." So, I guess I'll leave my qualms at that, and let consensus fall where it may. Cheers! ] (]) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::From the Heavy link: {{tq|Van Spronsen wrote, "I am antifa,..."}}] (]) 20:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

<s>The man who committed the attack said that he was in Antifa, that is why I originally put it but I am not doing edits on this article anymore that's just what I read. ] (]) 20:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)</s>

:::I saw the "I am Antifa" quote, but is that a 'tie' to Antifa? I would say that is 'self-proclaimed' or the like. When I write my manifesto (before making the criminally moronic Misplaced Pages posts that get me thrown off the internet), I may say "I am a member of the Lancashire County Cricket Club...." It would be a mistake to say I had "ties" to the club. Obviously the nebulous nature of Antifa makes this tricky, but I still think this is one we need to somehow indicate was basically this guy's say-so. Cheers. ] (]) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

::::Antifa isn't a club one can be a member of; it's largely an ideological position (that fascists should be confronted directly, that for a variety of reasons, law enforcement is poorly equipped to handle fascists) and as such, it's reasonable to state somebody adheres to antifa principles based on self-identification. My understanding via my non-RS sources is that many antifascist groups are saying, "he was one of ours," IE: that his actions were an act of antifascism to be praised. Remember as an ideology rather than a group there ''is no member list. Nobody is a member of antifa.'' So claims of camraderie aren't claims that he was working with this or that group but rather that he was a comrade. However, what I've heard from contacts in antifascist groups through the grapevine is not what Misplaced Pages should publish. I'd be very open to an edit clarifying that his antifascist connection was self-identified if no specific groups have come forward and said, "he was working with us." ] (]) 21:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but I think the phrasing "ties to" belies your point; it certainly implies to me something concrete beyond an ideological affiliation. I'm not saying we should pretend he had nothing to do with Antifa, rather, I think we should just be a bit more careful in how we paraphrase the sources. Cheers! ] (]) 22:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
*None of this matters. What we need are better sources; not all antifascist groups are antifa, and since he's recently dead this guy still falls under ] - even with the more cautious wording in the latest version (which avoids using the word 'antifa' in that paragraph), including him here still contains an obvious implication. To include him we need a ]-quality source ''specifically stating in as many words'' that he was associated with antifa; antifa is anti-fascist, but not all anti-fascist groups are antifa. Two of the three sources previously in the article don't mention antifa at all and therefore aren't usable. The Heavy source does include one quote, {{tq|Van Spronsen wrote, “I am antifa, I stand with comrades around the world who act from the love of life in every permutation. Comrades who understand that freedom means real freedom for all”}}, but I do not feel that's sufficient on its own until / unless we have at least one source discussing the connection in the article voice. (I'm not saying we keep it off the page forever - given that quote, it should be easy to find a source actually connecting him to Antifa if it checks out and is relevant - but I feel we have to wait until / unless such a clear source appears. Filing this under antifa activism based on a single quote feels too much like trying to connect the dots ourselves right now, which is ].) Or, in other words, if this is notable antifa activism, there will be a source saying so in its article voice soon enough. --] (]) 22:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::I'm in two minds about much of this, but I think the final sentence gets at an important point, which is that if information about this event does belong in the article it surely ''doesn't'' belong in a section called "activism": even if we have good enough sources connecting Van Spronsen to antifa (which we may or may not), we certainly don't have sources describing what he did as "antifa activism". This probably connects to the issue raised ] about the article's structure. &ndash;&nbsp;] (]) 23:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Count me in the "two minds" crowd as well, but I'm glad Aquillion was bolder than I am. I believe "when in doubt, leave it out." I also believe all Misplaced Pages maxims should rhyme. Cheers. ] (]) 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the first lethal victim and martyr of this movement is pretty notable to at least be included in a sentence, he self-describes as Antifa in his manifesto, a manifesto linked to and mentioned in several ], the problem of ] is hard to circumvent here, but he has been referred as Antifa in a few sources, see

I suggest something to the effects of ''"On July 13, 2019, a 69-years old man identified as Willem Van Spronsen was shot and killed by police after opening fire and throwing incendiary devices on a ] detention center. In his manifesto, he self-described as antifa."'' feel free to suggest changes ] (]) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
*Maybe. "On July, 13 2019, a member of Antifa, Willem Van Spronse..." should not be accepted, {{U|ValentinesDay88}}. ] (]) 01:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
::I'm okay with the proposed wording. At this point I'd lean towards not including it at all, just because I'd like to see the connection drawn a little more explicitly in the reliable sources (though it's awfully close). That being said, it's only a lean and I won't be turning over any furniture if it's included in the article. Cheers. ] (]) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

<s>This article <ref>https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-man-killed-at-ice-detention-center-manifesto</ref> also uses the words "attacked" and "Antifa" so shouldn't we include this? I'm not understanding why we are avoiding this. -Valentine <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></s>
:Seems like they're waiting for sources like Washington Post, New York Times, etc. to explicitly mention it, in which case, .] (]) 02:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

<s>::I don't understand. Are those the only webpages that are allowed to be used? -Valentine ] (]) 02:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)</s>

:::I found this webpage <ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/14/armed-man-throwing-incendiary-devices-ice-detention-center-killed-officer-involved-shooting-police-say/</ref> on the Washington Post (it's for Washington DC not Washington State) and this on the New York Times <ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/us/tacoma-detention-center-shooting.html</ref> they says the same things about the attack. Is that what they want? -Valentine ] (]) 02:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
::::Nope, because neither of those mentions "antifa", which is predictable as per my last link.] (]) 02:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::Remember, Misplaced Pages isn't the place to try and ]; even if you think the mainstream media is covering something up, we still have to go with what they say. ], I think it is, even specifically says that arguments that something doesn't appear in the sources because it's being covered up is a sign that it shouldn't be included. --] (]) 21:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:We need an article about antifa that mentions it. In comparison, a book about the serial killer ] mentions that he was a delegate to the Republican National Convention. But mainstream sources about the Republican Party rarely mention this. That's because while it is important to his story, it's not important to the Republican Party. I notice this article does not even mention the Puget Sound Anarchists, with which Van Spronsen was apparently "affiliated." ] (]) 03:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::The difference between Ted Bundy being a serial killer not being mentioned on the Republican page vs Spronsen being antifa not being mentioned here is that Bundy didn't commit his acts as a result of his Republican affiliation; Spronsen did, as per his manifesto. And we have enough sources to add it. . In sum, we have buzzfeednews.com, heavy.com, independent.co.uk, theepochtimes.com, foxnews.com, and several other right-wing sources all explicitly saying "antifa" and other sources such as seattletimes.com mentioning "anti-fascist". Still not enough?] (]) 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::That's something for reliable sources to determine. ] (]) 01:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
::::] has it right. How is this important to Antifa? This has yet to be demonstrated, and frankly I don't think it can be unless there's some sort of successful attempt to show him as a martyr for the movement. Where I disagree with TFD is that I don't think one article would be enough. Of course, maybe if he gets his own article it could mention what he said. Anyone can say that they support a movement without anyone else in the movement even knowing them. Terrorist96, Newsbuster is of no interest here and commments such as yours are neither helpful nor collegial. If you have problems with the sources they don't like, take them to ], not here. ] ] 08:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know what I think about inclusion here, as there are convincing arguments on both sides. Clearly his behaviour is exceptional within the wider movement, which practices a diversity of tactics with this at a very far end of the spectrum, so we need to avoid suggesting his actions were exemplary of antifa. But at the same time, it may still be noteworthy. We should feel OK to take it slow not rush, as we not a newspaper, and wait to see what sources say. And whatever the consensus, we need to avoid the formulation proposed that describe him as “in” or “a member of” antifa or which capitalise antifa as “Antifa”, as (as established numerous times on this talk page but perhaps new to people coming here because of this incident) antifa is not a homogenous organisation and does not have members. ] (]) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:Fox News is not a reliable source on leftist political movements. Full bloody stop. I generally support inclusion of Van Spronsen for reasons noted above but, if the consensus is that it's ] to identify his activity as antifa activity within the bounds of Misplaced Pages, I'm not going to edit-war it back in. ] (]) 12:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors white washing left-wing terrorism are a disgrace to this website. Shame on you. ] (]) 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

{{ec}}::It's now in ], was in ] but I removed it, again, and ] - the mainstream sources, WAPO and Seattle Times, mention neither Antifa or terrorism, the two right-wing sources do. He did say "I am <s>A</s>antifa" but that doesn't mean, as I've said, a lot. No question though that he was a left wing anti-fascist. <s>Editors here to push rightwing sources only are a disgrace to this website.</s> Good editors follow policy. ] ] 17:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:Hey guys, did you hear? is now right wing. Someone tell Buzzfeed!] (]) 17:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
::I would suggest that everybody needs to cool off, watch the ] violations and remember to ] - the purpose of this page is to convey relevant information about the US antifa ideological movement, NOT to catalog alleged crimes of anarchists. Although I don't ''personally'' object to including a ''carefully worded, reliably sourced and neutral'' statement about this incident respecting the restrictions of ] there has been a strong case made for ]. None of this is "white washing left-wing terrorism" and comments to this effect, along with sarcasm about the political slant of sources is actively harmful to Misplaced Pages. Stop it. ] (]) 17:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

<s>:::I have to assume that if a terrorist attacked a government facility and wrote in his manifesto, "I am a Nazi", that editors would include that in Misplaced Pages. Why doesn't the same standard apply here?-Valentine ] (]) 18:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)</s>

::::The Buzzfeed article doesn't mention terrorism or Antifa with a capital A, it says " self-identified as an anti-fascist, or "antifa," Not all anti-fascists are part of the Antifa movement, and his manifesto uses a lower case "a" - ie antifa, and says "I am not affiliated with any organization, I have disaffiliated from any organizations who disagree with my choice of tactics." ] ] 18:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::Here's a right-wing source ] with it clearly in lower case, as it is in the left wing sources I saw. Of course BLP calls him an Antifa member, but you'd expect that take despite him not saying anything of the kind. ] ] 18:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
<s>:::::::If a terrorist attacked a government facility and wrote in his manifesto, "I am a nazi" instead of "I am a Nazi" we would not be able to include it on Misplaced Pages? -Valentine ] (]) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)</s>
::::::::It would be included in that individual's article. It probably would not be included in the article about Nazism unless it was relevant to that topic. ] (]) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, any connection is too tenuous. And even if we knew for certain that he was a member of the Republican or Democratic Party, we wouldn’t add it to one of those articles. ] (]) 19:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::More specifically, it would depend on coverage among secondary sources. If the sources commonly described him as a Nazi and treated that aspect as significant, we probably would, too. --] (]) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::I've struck through the edits of the sockpuppet ValentinesDay88 (also editing as HappyValentinesDay1988) who was a confirmed sockpuppet of CordialGreenery who in turn was a proven sock of OnceASpy. ] ] 07:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

===List of sources===























According to ], all the above sources (in order) either have consensus of being reliable, or there is no consensus on their reliability, or are not listed. None are deemed "unreliable". But I guess it's still #TooSoon... At what point are you guys going to admit you ]? ] (]) 15:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
{{talkref}}

== Conglomeration ==

There has been some back and forth in the edits in the first sentence of the lede recently between “is a conglomeration of” and “comprises”. I really don’t like and don’t see any advantage in “conglomeration” which is (a) an inelegant, unnecessary word, (b) rather vague in meaning, and (c) ascribes more cohesion to the amorphous, leaderless movement than is accurate. Can we go with the simpler, clearer, more accurate “comprises”? ] (]) 10:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:I mean, anytime somebody uses comprises correctly they're already half-way to support from me. So while I've previously supported the conglomeration wording against other suggestions, I'd definitely support the new "comprises" wording, which is more elegant and accurate. ] (]) 11:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
*"Comprises" sounds good to me; it's vague enough to avoid going beyond what the sources say, and doesn't seem to have any baggage. "Conglomeration" makes it sound like a company, almost, like there's some formal Antifa Conglomerate. --] (]) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
:Antifa is neither organized per se nor are they entirely disunified (they at least share a common ideology and common talking spaces, that's more than obvious). I'd suggest the term "unified by" with the addition of a sentence pronouncing their apparent organizational unity within regional circles (one could find social media pages, public discussions &c. for regional sects of Antifa such as in Portland or Chicago) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Comprises, definitely. We shouldn't suggest that the movement doesn't have supporters who aren't in groups, which we seem to be doing now - the wording has to make that clear. Again I see this analogous to the Civil Rights movement - a lot of groups but also a lot of unaffiliated supporters. ] ] 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

===Suggested wording to bring the lead into line with the article===
Right now it is simply inaccurate. I suggest "Antifa is comprised of autonomous ] ] groups and individuals who subscribe to a range of left-leaning ideologiesideologies, typically on the left. They include ]s, ]s and ]s along with some ]s and ]. ] ] 14:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:Sadly this often happens, people treating the lead as though it's disconnected to the article or should determine what the body of the article contains, when as ] makes clear, it's the other way around. The body of the article says "Antifa is not an interconnected or unified organization, but rather a movement without a leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals. Since it is composed of autonomous groups, and thus has no formal organization or membership". That's more or less what the lead needs to say to comply with guidelines. ] ] 15:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::I've just found the current New Jersey Homeland threat assessment, which says "Antifa is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas." I've added that to the article but need help with the url for the actual text, as the main page for the threat assessment doesn't have the full text but a link, which is I don't want to use that alone as it could look unofficial. I also think that we need to rethink the lead in the light of this. ] ] 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

== Lack of mention of violence ==

The core theme of Antifa is their use of violence against whoever they claim to be fascist, yet this article barely mentions it and doesn’t mention it at all in the first paragraph. Can we change that to bring attention to their use of violence? ] (]) 15:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:The first paragraph is part of the ] which should summarise the article and would need to change if major parts of the article change. The key bit of the article is ]. That doesn't convince me that the core them is the use of violence, although no one would deny that it's used at times and of course is much more headline worthy than anything else they do. ] ] 15:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::{{re|Victor Salvini}} see also the New Jersey Homeland Security quote above. ] ] 15:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Other wiki pages on violent activist groups (such as the proud boys) mention that they may use violence, so I don’t see why it can’t be said here.

What quote above? I don’t see any? ] (]) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I second that this be added to the lede and a separate subsection be formed under "Ideology and activities" to talk about their violence in public. This is characteristic of their movement and thus should be significantly reflected in the Misplaced Pages article. Mention of Antifa in conjunct with their conduct of violence is very commonplace, especially in the news. ] (]) 15:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:It would be helpful if you could point to specific reliable sources to back up your proposed changes. Cheers. ] (]) 15:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::As of 20190718 on an incognito Google search for "antifa," the first three news results (, , and ) make numerous claims to Antifa's violence, predominantly in their headlines. The recent Andy Ngo attacks and the firebombing of an ICE detainment centre further this consideration. ] (]) 15:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::So if we can find three sources that refer to members of the republican party committing violent acts with political motivation, should we say that a core tactic of the republican party is political violence? ] (]) 15:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::That's a silly ''observation''. Your test doesn't work the way I ran mine; none of the top seven Google results for "republican *party*" include mention of their violence. Please stop with the ]. ] (]) 16:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::I would request you immediately strike through your statement about me per ]. ] (]) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::And I would deny that, as I spoke only of your ''content'', and not of your ''character''. See, "silly and childish *observation*." Even so, I've complied partially. ] (]) 16:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::So, sticking to the lead for a moment, the third sentence currently reads: "They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right." How would you want this adjusted or what would you like to see added? I understand the general nature of your suggestion, but I am not quite sure of the specifics. Cheers. ] (]) 15:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/350524-antifa-activists-say-violence-is-necessary
https://www.wsj.com/articles/portland-considers-antimask-law-aimed-at-antifa-violence-11563442203
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/three-arrested-during-antifa-counterprotests-in-portland
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/30/us/portland-protest-arrests/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-07-01T03%3A23%3A33
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-24/violent-mob-beats-alleged-proud-boy-oakland-protest-chasing-group-down-street
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/a-chilling-threat-of-political-violence-in-portland/524334/

Here’s multiple links regarding Antifa violence, and I can get a lot more ] (]) 15:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

:As I said above, I get the general gist, but what is the specific proposal? We already mention their use of physical violence in the lead; I am not opposed necessarily to making it more prominent or adjusting the article, but I am not sure what's actually being suggested. Cheers. ] (]) 16:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And what I myself would like to see changed is to add violence to their list of “principle features” in the 1st paragraph ] (]) 16:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:Well, it is in the following sentence, which to me reads as a list of examples of "direct action." But how would you rewrite the lead? Or at least those couple of sentences? ] (]) 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
*You would need a source describing it as such specifically. The sources above don't seem to support that. --] (]) 22:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

To me it reads as saying that violence is a practice within Antifa, but it isn’t a principle feature as direct action is (with direct action being a vague term). There are two ways I would propose editing the lead. The first being to simply add “and violence” after “direct action”. The second being to move the third sentence to start after “direct action” and to then continue down to “with conflicts occurring both online and in real life” which would now be at the bottom of the paragraph (in other words, merge the third sentence with the second). ] (]) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
*I would '''oppose''' that edit as being ]. Again just because an ideology believes violence is ''an option'' doesn't make it a principal feature. And finding journalists referring to isolated events does ''not'' constitute evidence it is a principal feature. ] (]) 16:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:Perhaps it's not part of their core ideology, but Antifa is very often referred to (and reported on, notably) in terms of their violence. It has become characteristic of their movement to the public, if not to themselves. It's characteristic of them, but not necessarily a universal doctrine as such. ] (]) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::And violence is mentioned in the lede. The question here is whether to refer to it as a principal feature by restructuring the lede. You're trying to use an argument for the current state to support a proposed different future state. ] (]) 16:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::That's a good point, but most saliently I see a discrepancy in the difference between the way the Proud Boy article and the Antifa article are portrayed. It seems unfitting to not make abundantly clear what is the relevant ''communis opinio'' (that Antifa often acts violently). ] (]) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::You do, however, make clear the main problem with our proposal: That no matter how many individual instances we find of reference to Antifa as a violent organization, we will be fundamentally incapable of finding an *unbiased* source confirm them to be characteristically violent, only a statistical source could do that. The ADL refers to them in a way that is close to our characterization, but I'm not sure that should be used. ] (]) 16:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
As I’ve stated earlier, the wiki pages of other groups such as the proud boys make very clear the tendency for there to be violence at the events, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t do the same with Antifa. And as I’ve also stated earlier, I can find many more links and instances of Antifa violence, so these are not isolated instances. ] (]) 16:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::Second. @Dumuzid should compare our Antifa article to our Proud Boys article to see our proposed reformation (in order to mention their violence more prominently, that is). ] (]) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::With all due respect, I don't find "Article X should be equivalent to Article Y" arguments particularly persuasive. There is certainly mention of violence with regard to Antifa, I agree with that. The question is how to impart that information in a way that comports with coverage. I'm mulling over Victor Salvini's suggestion above, though it would be helpful if he would simply draft it out as a proposal. Cheers. ] (]) 16:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::As you and @Objective3000 say, articles should not necessarily correlate on the basis of similar context. The reasoning proposed at ], however, is that since anybody can change most any Misplaced Pages article, it is all too possible that a minor page be changed offhandedly and a major page therefore be made to match it and thusly inherit bad structuring or information. Both the Antifa and Proud Boys articles, however, are of about equal importance and are subject to almost equal debate. Saliently, the Proud Boys article has had this structure in long standing and is under extended protection, invalidating the rule in ] that equality testing is not sufficient for Misplaced Pages articles (this is why ] further mentions that quality-reviewed articles are not subject to its ruling). Best, ] (]) 16:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::Proud Boys is a different article about a different entity. You will get nowhere here telling editors to look at another article. If you think that article should be changed, go to that TP. If you think this article should be changed, that article is not relevant. ] (]) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::That seems like a non-argument. It's reasonable to bring up an unmotivated discrepancy between two articles; of course, it is not the sole basis for my positioning, but it's worth considering, and further disproving it wouldn't reduce from our position altogether anyhow. ] (]) 17:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Then why don’t we compare it to the Boy Scouts article? You are suggesting that these two articles are about the same type of organizations. That is ] and will be ignored here. ] (]) 17:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::I don't believe the boy scouts have much notoriety when it comes to acting violently. My argument isn't predicate on the Proud Boys and Antifa being similar organizations; rather, the treatment of reliable sources' claims of violence on either side is resounded differently in their respective articles. ] (]) 17:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::We don't even make this type of argument between articles on Fox and CNN, or the Rep and Dem Parties, or different presidents. Seriously, this is not a valid argument at WP. ] (]) 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't think you can adequately compare news sources and Misplaced Pages in this way. You seem to be avoiding my point, which is that there would seem to be no viable reason for the PB article and Antifa to differ in this way (it's structure, not content). ] is salient, but since the Proud Boys article is protected and well-debated, not to mention fundamentally similar to the Antifa article in content and argument, I believe it does not altogether invalidate my point. ] (]) 18:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not "avoiding" anything. I'm specifically stating that what happens in that article is completely irrelevant to this article. I've '''never''' seen such an argument sway consensus. ] (]) 20:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::See ] ] (]) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “draft it out”. In my previous message I suggested two ways the article could be edited to satisfy my proposal. Can you please explain what you meant? Thanks ] (]) 18:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:He is asking you to write down exactly what you think the lede should say and post it here, in article talk, for review and discussion. ] (]) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Here’s two examples of how I think the first paragraph could be changed!

The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/) movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups in the United States. The principal features of antifa groups are their use of direct action and violence , with conflicts occurring both online and in real life. They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.

The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/) movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action, with their using of tactics such as digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. with conflicts occurring both online and in real life ] (]) 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
*So let me reiterate then that I '''Oppose both''' but especially find the first one to be ] and inaccurate. ] (]) 18:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The way we describe groups is not based on our interpretation of them based on what we have read but expert interpretation in reliable sources. You need to provide these in order to make changes. And some event that is trending is not necessarily definitive. The Republican Party, which you mentioned, has been in the news lately because of racist comments made by their leader followed by racist chants at his rally. ] (]) 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::<small>TFD - this may come as a shock to some, but a racist is someone who is prejudiced against people of another race, not someone who disagrees with Democrats. 😉 ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
::::<small>] and ] apply even when the text is little. ] (]) 17:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
:Thank you, Victor Salvini, for making the suggestion, and thank you Simonnm223, for translating for me. As for suggestion one, while I see lots of reporting connecting Antifa and violence, I am not aware of any that call it a "principal feature" or anything of the kind. I fear that's edging towards ], but it's entirely possible I am missing or forgetting something. If there are any particular sources you think support that claim--not just violence in general but "principal feature"--I'd appreciate it if you could point them out. As for the second suggestion, I actually like that, more directly linking the examples to the phrase "direct action." I would take out "their" as unnecessary and I personally think we can do away with the 'both online and in real life' language as I think (again, maybe incorrectly) that it is covered by "digital activism." My slight edit of Victor Salvini's second suggestion would thus be:
::The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/) movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is use of direct action, including tactics such as digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.
:For my money, that's both more informative and more parsimonious. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers! ] (]) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::The lead ''already'' says that {{tq|They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.}} The main impact of this change would be to upgrade those to their "principal feature", which I'm not sure is supported by the sources, and to remove the {{tq|with conflicts occurring both online and in real life}} bit. Basically, the lead ''already'' mentions violence, and I think it does so to an extent (and with a focus appropriate to) the sources people are talking about above. --] (]) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I like this resolution. If everyone else here is willing I say we edit the paragraph. Cheers ] (]) 22:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused by the basic premise of this talk section, since it seems incorrect; "doesn’t mention it at all in the first paragraph" is flatly wrong. The lead already mentions physical violence in the first paragraph: {{tq|They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.}} How is that insufficient? It seems to basically match the sources provided. --] (]) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:So, for me, I grant that "violence" is already in there, however, I still think this an improvement. The reasons why are stylistic (something akin to Strunk and White's old tautological advice to "omit needless words") and because I think it does the casual reader a service in explicitly linking "direct action" to the list of examples, something I think is slightly muddled as it stands. Cheers. ] (]) 22:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::If the goal is to define Direct Action and its relation to antifa, maybe we should take a step back and look at sources for that specifically? The current source for {{tq|The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action}} doesn't use the term at all, and the other sources for things Antifa does don't seem to relate it to direct action, either. In the article itself, our definition just uses a quote, which says {{tq|"The idea in Antifa is that we go where they go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don't believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece."}} which doesn't cover everything we'd be implying Direct Action encompasses in the lead with this proposed edit. And our ''only'' source for the centrality of Direct Action right now is {{tq|But Crow said the philosophy of Antifa is based on the idea of direct action}}, which isn't nearly as strong as what we're saying (and is attributed.) Somewhere along the way Crow's opinion about Antifa's philosophy became a stated fact about its defining feature, which then had everything anyone ever said Antifa did combined under it. The current lead is basically a mess created by a bunch of compromises and edits - we need to slow down, actually consider what the sources say, and find proper sources for the stuff we "know" but which isn't currently well-sourced (eg. what direct action means in this context.) --] (]) 02:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The point of the edit is to make the paragraph clearer. I may just go ahead and edit it as Dumizid and I have agreed on since this is a pretty erroneous amount of debate over an edit that doesn’t really add on to or take from the paragraph. ] (]) 00:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:I mean if you don't think it changes much, then there's no need to rush forward with it; I'm not seeing a consensus for that change just yet. But either way, as I said above, I see it as a pretty major change (it directly implies violence is a "primary feature" of Antifa, which isn't backed by the sources you cited.) I think part of the reason discussions got so confused is because they got started with a request for a mention of violence in the lead when it was already there, which led to things going in circles. Given that it's been pointed out that there ''is'' a mention (and that's most of what you were focused on), I'd suggest just closing with no action. --] (]) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

{{ec}} {{re|Victor Salvini|Dumuzid|Aquillion|The Four Deuces|Simonm223|SapientiaBrittaniae|Objective3000}} I thought I'd posted this last night but didn't notice and edit conflict. Articles stand by themselves. More relevant is the fact that Antifa is not a group, it's a movement, so it can't be compared to a more unified group. The New Jersey Department of HomelandS Security's 2019 threat assessment, which is quoted in the section above - {{re|Victor Salvini]] - says "Antifa is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas." And as I keep saying, the lead reflects the body of the text. ] ] 01:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:Yeah, this is one of my concerns with the proposed changes. The current version says that Antifa uses a variety of tactics; the proposed rewrite implies that ''all'' these tactics are the primary characteristics of ''all'' of Antifa, which isn't really reflected by the sources cited. The body says that {{tq|The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas}}, and the lead needs to reflect that (even the ''current'' lead doesn't do a great job of that.) --] (]) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

:So, I obviously seem to be in the minority here, which is fine. But my reasoning was simply that I believe the sources support that violence is encompassed in 'direct action,' and that we could make this a bit more explicit. As it stands, it reads to me as though 'direct action' is divorced from the list that follows. If I am the only one who reads it that way, so be it! Cheers! ] (]) 03:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::My problem with that is that if we're going to say that that's what direct action encompasses, we'll need a source specifically saying "direct action is " - we can't ] it up out of "Antifa engages in direct action, and ''also'' Antifa does these things, therefore these things are direct action." Also, we don't really have a good source for the statement that {{tq|The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action}}, really (the cite in the lead doesn't mention direct action at all, and the one mention in the article just cites a quote to a random Antifa member, who says something much weaker.) I don't doubt that sources for the latter exist (I think we somehow just ended up with the wrong cite on that statement), but I'm dubious we can find a source that would fully justify turning the entire list of "digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right" into the definition of direct action. In fact, it contradicts our definition on the ] page itself, which is much more detailed, much better-cited, and encompasses far more. --] (]) 03:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Fair point. I thought we had a source drawing an explicit connection between 'direct action' and violence, but upon review, the closest I can find is in this where (in a quote), direct action is equated with "caus conflict." I'll keep looking and thinking. Thanks. ] (]) 03:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As Aquillion stated, the lead already mentions "physical violence". And it should stay there. : {{tq|"What they're trying to do now is not only become prominent through '''violence''' at these high-profile rallies}}. : {{tq|Their willingness to use '''violence''' marks out Antifa from many other left-wing activists}}. : {{tq|Trump called out the antifa movement by name at an Arizona rally last week, but they’ve attracted criticism from conservative and liberal commentators alike for its use of '''violent protest''' to shut down public events featuring far-right speakers.}} : {{tq|“antifa” — movement to put “themselves on the map of protest” by using '''violence''' to “intimidate” both political opponents and those on the left who promote non-violence}}. {{tq|Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical '''violence'''.}} : {{tq|These '''violent''' counter-protesters are often members of the “antifa”}}. : {{tq|But she says the Antifa shouldn't get a pass on their '''violence''' just because they oppose white supremacists.}} : {{tq|But the use of '''violence''' isn't new for the group known as Antifa, or anti-fascists. }} Seems like a defining feature.--] (]) 06:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

:I'm not willing to use those sources as evidence for anything but what happened two years ago (and more, eg the AOL source is May 2017) when they were written (even the first one, that CNN article is about the 2017 Charlottesville rally although updated in May for some reason. Your "isn't new for the group known as Antifa" is a specific reference to "The far-left organization made headlines back in January during President Trump's inauguration when an alleged Antifa devotée punched white nationalist Richard Spencer while he was being interviewed on camera." How does this single incident from an alleged "devotee" show that violence is anything like a defining feature? None of them seem more recent than August 2 years ago. ] ] 08:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

::In addition, there's quite a lot of ] in referring to antifa as a group. There's no antifa party, no antifa club. Do you think it's good to confront and challenge fascists in some way? Congratulations you are antifa. Some people who adopt that ideological position think it's good to confront and challenge fascists by beating them up. Others try to embarrass them. Others try to make it impossible for them to speak publicly. Others make life difficult for fascists online. None of these are more central or primary to the antifa ideology than any of the the others. (And this is a conception that becomes evident if you actually read the academic literature on the history of antifascism.) This meme on the US right that there's this group called Antifa which is an armed gang that beats up bigots is a fantasy. And Misplaced Pages doesn't deal in fantasy. tl;dr any attempt to make this article suggest that there's an organized group called antifa will be opposed. ] (]) 13:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

::Two year old sources are not obsolete in any way. CNN's article is also from this year. How has Antifa changed since 2017 in a way that would render these sources too old, and what are the sources for these changes? --] (]) 14:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

:::The CNN article is about events in 2017, even if there was an unexplained update in May. It starts with "After protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent on Saturday," and the quotations used are from then. ] ] 16:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I am an anti fascist. I am also an anti communist and anti socialist. I however have no intent to infringe in any of these people’s rights, that doesn’t make me much better than them. The Antifa groups think that what they call fascism is a legitimate threat that they to combat utilizing any possible means including violence (we’ve already sent tons of sources on this and are willing to send even more). So no, we are not Antifa. That being said how much more do we need to say just to make the first paragraph clearer? That “digital actvism, property damage, physical violence and harassment” all fall under “direct action” so there’s no reason the two should not come one after the other. ] (]) 14:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:I really couldn't care less how you define your political ideology. There's no antifa club. It's an ideology, or at best a movement. It's not a group. It doesn't take a capital. It doesn't have members. And it's not principally defined by violence. Please cease with ] and try to understand what people are telling you - that you fundamentally misunderstand the subject. ] (]) 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The Antifa Movement is like the yellow vest movement. It isn’t unified and has no central leadership. However, there are organized branches of it usually at the local level. These organized branches are our best way of telling how the majority of the movement thinks and behaves, and right now that is leftist thought and direct action which includes digital activism, property damage, physical violence and harassment. ] (]) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

:Again, I couldn't care less about your opinions. Please provide reliable sources that support your assertions. Because so far you've got nothing but random news reports. ] (]) 15:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

== Blatant Wikicensorship ==
{{hat|1=] ] (])}}
The removal of any information on the well-documented Antifa assault on Andy Ngo is yet another example of why Misplaced Pages is wholly unreliable on any controversial issue. No wonder Misplaced Pages is banned as a source at educational institutions worldwide. ] (]) 21:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:The non-use of Misplaced Pages in education is not (generally) based on any perceived political bias, and is, indeed, a very good idea. I think you will find that any teacher or professor worth their salt will tell students that Misplaced Pages is a great place to start research, but should ultimately lead to other sources. Misplaced Pages's ephemeral nature is both a great strength and a weakness when it comes to actual scholarship. All that being said, if you would like to propose an edit supported by reliable sources, I for one would be happy to hear it. Cheers. ] (]) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not recall the assault ever being on this page. I just looked through the edit history and couldn’t find anything relating to it ( I could have just missed it, though). If you would like to add the event to the page feel free to do it! ] (]) 22:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:Just a slight word of warning--in the days following the assault, there was a lot of discussion of including it here, but as I recall, some combination of ] and ] won the day and it was not ultimately included. Now that there's a little bit of time between us and the event, it may be easier to make the case, but maybe not. I would encourage anyone and everyone to suggest edits here or follow ] if they prefer. I would just say be prepared for push back. Cheers! ] (]) 22:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::Haven't seen any news about actual antifa actions in reliable sources for some time, except for an anti-mask ordinance in one city. ] (]) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::My feeling as far as the Ngo thing goes is that the sources are mostly partisan media, which are really bad for illustrating ] or for factual reporting. If it is noteworthy and verifiable, we should be able to find coverage of it in more neutral sources (especially since the claims involved are fairly ]); those sources would be necessary to provide any sort of analysis in any case. --] (]) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa, by this page's admission, uses "physical violence" against perceived political enemies, and yet this page is filled with naked praise for them. Unbelievable.

Can someone tell me - does Misplaced Pages WANT to be known as biased politically? To pretend the Ngo and ICE center controversies don't exist is ludicrous. If anyone here is being genuinely "careful" then you're being played by the other paid activists who are simply protecting the narrative. - ]
:] ] (]) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:Where do I sign up for this paid activism? I have been active for all these years and never once received a paycheck. What a sucker I am. ] (]) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::<small>There was a software problem. Call Shirley in payroll and she’ll get you your check.</small> ] (]) 22:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::It's worse than the ] I swear. I think I'm owed back pay on at least two decades of communisting. ] (]) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
*Like I said, just find a better source. Reason magazine mostly carries opinion, unambiguously exists to push a particular perspective and doesn't have a particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy - we can use them for opinions, but they're not a great source to argue that a particular news event is ], or to use to try and cover it. (Especially since the one you tried to add treated it as a breaking event with no followup, which implies it didn't actually go anywhere.) --] (]) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::I am being constantly amused that these discussions always seem to be started by editors who have made a total of one edit on wikipedia. This one. And yet they know all about what happens behind the scenes here. By the way, I got my check yesterday, dropped off by a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask, this time. You might be on the annual payroll plan rather than the preferred bi-monthly one. Yes, call Shirl. ] (]) 00:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Andy Ngo ==

I added the following to the article: "In June 2019, antifa protestors attacked journalist Andy Ngo, leaving him hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage."

It was reverted by {{u|Dumuzid}} with the edit summary "please discuss on talk first."

I'm not sure what the basis of the reversion is because this has received significant coverage in reliable sources:

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/portland-protests-mayor-cruz.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/portland-protests-mayor-cruz.html
New York Post: https://nypost.com/2019/07/06/biden-condemns-violent-antifa-assault-on-conservative-journalist-andy-ngo/
Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-trends-twitter-after-video-shows-protest-group-throwing-milkshakes-journalist-1446698

I could go on and on. ] (]) 11:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Cosmic Sans}} Please go on and on. We should establish that this material is ] before inclusion. The more sources the better - preferably higher quality than eg the ]. ] (]) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:There is nothing in those sources to support the claim about the extent of his injuries or that Ngo was hospitalized. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 11:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::Here's a Vox article that references the brain hemorrhage. How many sources you want? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-anday-ngo-proud-boys ] (]) 11:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::"Sent him to the hospital with injuries" is not the same as "hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage." So yes, I want sources that support your assertion. See up the page or more on the Ngo incident and on the rumors about the content of the milkshakes. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 11:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::: The Vox article does mention the brain hemorrhage. But in any event, would a compromise be to say that the attack sent Ngo to the hospital? ] (]) 11:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::I see that now - I had to scroll past the ads. I note that the article is not exactly kind to Ngo, that it's heavily editorialized, and that it quotes Ngo's organization on the hospitalization and diagnosis rather than making a flat assertion. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 11:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps because the author had worked for the paper for less than a month; which doesn’t mean it’s not RS. What bothers me is that it’s one incident, the attacker is unknown, and the injuries unknown. We clearly should have the word violence in the lead. But, we don’t have much info on this one incident. Obviously, it can be included in Ngo’s article. ] (]) 12:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::None of that disqualifies reliability on its own, though I'd say that material in Vox is almost always at least partially opinion publication because that's the Vox remit, which makes Vox kind of a bottom-tier RS. In this case, an opinion columnist reporting that Ngo's organization claimed he had to be hospitalized (but he got better fast enough to be on Fox the next day) is insufficiently ] in an article on the antifa movement. Suggest taking it to the Ngo article per Objective3000. ] (]) 12:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::So, I will put my cards on the table here: I think this probably belongs in the article one way or another. That being said, in the welter of confusion which followed the events (and to some degree persists), it was very difficult to bring things in to focus--and while I think this has improved, it is only a bit. Note for instance, that neither the New York Times piece nor the Vox piece explicitly assign blame to Antifa; rather, this comes from third parties (Mr. Ngo's lawyer in the former, Republican lawmakers in the latter). But I still think this is a notable act of violence at an Antifa-related protest (or counterprotest, what have you). Therefore, I would favor something like "At a protest in Portland which was partially put together by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." So there you have my not-so-authoritative take. Cheers. ] (]) 12:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: How about "At a Portland protest, partially organized by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." It's basically the same as what you've said but I tightened the language a bit. ] (]) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for the editing. I'm certainly fine with that--anyone else have thoughts? ] (]) 13:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::We probably want to use different language than 'as a result' given that the hospital visit may or may not have been necessary. Still unsure if this material is due. ] (]) 13:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ec}}Still don't think it's ] but if it must be included we need to make it clear that Ngo ''claimed to have been hospitalized.'' I could walk into a hospital over a hang nail right now - but it doesn't mean I was "hospitalized" in the informal sense of the word. ] (]) 13:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Unfortunately, we also don't know that it was antifa. ] (]) 14:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
{{out}}
:And that's the whole problem with this. Really, all we have is what Ngo has claimed to various media as the "source" for all this. There's no outside fact-checking on his claims that it was Antifa members who attacked him, or that he was hospitalized because of the attack. It all boils down to "Ngo said so." Which is where ] comes in: the facts around this assault are so ambiguous, I don't think it should be included here. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::None of this establishes weight. In the U.S., there are tens of millions of Republicans and Democrats - as much as half the voting population - and we don't add to those articles every time one of them commits an assault. In order to establish weight, we need to show that reliable sources have established its significance to antifa in the U.S. ] (]) 15:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
These problems of taking ] as a reliable source also occur at the article for Ngo. ] (]) 15:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:So it appears I am (yet again) in the minority--this is why I caution that I am often wrong! But I'll try to briefly explain my position, which is, essentially, that for me, this story has reached a critical mass in the reliable sources. And in those sources, it is always linked to antifa, albeit usually in a murky, attenuated way. But many reliable sources see something here worth covering, even with serious caveats. But I also think we're doing readers of the encyclopedia a disservice. It is entirely plausible that people come here looking for info about this very story. I'm definitely not trying to ], but if we say nothing, we're losing an opportunity to tell readers what the RSes actually contain (something like, "a guy got beat up, beyond that, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"). Because it was widely covered, because it will obviously be something people look for, and because so much fringe media is going well beyond the established facts, I think a sentence like the one above would be a meet addition to the article. That being said, I am often wrong, and too old to really care. Cheers all, and thanks for the thoughtful input on this article. ] (]) 18:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::I've heard the, "being mute is a lost opportunity to shape the narrative" statement before, and while I'm somewhat sympathetic, the one weakness with it that I've always found is that it is kind of inherently at odds wit ]. Misplaced Pages should be reporting things that are relevant to a topic, not inserting a particular POV. As we only have Ngo's (not particularly trustworthy) word that the people who beat him up were antifascists, it's hardly relevant to this article. We should instead allow the maw of history to swallow his claims. ] (]) 18:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the discussion here. We don't just have Andy Ngo's word. We have video. And we have independent coverage of the attack and the video in reliable sources:
*: "The video shows masked protesters circling Ngo, punching and hitting him and dousing him with a "milkshake," then following him as he flees. One hurls something at his back."
*: "Reporting on a protest in Portland, Oregon on June 29, 2019, Andy Ngo was violently assaulted by those taking part, resulting in injuries which required hospitalization."
*: "Andy Ngo, a conservative writer, was attacked by a group of left-wing protesters at a protest in Portland on Saturday." (includes a photo of Ngo immediately after the attack)
*: "In Portland this weekend, activists in the trademark black uniforms associated with antifa, as well as anarchists and related movements, struck the journalist Andy Ngo in the face, sending him to the emergency room."
I see people questioning the reliability of Ngo as a source. But he's not the one doing the reporting. The viewpoint of WP is that if a source is reliable, they can be trusted to do the vetting on stories for us. There are many more RSes reporting this incident as fact. I think there's enough to justify inclusion per ]. —<B>]</B> <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">]</sub> 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:We have video that ''an attack occurred''. We have no corroboration that the attackers were affiliated with antifa groups, or that Ngo required hospitalization after the attack. For those, we only have Ngo's statements. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages has no ]. Should evidence that antifa was behind the attack, and that it required hospitalization, we can add it here. Obviously the claims belong in the article on Ngo. ] (]) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::There are plenty of reliable sources on the topic. I understand that some editors may doubt Ngo's story on a personal level, but we have to go by what the reliable sources say. And there are a litany of sources that support inclusion. I can really see no reason why this shouldn't be included. ] (]) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::I have only seen reliable sources stating that Ngo claimed this happened, not that it happened. ] (]) 21:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::::Really? The Buzzfeed News article I've linked to doesn't couch it in those terms, and I'm sure I can find more if you would like - although there are links already cited in this discussion. ] (]) 21:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::A suggestion: If you refer to a huge number of cites, many of which don’t pass muster and many don’t actually support your exact wording, other editors will pick some, realize they don’t work, and won’t read the others. You cannot expect us all to investigate a very large number of cites after realizing many are not on point. If you have some cites that actually claim what you want added, post those and how they do such. We aren’t going to do your work for you. ] (]) 00:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::You consider four or five citations to be a "huge number of cites?" Oh, well. The point remains that I've directed you to a citation from a reliable source that claims it happened without couching in terms of "Ngo said it happened." If you feel the need to opine on this discussion without reading the citations, then there isn't much I can do about that. ] (]) 00:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Arrgh. I just looked at two cites you gave and they don't state what you want added. I say again, we won't do your work for you. If you have cites that are RS and claim what you want added, you must state them and exactly how they support your text. ] (]) 00:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::If I have to make it explicit, then sure. I'll quote what I said earlier in the discussion and tack the URL onto the end of it if that satisfies you. "At a Portland protest, partially organized by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." The article goes into extreme detail about the events of the attack, as the author was there when it happened and watched the entire thing unfold. ] (]) 01:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::What url? ] (]) 12:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
a WaPo piece that says Ngo {{tq|was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore.}} ] (]) 01:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

== AfDs of interest to the editors of this page ==

The editors on this page would probably be interested in these two AfDs:
] (]) 13:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

== DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS ==

Below is a list of RS that support inclusion of both the Portland riot and Tacoma incident. I did not verify the media's reference to (a) conservative groups as alt-right and/or white supremacists but such contentious labels must be verifiable and presented in this article per ], and (b) the fact that Antifa is sometimes referred to as left-wing rather than radical or extreme left. I'm not sure if we are now associating left wing as violent which, again, is a contentious label that requires in-text attribution per LABEL. I wanted to get local input regarding the following sources and incidents which, for some reason, have been omitted from this article.
* (08-17-17), headline: ''‘Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right"'' - literally? The article refers to Antifa as a "controversial force on the left", "radical activists" who have "openly scuffled with white supremacists, right-wing extremists and, <u>'''ordinary supporters of President Trump.'''</u> 🚩 Quote Antifa member: {{xt|<u>'''“You need violence in order to protect nonviolence,”'''</u> Ms. Nauert added. “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically.”}} Antifa demonstrators, admittedly and through their actions, are confronting more than just white supremacists/racists, they confront supporters of whatever political ideology they oppose. This is RS info that belongs in the article.
* (06-29-19) - antifa responsible for 8 people injured - 2 officers who were pepper sprayed, 1 punched in an arm, and 1 hit with a "projectile"; 3 civilians "assaulted with weapons," and 1 unaccounted for 8th injury. I have no objection to leaving out the debate about cement in the shakes.
* (06-30-19) A Patriot Prayer group that was legally organized to march were confronted by antifa with violence. {{xt|A counter-demonstration by masked local anti-fascist groups gathered nearby among a heavy police presence. Officers seized weapons such as utility knives, clubs and chemical sprays, detaining several protesters early on.}} When Patriot Prayer protesters began their permitted march, antifa "immediately began lobbing eggs, half-empty water bottles and firecrackers at the conservative marchers, prompting federal police to fire paintballs filled with pepper spray into the crowd."
* (07-01-19) - {{xt|...with a black-clad activist striking the conservative journalist Andy Ngo in the face while others slimed him with what protesters said were vegan coconut milkshakes.}} Also, a professor with Portland State University called for "impeaching the city’s Democratic mayor, Ted Wheeler."
* (07-02-19) - Andy Ngo suffered a brain hemorrhage and a ripped earlobe. He is a gay journalist of color.
* (07-02-19) - clash between conservative marchers and black-clad antifa protesters in Portland, Ore. Refers to Ngo as a conservative journalist who was roughed up and bloodied. One sentence in the article begins with "conservative marchers" juxtaposed with "confronting white supremacists and right-wing extremists", sometimes with '''violence'''. What factual info verifies right-wing extremism? Without verifiability, it appears the NYTimes thinks conservative marchers are fascist, white supremacists and right-wing extremists. However, they describe antifa as follows: {{xt|Its followers acknowledge that the movement is secretive, without official leaders and organized into autonomous local cells. It is also only one in a constellation of activist movements that have come together in the past few years to oppose the far right.}}
* (07-16-19) headline:''The Man Killed In An Attack On An ICE Jail Said He Was Fighting "Against The Forces Of Evil"'' - according to Tacoma police, Willem Van Spronsen was "armed with a rifle", threw "incendiary devices" at vehicles, lit a car on fire, attempted to burn buildings and a propane tank. The 18 yo leader with the organized antifa group ''Seattle Antifascist Action'' told BuzzFeed that Van Spronsen was active in a number of far-left communities in Seattle, but "no one saw this coming from him" because he was "soft powered." He sent a letter to friends saying he was not affiliated with any organization, which tells us that he acted as a lone wolf, not unlike other lone wolf terrorist attacks where people commit suicide for a cause. In this case, the common denominator is antifa.
* ''Seven things you need to know about Antifa'' - they use more traditional forms of community organising like rallies and protest marches. <u>The most extreme factions will carry weapons like pepper spray, knives, bricks and chains – and they don’t rule out violence.</u>
* (07-18-19) the article's summary paragraph reveals the author's left leaning position but at least he tried to present the article from a NPOV: {{xt|When Andy Ngo was attacked, I sprinted toward him, unsure what I was going to do when I arrived. If I’m being honest, I wasn’t only thinking about his safety. I was afraid of being the reporter who did not prevent Andy Ngo from being beaten. I was also, if I’m being really honest, afraid of being the reporter who prevented Andy Ngo from being beaten. I realized very clearly that anyone documenting the scene at that moment had the power to put me in any public context they wished to, had the power to change my life. I was aware how that would be good content, and how that might feel like violence.}}

The lede and body of the WP article is disproportionate and biased in that it presents a more favorable, cherrypicked image of Antifa despite the violence associated with it; the latter of which they admit to without hesitation, and have proven true on multiple occasions. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:You'd have to be more specific about your concerns. As mentioned above (we just had a big discussion about this!), the lead does mention violence, and the sources you're presenting here (which, obviously, you did cherrypick yourself, so they're not a representitive sample themselves) ''still'' doesn't present violence as a core attribute. The only one that provides a broad overview (rather than one incident) says {{tq|"The most extreme factions..."}} support violence, which if anything is ''more'' cautious than our article. Likewise, a lot of your interpretations (eg. especially your interpretation of the first quote you provided) are ]y; in context, that obviously falls under the article's current description of acting against {{tq|against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right}}. (You left out the part after the bit you quoted, which says {{tq| Energized in part by Mr. Trump’s election, they have sparred with their conservative opponents at political rallies and college campus speaking engagements, arguing that one crucial way to combat the far right}}.) Your larger efforts to tied together a bunch of relatively brief mentions into a larger narrative also smacks of ] - again, we ''mention'' violence (as these sources do, with almost the exact same weight and tone they do), but what you're doing here is dumping them all in one place, clipped out of context, and asking that our coverage of it be dramatized and emphasized in a way that the individual sources you're presenting don't support. Regarding the Ngo thing, you're not presenting anything new, but I'll point out that virtually all your coverage is from immediately after the event - I'm not seeing anything ] - and much of it is just in passing or is worded in a way that clearly casts his description of events in doubt. Basically, I think we made the right call at the time - it was an ] claim on his part that, based on the tepid coverage and the way it rapidly died out, didn't pan out. Also, we already have another section open for him (and for pretty much all of this) so I'm not sure what your purpose is in opening another; all these sources have been discussed in the past or are being discussed now, your interpretation of them has repeatedly failed to gain consensus, and you know all this. Beyond a certain point it is necessary to ]. --] (]) 23:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::Your argument is unconvincing. Give others a chance to weigh-in. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 03:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::To be fair, I find the argument fairly convincing. Though if I were exalted ruler of Misplaced Pages, I would probably include the Andy Ngo sentence mentioned above. Cheers, all. ] (]) 03:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
::*Others will of course have a chance to weigh in, as they have the past... by my count, roughly ~14 times comparable requests have been posted here over the last few months? Including three still-open discussions directly above this one? Nothing you're presenting here or arguing is particularly new, you're still not making any specific suggestions beyond "we need to describe Antifa as more violent" and "we need to include absolutely everything that has failed to reach a consensus to conclude in the past", and the sources you're providing still don't support your (vaguely-defined) complaints that the current article is insufficient in that regard - it looks like you just strung together a bunch of random pull-quotes, none of which individually support the position you're arguing. If you can find a specific, workable suggestion that might reach a consensus (I would suggest going over the months worth of discussion on this topic we already have, much of which is still on this page, and seeing which proposals people liked), go ahead and open an ] for it. Otherwise, we're long past ] territory; opening a second near-identical section to the three (!) already above it, using most of the same sources and arguments, is not going to produce any sort of constructive consensus that the discussion above here didn't. You're the one, basically, who has to be doing the convincing here, since you're advancing an argument that has failed repeatedly in the past; refusing to engage my points by dismissing them as "unconvincing" and saying you'd rather talk to someone else isn't going to help with that. --] (]) 06:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::*{{ping|Atsme}} Your attempt to point the painfully ] article on the Tacoma police shooting of an elderly man to Antifa immediately followed by this is making it increasingly difficult to ] here. Could you please consider taking Aquillion's advice and ]? Because frankly these repeated vague talk page requests are beginning to look like an attempt to push a POV that ''the people who believe in directly confronting fascists'' are a scary armed gang, and are reaching the ] point. ] (]) 08:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, I'm sure it's a nice essay but I'm well aware of our PAGs, and don't need essays for further elaboration. The material some editors have attempted to include in this article is important information for our readers, such as the incidents in Tacoma and Portland (Ngo). As for gaslighting me with DROPTHESTICK, I'm saying for the record that I've made a total of, maybe, 11 edits here since July 6th, the most recent being the above list of RS that supports the inclusion of material that keeps getting reverted by Dumuzid, who states in his edit summaries to discuss on the TP (see diffs below). Ironically my attempt to discuss on the TP was met with resistance from you & Aquillion telling me to DROPTHESTICK. What message does that send to other editors? I must say, it is pretty impressive team work, inadvertent or otherwise, but I've chosen to AGF; therefore, I believe it was coincidence and not deliberate.
# - (Undid revision 906938346 by Cosmic Sans (talk) ''please discuss on talk first'')
# (Undid revision 906959248 by Wags bf21 (talk) ''let's talk these out first; there has been a lively discussion'')
# - (Undid revision 907103660 by Qwirkle (talk) ''currently being discussed on talk; please get consensus there'')

So, here we are discussing the following proposal which involves 3 new sections as follows:
#a new section titled something along the line of ''Antifa activism'' or ''Antifa incidents'' using of events that are verifiable and can be corroborated by multiple RS. The source I cited in my example - ] - is arguably a , but a good one for this purpose despite it being a partisan one, because their timeline is cited to other RS such as CNN and WaPo which provides corroboration and balance in compliance with WP:PAGs.
#a new section titled ''Antifa funding'' (or the like) - follow the money to find evidence of the existing ''Antifa network'' - see ; ; it looks very much like centralized organization to me, or at the least, an organized defence.
#a new section titled ''Antifa's social media network'' - see ; ; (endorses Antifa's Defence Fund); ; ;


Antifa should have extremist in their description
Bottomline - there's quite a bit of information that needs to be added to this article, such as the article published in titled ''The Rise of the Violent Left.'' It appears their anonymity is waning because of the violence. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
They took part in many violent atacks,from normal assaults to assaults with deadly weapons (the "bike lock incident") ] (]) 22:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:I hope you’re not serious about using that ''DailyWire'' “timeline”. It includes a bunch of incidents with cited articles that don’t even mention Antifa. The article is clearly unacceptable. You also listed a bunch of primary sources suggesting they will lead us somewhere. We don’t do research. ] (]) 19:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::The dates in TDW's timeline is all you need - there are plenty of other RS that will come up in a Google search. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
::::Well then, I suppose we need only take your word for this and a very poor source and spend our time trying to prove your point that Antifa is behind all these events. ] (]) 02:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
:Saying that the most extreme members use violence is different from saying the movement is inherently violent. It is the ]: "one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole." Extreme adherents of movements as diverse as Trumpism, pro-life, environmentalism, Islam and the American Revolution have attracted people who committed acts of violence. Of course some partisan sources, such as the '']'', use this logical fallacy for whatever reason. But Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to represent mainstream perspectives and certainly not use faulty logic to make claims, which violates ]. ] (]) 20:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


:You seem to be making a claim based on ]. It would be more compelling if you could point to reliable sources that use the terminology. Cheers. ] (]) 22:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{xt|But Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to represent mainstream perspectives and certainly not use faulty logic to make claims, which violates ]}}. TDF, there's no SYNTH involved. This is going nowhere fast, so I'm calling an RfC. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
::https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/08/eric-clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-berkeley-rally-bike-lock-assault-case
:::You are the one asking that we apply SYNTH instead of using RS, as you have done in the past. You provide cites that don't say what you want added and primary sources from which you want us to create original research. ] (]) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC).
::
::https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/professor-charged-berkeley-trump-protest-assault/ (a trusted[REDACTED] source btw)
::youtube video linked by cbs news
::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg&ab_channel=SHUTTERSHOT (the incident in question WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT AHEAD)
::should i provide more data on antifa's violent activities? ] (]) 09:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Not interested in the YouTube as it's not an RS or someone random person's label, neither of the reliable sources mention Antifa, and believe it or not, you can be a violent anti-fascist and have nothing to do with Antifa. And of course one person's actions can't label everyone in a movement, that would be like calling the old civil rights movement because one person, or even a number of people, were very violent. ] ] 10:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I just looked at your posts at ]. Looks like you are on a bit of a mission. You seem to also be the IP who started that complaint. ] ] 10:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::if you see any bias on my arguments please notify me of them so i can further learn from my mistakes
:::::maybe i did a mistake when asking for a definition before stating its use by extremists groups but i didnt intend to justify discrimination in any way shape or form ] (]) 12:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::It's just as disingenuous however to omit violence that can be attributed to antifa. I agree the extremist prefix is a needed addition. The ADL sources already highlight that antifa violence is significant enough to be mentioned. Just because some antifa don't use violence doesn't mean the instances they do need exclusion from the article - harking back to the other discussion of a no true Scotsman fallacy, you know, the one where the editor lead the reader to the conclusion that violent antifa is not actually antifa. ] (]) 05:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::::"Last year, police searched Clanton’s apartment and seized flags, pamphlets and other paraphernalia associated with Antifa and anarchist movements. He was arrested following the search, Berkleyside.com reported."
::::https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-professor-accused-of-hitting-trump-supporters-with-bike-lock-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-gets-probation.amp
::::His association with antifa is corroborated here. It's a high profile case. His use of ] tactics and violence is also evidence of his affiliation with antifa. Neglecting to mention this high profile incident would be a serious issue for the writers & readers.
::::I would also add absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. antifa violence and black bloc in general is to make identification hard, so repeat violence is easier and consequence-free. ] (]) 06:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Was it "high profile"? Maybe on right wing social media, but not outside of that. Reliable sources have mostly ignored that one event, six years ago. If reliable sources treat that one event as a specific example of why antifa is "extremist", then propose those sources. One brief news article which barely even mentions antifa and says nothing about antifa's ideology or politics is useless. Your ] about black block is also useless. ] (]) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::That reply and source were specifically to highlight Eric clanton as both a political violence user and antifa member, as a pertinent example of antifa violence that editors have argued doesn't exist or is insignificant. You talked past that.
::::::Honestly I am losing a lot of respect for a cabal that charades itself as an unbiased encyclopedia. I don't know why ] and ] that is well documented both anecdotally and academically is coincidentally ignored when it comes to writing contemporary articles. Editors generally don't turn over stones they think will challenge their confirmation bias. I advise you not to reply to this second paragraph to prevent derailing and further strawmanning and deflecting.
::::::https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa
::::::Extremist antifa exists
::::::https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/05/29/a-man-clobbered-trump-supporters-with-a-bike-lock-the-internet-went-looking-for-him/
::::::WaPo covering the attacks
::::::https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-professor-accused-of-hitting-trump-supporters-with-bike-lock-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-gets-probation.amp
::::::Fox covering the attacks
::::::https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/professor-charged-berkeley-trump-protest-assault/
::::::CBS covering the attacks
::::::https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/26/eric-clanton-former-calif-professor-arrested-in-vi/
::::::Another source covering the attacks
::::::https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Eric-Clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-13142123.php
::::::California based news site covering the attacks and also verbatim says the assault(s) "drew widespread attention" so that quip about it being a big deal only on "right wing social media" is moot and kind of speaks to a potential lack of wanting to do sub-superficial research. ] (]) 07:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I also think that source 5 also mentions that some antifa members do take violent actions, cited sources back my claim here ] (]) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::They don't care. There's a narrative the editors are playing into. You can't change the article to be unbiased but you are welcome to try and make an edit request through the proper channels. If you are up for it, you can submit a new article covering the bike lock attacks. ] (]) 23:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The lead says "Antifa political activism includes non-violent methods like involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing. Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."
:::::::::What parts of that do you think are not true?
:::::::::Your sources are also pretty old. The Eric Clanton one is from 2017, one individual anti-fascist person out of many thousands, Antifa has no members, the sources don't say he is even an Antifa supporter so far as I can see, just an anti-fascist. Even the right wing Washington Times says "went viral in the days following clashes between Trump supporters and so-called anti-fascists."
:::::::::Our MAGA article doesn't even mention violence - but there are a lot of sources out there that show it is often violent. Do you think there's no violence involving MAGA supporters? ] ] 09:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::So the lead supports the content and could use a tweek, seems to be what everyone is talking aboit so thsgs a nothing.
::::::::::Old sources is a cop out and meaningless here, thats also about the age of most of the sources since Antifa kind of pettered out.
::::::::::] is another tired argument, they have no members, everyone is a member, only a member if self identified, only a member of RS say very specific things, only if the RS says it and the person and their mother agrees, and so what worming around the point. But only if it's negatove.
::::::::::Finally the broader article doesn't mention it but the article dedicated to the thing probably shoild. Again that is just an OtherStuff argument and means nothing for the content that should be here. ] (]) 13:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::@] So we don't need sources to show someone supports Antifa and isn't just an anti-fascist? ] ] 14:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Who said that? The issue is your interpretation of sources. ] (]) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::This is often discussed if you look at the history of this specific article, but it perfectly illustrates the horrible Misplaced Pages suffers from. Articles about politics from like 2015-now are the worse in my personal opinion. The issue is that the allowed sources on this site are voted on and they usually most any left leaning tabloid (stuff like Salon or Mother Jones or Daily Beast) while not even mainstream right wing publications, like Fox News. What this means is that most things get defined on here through a heavy left wing lenses and this article is a perfect example. Its just a naked propaganda puff piece for Antifa by describing them as moderate left wingers and erasing all negative press about them. Its not uncommon to find editors self identifying with this organization as well. I dont expect much change other than Misplaced Pages will lose more and more credibility, what little it has left. ] (]) 22:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Why does the article claim that antifa relies on "non-violent" protests? Did no one see Portland burn? ] (]) 06:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The article doesn't say that antifa "relies" on non-violence. Please read the entire lead of the article, or at least the entire first paragraph, or at least the very next sentence after the one you rushed here to complain about. ] (]) 07:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


== RfC to add a new section == ==RFC: Should "far-left" be added to the lead?==
<!-- ] 15:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1731855676}}
Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in edit? --] (]) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)


===Survey===
{{rfc|pol}}
* '''No'''. The second sentence's {{tq|Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism}} is more accurate. If we must cover left-right politics in the lead, the preponderance of sources describe Antifa's politics as broad and ambiguous in a way that is better summarized as just left-wing. --] (]) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>No . The opening section presents the article's subject accurately, i.e. ], and, moreover, is well and carefully written. -] (]) 17:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)</s>
:Changing my suggestion to '''Yes''', and I declare my sincere apologies to all concerned for my previous, inexcusably hasty one. Sources quoted herebelow, along with additional ones found (e.g. on , in , in , or even amongst the original antifascists, in ), strongly support the change to '''far-left'''. -] (]) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::BBC says {{tq|Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of '''mostly'' far-left activists}}.
::Forbes says antifa ''isn't'' far left: {{tq|what exactly is the difference between Antifa and the far, or radical, left? Well, like everything in America right now, it depends on who you ask. Officials like Trump and Barr are using the terms interchangeably, blurring the lines between the two. By doing so, administration officials are attempting to inject volatile language into an already combustible situation... in President Trump’s mind, and the minds of his supporters, the radical left and far left are interchangeable terms for Trump’s political adversaries. Using this term has been a tried-and-true tactic of the President since his election in 2016, and as a result, the terms have become divorced from their more classical political meaning – which includes political views that fall outside of mainstream democratic and liberal perspectives. By increasingly painting all Democratic views as “radical left,” President Trump has negated the real meaning the words. Which is why the interchangeable use of the terms Antifa and radical left is so troubling.}}
::PBS says "far-left-leaning" not "far left".
::DW is about German antifa, a different topic (and note it says {{tq|protests might attract sympathetic participants who wouldn't necessarily define themselves as anarchist, or indeed as far-left. Often German antifa groups enjoy their best turnouts when organizing counter-protests against far-right demonstrators. These events can draw in people from almost all walks of life.}}) ] (]) 15:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::*Well the BBC one indicates to me there's definitely an argument for inclusion. If it's "mostly" far-left, why would we not say "far-left" or "left-wing to far-left"? It would be ] to not call them far-left here.
:::As for PBS, I think it's pretty safe to say "far-left-leaning" means the same as "far-left". — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::*Read back the examples I provided.
:::''Forbes'' states the following, with <u>emphasis</u> added: "Antifa a loose group of <u>radical</u> activists...dressed in all black and wearing black face masks (so called <u>black bloc</u> tactics)...known to use <u>violent tactics</u>... protests include taking part in <u>violent</U> anti-capitalist marches." Try as much as you want, the cumulative assessment of such a group cannot by any means be termed simply "left." A simply left organization is not radical and does not engage in violence. End of story.
:::PBS: "Antifa is an umbrella term for <u>far-left-leaning movements</U>." When each and every movement is far-leaning then the umbrella organization can be termed "far left" without any loss of accuracy.
:::For the German case, note that Antifa deploys the same tactics everywhere in the US and Europe, per sources. They are all beyond the spectrum of simply the left. So, the German Antifa is a useful indicator, especially when the report comes from such as ].
:::As to the BBC, it sometimes, in a rather British way, will hedge its bets with "rather's" and "mostly's" but, more often than not, its journalistic integrity surfaces: , , .
:::You are on a false path and I should not be the one to break these news to you. -] (]) 20:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry but the underlined words in your Forbes quote don't equal "far" and it's ] to say they do. Forbes says antifa are "radical activists" but also explicitly that antifa are ''not'' "radical left".
::::Re PBS and BBC, call me old-fashioned or British but I think journalists use words for reasons and if they qualify with the extra letters of "leaning" or "mostly" they're avoiding making an excessive claim and so should we.
::::You've now added three more BBC links. The doesn't call antifa "far left"; it says {{tq|a loose confederation of anti-fascists - or antifa, for short. There is no one antifa organisation or political philosophy. They're a mixed bag of anarchists, socialists and communists.}} Some conservatives might see all socialists as far left, but Misplaced Pages doesn't. However, the last two BBC links do call it {{tq|a loosely affiliated group of far-left protesters}} so I agree that the BBC do sometimes use this phrase, while on other occasions () they qualify this.
::::Re DW, the idea that because a reliable source says something about people in one country their words can be applied to a wholly different country is not a good way of using sources. ] (]) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|The Gnome}} the BBC article linked uses "left-wing" and "far left" interchangeably. It is a justification against the proposed change, not for it. ] (]) 23:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Seems needlessly wordy to me, as "left-wing" already implies inclusion of "far-left", more than it does "center-left", for instance. ] (]) 18:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::Three additional letters to a word make for a "wordy" situation? I do not think that is a correct assessment. -] (])
::This is an odd reason to oppose, if you ask me. "Left-wing" doesn't already imply inclusion of "far-left", any more than "right-wing" implies inclusion of "far-right". On top of that, there are plenty of existing articles that have a range ("x to y") in their infobox, such as ]. It's not wordy at all. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 14:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Wordiness is not simply measured by word count. Even one or two words can make a sentence considerably more convoluted and ruin the natural flow of the sentence, and the choice of words matters too; there may be a set of two words that, when added to a sentence, make it seem as wordy as if you were to add a different set of twenty words. Further, adding words to an already long sentence is generally worse than adding them to a shorter one. These reasons, among others, are why although there are many infoboxes on Misplaced Pages that contain an "X-to-Y" ideological description, few (none that I am aware of, actually) go for such wording in the lead. ] (]) 04:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' There is no reason Misplaced Pages editors to add their opinions to the article. ] (]) 19:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*:That's evidently not happening given the abundance of sources. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' We've been down this road multiple times, see the FAQ and Archives. The discussion over the last month did not result in a consensus for the change, there's not enough reliable sources to overcome ] and include such nomenclature in the lede and infobox. Arguments that it stayed in the article too long are invalid, because the entire point was to not get into an edit war ''during the discussion''. Once that was resolved and it was removed, suddenly people began claiming the addition was the "stable version," and edit warring to keep it in. This is not policy compliant, and we need to put this to rest. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. While some sources say this, they are far from the best sources and a majority don’t say this, and some directly contradict it. Nothing has changed since the last RfC (in fact, newer, stronger sources tend to be less likely to say “far left”). ] (]) 22:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{collapse top|title=Some sources contesting or contradicting use of far left:}}
*:#{{tq|Antifa – short for "anti-fascist" – is the name for loosely affiliated, '''left-leaning''', anti-racist groups that monitor and track the activities of local neo-Nazis.}}--
*:#{{tq| antifa, a loose movement of left-wing, anti-racist and anti-fascist activists.}}--
*:#{{tq|Antifa’s organisation (or lack thereof) is reminiscent of Anonymous: there is no hierarchy or central platform, and anyone can claim the title and set up a local branch. The decentralised character of Antifa and lack of theoretical basis ensure '''appeal to all “anti-fascists”''', but also make it difficult to pin down what exactly it is they oppose.}}--, i.e. no specific ideological position
*:#{{tq|Trump’s rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the '''mainstream left'''. “Suddenly,” noted the antifa-aligned journal It’s Going Down, “anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along.’ ”... tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. }} --
*:#{{tq|Anti-fascist organizing has long existed outside of mainstream leftwing organizing in the United States. But as the far right has gained stature and attention amid the rise of Trump, anti-fascism has gained relevance... Shane Burley, a journalist and researcher who studies the far right, said that anti-fascists struggled to be “taken seriously” by other leftists in recent years, as mainstream groups took aim at “systemic racism” rather than specific racist groups. But with the rise in “violent, casual racism” after the election, anti-fascism tactics will gain in popularity, he said.}}-- i.e. appealed beyond far left to mainstream left
*:#{{tq|Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is not a concrete group, rather an amorphous movement. Anti-fascists of the movement tend to be grouped on the '''leftward''' fringes of the US political spectrum, many describing themselves as socialists, anarchists, communists or anti-capitalists.}}--
*:#{{tq|according to 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.”}}--
*:#{{tq|The U.S. antifa movement appears to be decentralized, consisting of independent, radical, like-minded groups and individuals. Its tenets can echo the principles of anarchism, socialism, and communism. Members '''do not necessarily adhere to just the tenants of these philosophies, however'''... Contemporary U.S. antifa adherents likely do not share a list of enemies, as the movement lacks a unifying organizational structure or detailed ideology that might shape such a list.}}, -- no mention of "left"
*:#{{tq|Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of '''mostly'' far-left activists.}} --
*:#{{tq|in President Trump’s mind, and the minds of his supporters, the radical left and far left are interchangeable terms for Trump’s political adversaries. Using this term has been a tried-and-true tactic of the President since his election in 2016, and as a result, the terms have become divorced from their more classical political meaning – which includes political views that fall outside of mainstream democratic and liberal perspectives. By increasingly painting all Democratic views as “radical left,” President Trump has negated the real meaning the words. Which is why the interchangeable use of the terms Antifa and radical left is so troubling.}}-- i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination
*:#{{tq|The mainstream media is eager to label this a natural continuum, but the reality of the antifa is far more complex. Months of interviewing self-proclaimed members of the antifa uncovered a loosely organized tribe of individuals whose philosophies and tactics run the gamut from literally singing “Kumbaya” at rallies to hunting down Nazis to break their bones — and who recently have been united in part by a modicum of mainstream acceptance.}}-- no mention of left, stresses heterogeneity
*:#{{tq|Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of '''mostly''' far-left activists. They include anarchists, but also communists '''and a few social democrats'''.}}--
*:#{{tq|the usually loosely organized groups of left-wing protesters in Portland, Ore., and other U.S. cities that have adopted the name antifa — which the FBI indicates is nowhere as great a terrorist threat as right-wing groups — position themselves as outside the moderate liberal mainstream. For both the right and the left, antifa connotes an uncompromising radicalism. However, a look at the historical roots of the antifa movement reveal much more prevalent strands of pragmatism, compromise and coalition-building. In some cases, the movement also reflected a surprising embrace of moderation and reconciliation.}}--, i.e. moderate not extreme
*:#{{tq|Antifa has become a conservative catch-all under President Donald Trump.... Yet antifa doesn’t appear to have any organizing structure and is connected only by an amorphous political ideology. Still, the term is a potent one for conservatives. It’s the violent distillation of everything they fear could come to pass in an all-out culture war. And it’s a quick way to brand part of the opposition... “Antifa just became a term used by anyone and their grandma to describe somebody who was opposed to the open fascism that was being paraded around in all kinds of media,” said Alexander Reid Ross, an instructor at Portland State University and the author of “Against the Fascist Creep.” “I think with the popularization of the alt-right, there was sort of a counterpopularization of antifa, to the point where it simply describes people who are anti-fascist or people who are against racism and are willing to protest against it.”}}-- i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination/increasingly taken on by people not from the radical left
*:#{{tq|Ever since the term Antifa came into common use in 2017, the American far-right, aided by pundits in conservative media, has seized upon it, casting it wherever there is civil disobedience or anarchy. Crowds that turned angry, from Black Lives Matter protesters to environmental activists to student protesters, have been labeled Antifa by conservative commentators. It’s a political tactic, said Mark Bray... The image of Antifa as radical anarchists bent on political violence became a rallying cry for the far-right.}}-- i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination.
{{collapse bottom}}
::Adding couple of conclusions from these sources: (a) as our current article already makes clear, antifa is heterogeneous, a loose affiliation, not amendable to overky specific ideologival labels, (b) as a single issue canoaign it does not weigh in on issues rrlevant to distinctions within the left, (c) it has been subject to misunderstanding, misreporting, moral panics, hoaxes and disinformation, and much of this has focused on attempts to demonise the left, so labelling far left would play into this, (d) as it grew more popular after 2017, it increasingly became a label taken on by anti-fascists outside the radical left and anarchist milieux. Additionally a point not made in these sources but thats been playing on my mind: it is often linked to anarchism which some editors (in a form of SYNTH) seem to think is evidence for "far left", when in fact anarchism has an ambivalent relationship to the left, with many anarchists seeing themselves as outside it
::] (]) 16:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Numerous reliable sources including peer-review academic journals have used the label. (, , )
:{{collapse top|title=Reliable Sources that use the label of Far-left:}}
:1.) CNN
:2.) Reuthers
:3.) New York Times
:4.) ABC
:5.) CBC
{{collapse bottom}}
:Finally I think the issue of weight should be noted what is being asked that "left-wing" be changed to "Left-wing to far-left". This is not some unreasonable change that completely changes the page. If anything it is a fair compromise between people who want "left wing" and those who say "far-left".] (]) 00:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::You say {{tq|Numerous reliable sources including peer-review academic journals have used the label.}}
::The is paywalled and the title, abstract and references imply it's not a piece about contemporary US antifa. Can you give the quote? Is it more than a passing mention?
::Am I correct that doesn't call antifa a far left movement? (The only use of far left I can see is "network analyses of far-right and far-left hashtags (i.e., #bluehand, #whitegenocide, and #antifa)".) ] (]) 09:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::If you go to the bottom of the "Should Antifa be marked as far-left" you can find the sources and where the mention of far-left is made. From the first source Antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement. The American Far Left includes 'groups or individuals that embrace anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and to bring about change through violent revolution' (Department of Homeland Security 2009, p. 6). The third source implicitly calls the movement as far-left by describing the hastag #antifa as far left.
:::Regarding one of the sources you put out number 9 says its mostly made up of far leftists. Second none of them really apply here since no one is saying that the "left-wing" part be removed, only that "far-left" be added. ] (]) 02:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::We don't care about what you think is implicit in a statement. Only what is explicitly stated.] (]) 16:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::It explicitly labels #antifa as far left.  ] (]) 16:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Can you link to the DHS statement please? Thanks. ] ] 10:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I unfortunately do not have access to the document itself to give the exact location, but here is the source that cites the DHS report. . I hope that helps. Cheers.</nowiki> ] (]) 15:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] I don't have access to that, what does it actually say? I ask because I have never been able to find this actual statement anywhere. ] ] 15:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::From what I can see of the source it says " Antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement. The American Far Left includes 'groups or individuals that embrace anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and to bring about change through violent revolution' (Department of Homeland Security 2009, p. 6)." This is all I have access to. My apologies. ] (]) 17:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm a bit concerned both about the ellipses in the middle of this quote and that it's being presented, a quote direct from a primary source, citing to a secondary source but containing nothing of the secondary source beyond that they quoted the primary source.
::::::::Also that source, while on the website of a journal publisher, is a living reference work rather than a paper, analysis, meta-analysis, etc. As such it's basically just a bibliography. Which brings us back to ] and thus a serious ] consideration. ] (]) 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Which is why I am saying I have never found a Federal document. What exists is a New Jersey State report which doesn't call them terrorist. I am struggling with my internet, back tomorrow. ] ] 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I will be online later but only on my iPad. ] ] 17:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::If a bunch of people wanted to label antifa a far right group, would we "compromise" by calling them a "far left to far right group", in spite of how inane and unhelpful such verbiage is? ] (]) 04:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Your point does not make sense and is a strawman. Numerous reliable and academic sources have been presented to show the far-left label being applied to Antifa. There is nothing inane or unhelpful about calling antifa "left-wing to far-left". It captures the divergent groups within the movement. ] (]) 19:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' — it's sourced, it's not an unreasonable request and it is DUE. — . , . The ] describes "antifa" as a "decentralized network of who oppose what they believe are fascist, racist, or otherwise right-wing extremists" and whose adherents "frequently blend anarchist and communist views". . Antifa is a useful umbrella term that denotes a broad spectrum of . The term itself means simply anti-fascist.]] 04:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Why would the denunciations of a centrist politician, doubtless motivated by the realities of political intrigue, have any relevance here? Kamala Harris has called Trump a Fascist; may I edit ] to refer to him as a Fascist in ] and cite that as a source? ] (]) 04:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*::The article linked is calling antifa "far-left" not Biden. ] (]) 19:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' per Isaidnoway and 3Kingdoms. There is an abundance of sourcing here and I find the "no" arguments to be unconvincing. Some of the no arguments imply that it's already covered by other descriptors (then why not include the political position that reflects them?), others say that it's not the majority of sources (fine, which is why we're saying "left-wing to far-left" rather than ''just'' "far-left"), others say that it's personal opinion, which is evidently untrue given the sources. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' — Per reasons above. Sources overwhelmingly support it. The overall arguement against inclusion of "far-left" seems to be something like: {{tq| "I don't think that it's a primary focus of coverage and therefore isn't really leadworthy"}}. <br> However, a mere cursory glance at sources explicitly says otherwise. If one simply googles the term "antifa," the resulting output gives 7 usable sources (10 originally. 3 are not helpful, such as this own wiki page or Amazon shop links). '''Of those 7 reliable sources, 5 of them associate antifa with the far-left.''' I don't know how anyone could possibly maintain that it's not {{tq|"a primary focus of coverage" }} when the majority of the most prominent reliable sources to the public clearly say otherwise. --] (]) 14:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't think top Google hits is the best measure of ]. ] (]) 14:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::*I didn't say it was. But it's certainly a decent metric for determining which articles are getting the {{tq|"primary focus of coverage"}}. Most of those sources were already cited by others and are reliable either way. ] (]) 14:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::*We do not use Google to number and compare hits but to find and identify ]. And the Google-found sources mostly and clearly have "far-left" in the their appellation. -] (]) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' per Aquillion, FelipeFritschF, TFD, The Hand That Feeds You, BobFromBrockley. Needlessly wordy and very awkward phrasing. ] <small>(])</small> 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Per above. This needs too much context and nuance to fit in the lead as a bland fact. The goal of the article should be to provide context, not to nudge and hint towards ideological conclusions based on cherry-picked and misrepresented sources. ] (]) 02:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
*:What do you believe is the "Cherry-picked" or "misrepresented" sources? Because for me most of the sources in support of the label simply say some version of "Antifa is a far-left group". ] (]) 02:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:*These aren't "ideological conclusions", they're labels used directly by the sources. I don't see what additional context or nuance they require to fit into the lead, any more than any other article with similar labelling. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It is a mistake to expect everything with "similar labeling" to be treated exactly the same regardless of context. Among other issues with this approach -many other issues- ] "{{tq|does not have a single, coherent definition}}". It is impossible to talk about something being labelled as far-left without discussing its ], but even with that in mind, this is a misleading way to do that. The use of this term, in this context, would cause confusion and would imply different things to different editors based on their prior assumptions and biases. This is a bad thing for an encyclopedia article to do. ] (]) 19:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::So are there no instances where “far left” is appropriate because of its imprecise definition then? Wouldn’t that standard equally apply to “far-right” or many other ideology names? Surely this can’t be the standard.
::::If Reliable sources use it then reliable sources use it. (and they do) That should be the primary base of our analysis. ] (]) 19:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' per User:Gamaliel and the list of editors he includes. ] ] 07:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
* '''No'''. As shown in the FAQ, this has been discussed to death already & reading over the current discussion so far, this will continue to be a waste of editor's time. Regardless however, the phrase "left wing to far-left" is pointless when describing a non-centralized movement. Some individuals who consider themselves part of the movement may be considered far-left, but unless the content of the movement as a whole is in some way, inherently "far-left", the umbrella term of left wing ''(which far-left is a part of)'' is perfectly descriptive already. - ] (]) 17:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. The additional words seem to be a novel term that doesn't convey any additional information beyond the existing version. ] (]) 21:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' any source I pick up either explicitly states they are, or engage in behaviors that are, far-left. None of the sources contradict the premise of Antifa being far left. It's always the same 4 editors having a bone to pick on this talk page coming up with purity tests for edits. ] (]) 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:HoadRog, did you see the list of sources I've posted above which contradict the premise? (I think using a contentious label like far left for a group that an editor believes to "engage in behaviours that are far-left" is original research. In fact, a tiny minority of the sources cited in the article now use the words "far left".) ] (]) 14:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm not interested in engaging in pedantries. This is the most curated and biased article on Misplaced Pages I have ever seen. ] (]) 08:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::If reading and interpreting the ] and engaging in the ]-building process is "pedantry" to you, is it possible you are ] to build a better encyclopedia? ] (]) 04:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' for the lead, however I would support such verbiage in the infobox. There is ample precedent for doing it this way. The problem with using "X-to-Y" ideological descriptors is that they are simultaneously wordy without explaining very much. As others have pointed out, the lead is a great place to write, in longer sentences, actual descriptions of their ideology and praxis. In fact, the article already does this, and adding an "X-to-Y" description is not actually providing any further description, just hampering the flow of the sentence. ''The correct place for such short, sweeping phrases is the infobox.'' And again, there is ample precedent for this; very few articles use the bloated terminology being proposed here in the running text of the lead, but they do use it commonly in infoboxes. ] (]) 04:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
* '''No'''. Antifa, meaning anti-fascist, is too broad a movement to characterize it as 'far left,' or in some contexts even 'left wing.' It's true that most people in antifa fall into anarchist, communist, or socialist categories, but not strictly true. There are groups that are explicitly anti-fascist that are not necessarily leftist. The U.S. Democratic party, for example, or the Green party, could be considered to fall under the antifa umbrella because they are anti-fascist, but they are definitely not socialist or communist.] (]) 00:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*:@] If far left and left wing are not good descriptions, what would you use? ] (]) 00:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I think I would avoid either label altogether and maybe just rewrite the definition of 'antifa' to say something to the effect that it's a 'broad' or 'diverse,' diffusely organized, or not formally organized, association of groups holding antifascist views. ] (]) 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)


* '''No'''. The defining characteristic is ''not'' leftism but opposition to fascism. Plenty of conservatives are also opposed to fascism. ] (]) 12:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this RfC is to gain consensus for adding a new section titled '''Antifa activism''' for the purpose of creating and maintaining a timeline of notable antifa events, demonstrations, riots and various other forms of anti-fascist activities. Antifa supporters are recognizable by their ] attire, the targets they choose and/or their ideological behavior which does not rule out violence. They are also referred to as anti-fascists, or they could be individuals who act out and identify as antifascist but are not connected to a specific antifa group. Following is an example of a timeline with notable dates of past events involving antifa. Each date will include a description of the event per cited RS, and will closely adhere to ]. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 04:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


*'''Yes''' strong Yes. Case in point: They already have "far-right" in the lead paragraph for Matt Gaetz.. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
;Antifa activism
*:Matt Gaetz is called "far right" because that's what the sources say, it has absolutely ''nothing'' to do with this discussion here. ] (]) 15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*::um I respectfully disagree because "reliable" sources also say Antifa is far-left (see above) . so the fact[REDACTED] already calls Gaetz Far-Right (even though most sources do not say that) proves Antifa should have Far-Left in the lead. Period. IMO ] (]) 23:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Nothing about another article "proves" anything about this article. Gaetz is one person. He is what he is. Antifa is an umbrella term for many folks of many stripes. I'd guess there are more libertarians than far-Left under than umbrella. ] (]) 16:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''No''' the preponderance of sources do not indicate that anti-fascism is far-left. It is, rather a coalition of far-left, left, center-left and liberal people who have come to the solution that fascism must be actively opposed. What it comes down to is that basically nobody likes fascists and the composition of antifascist groups demonstrates this. ] (]) 17:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*Jan 20, 2017 - DC - Trump inauguration
*:Antifa ≠ anti-fascism. ] (]) 16:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Feb 01, 2017 - UC Berkeley - Milo Yiannopoulos
*::You are wrong. ] (]) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Jun 29, 2019 - Portland, WA Ngo
*:::Antifa is a loose organization of individuals that have several shared beliefs, anti-fascism is an ideal. So seems like they are correct. ] (]) 23:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Jul 19, 2019 - Tacoma, WA - Willem Van Spronsen
*:::As PackMecEng says Anti-fascism is an ideology/ political criticism while Antifa is a movement/organization. Anti-fascism predates the earliest use of "Antifa". ] ≠ The ]. ] (]) 15:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
*The previous RFC on this topic is ; see also the links in the header and the discussions above for recent disputes over it. --] (]) 15:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)


*I find the most recent proposed phrasing of "left-wing to far-left" particularly obnoxious for editorial reasons. Do any reliable sources use that phrasing or is that a Misplaced Pages invention. ] (]) 03:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
=== Support adding new section ===


::It appears mostly as a wiki tool when something is called by different sources “X wing” or “far X”. An example of this would be the ] article. ] (]) 04:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - antifa events have historice significance and lasting encyclopedic value. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 04:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
::That language is just the result of the ] policy of seeking a compromise. If anything, it's actually'' too generous''. It's worth noting that most of the reliable sources listed so far '''exclusively''' call ANTIFA far-left. Not "ranges from left to the far left." The proposed "left-wing to far-left" lead language is just there to reflect that there is some range in the descriptions. ] (]) 14:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Just10A}} can you link the discussion that resulted in consensus for that phrasing? ] (]) 17:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I think you misinterpreted what I said. I meant that ] calls us to compromise: {{tq| A consensus decision into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal}} There are an abundance of editors and sources for both positions, and that proposed language reflects that range as required by policy. I was explaining why the proposed language is worded the way it is, not that it's already been settled. ] (]) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Compromise does not mean ]. We do not have to bend over to include "both sides" to adhere to consensus. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not saying that. Try reading instead of being argumentative. ] (]) 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Insulting my reading comprehension is not a good look. You argued that the consensus rules "call us to compromise," which I rebutted. The fact you don't like being told "no" is your own issue. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No you didn't. You cited ]. However, as cited above (and explictly said in my comment if you read it), there are an abundance of reliable sources and significant weight that associates antifa with the "far-left." Thus, it's not false balance, it's cooperating with editors to properly convey what the myriad of sources reflect. ] explicitly says to {{tq|"try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns"}} and promotes collaboration. So yes, it does call us to compromise when the RS supports it. Again, come back after you've read next time. ] (]) 19:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Insisting on personal attacks, I see. Yes, I cited FALSEBALANCE because that's what your argument boils down to: give in to your side as "compromise" instead of adhering to ]. I'll not be replying any further, since you seem determined to have the last word. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Again, FALSEBALANCE applies to fringe theories, not things openly and meticulously sourced by many editors and reliable sources. I realize it's tempting to want to argue back when someone says something you don't like, but you should really give Misplaced Pages policy an objective look before doing such things.
::::::::::Also, just to be clear, there were no ] in this exchange. ] (]) 21:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with Just10A that it is not fringe to say that antifa is far left, but falsebalance still applies if it's a minority view. This is why I emphasise below that putting forward instances of the use of "far left" isn't enough; to use that phrase in the lead in our voice, we need to see that it is what the preponderance of good sources (ideally the best sources) say, and not a minority view. ] (]) 14:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Just10A}} Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. If it wasn't clear, I object to this specific phrasing because it seems to be novel and reads awkwardly to me. ] (]) 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Do you have an alternative phrasing? Could help with compromising. ] (]) 02:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see any issues with the extant description of "left wing". It's a blanket term that doesn't need further qualification. ] (]) 21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::then why are they already adding "far-right" to matt gaetz ? ] (]) 16:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::should be "far left wing" 100% ] (]) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' on sourcing. Clearly ''some'' sources use "far-left" or "far left" to describe contemporary US antifa. Showing this does is not sufficient for us using this designation in our voice in the lead. There are a huge number of potential sources on this topic, so to use a descriptor in our voice in the lead we would need to see that (a) the ] use it, (b) the preponderance of (and not just some) reliable sources tend to use it, (c) no more than an insignificant minority of RSs reject, contest or contradict it. So far, yes-!voters are simply dropping in arbitrary examples, but none of them so far seem to be good examples of best sources. To make it easier, some suggestions on sources that aren't best sources:
:* scholarly articles by scholars in other fields, e.g. social media, who are not experts on political ideologies and movements.
:* introductory pieces from 2017 when "antifa" was suddenly in the public eye and mainstream news sources rushed out badly researched "explainers" on a topic that they were obviously new to, and which were superseded by better sources later.
:* takes from advocacy organisations that are and hostile to the left.
:* pieces that identify them with the left ''including'' the far left rather than with the far left specifically, e.g. CNN's very cautious "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." or PBS's "antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left-''leaning'' movements that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists".
:* opinion pieces by people who are not experts on the topic.
:* anything by right-wing blogger and Eoin Lenihan.
:* articles about other topics.
::] (]) 10:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Major, mainstream media cannot be dismissed as biased sources. ] is not biased: ; ] is not biased: ; ] is not biased: ; '']'' is not biased: ; '']'' is not biased: ; etc. A veritable abundance, rather than your very inaccurate "mostly." -] (]) 14:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree with this assessment by the Gnome. This is a pretty conclusive set of very reliable sources that use this label, multiple times. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 14:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I didn't call these sources biased. Maybe read what I actually wrote. ] (]) 16:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::You dismissed every single source that does not abide by the lie about Antifa being simply an organization of the broad left, like the social-democrats, the socialists, the neo-marxists, and others. And, yes, of course, I read what the opposite party is proffering as arguments before addressing them. So, brass tacks: I simply cited impeccable sources. Which go against your general and quite unfair dismissal. Seize the opportunity and, as a short cut, consider in a somber manner whether Antifa ''per sources'' looks to be closer to a Socialist party or to a anarchist organization. -] (]) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::P.S. Frankly, since you are a member of Antifa yourself, I'd expect a better defense against the term "far-left." Are there, for example, instances or cases, of intentional avoidance of violence, of non-radical speech, and the like? -] (]) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Please note that both our article and all reliable sources are clear that antifa doesn't have "members".
::::::And yes, all of the reliable sources make it clear that violence is more often than not avoided. E.g. : {{tq|lack of highly public engagement by anti-fascists doesn’t mean the movement has gone away. Antifa experts and self-proclaimed anti-fascists said activists do what they have always done: quietly research and expose racists, bigots and other people who mean harm to their fellow Americans and work on community projects that support marginalized people. “In the broad spectrum of activities that are effective in anti-fascism, most go completely unnoticed compared to street action, which is really just the tip of the spear,” said Chad Loder, an anti-fascist activist in Southern California. “That’s really just an activity of last resort for Antifa.” Because many people define Antifa only by the actions of a minority of activists, rather than recognizing the entirety of the movement, they miss the whole picture, said Stanislav Vysotsky, a professor of criminology and author of the book "American Antifa." “The street demonstrator is such a small portion of what anti-fascist activism entails that it's very much blown out of proportion," Vysotsky said. “Ninety-five percent of anti-fascist activism is nonconfrontational and nonviolent.”}} ] (]) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Major mainstream media is mot ] and balancing appropriate academic work against mainstream media is ].] (]) 17:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Per my point (c) above, I have now added a (collapsed) list of sources that contest or contradict the "far left" designation to my !vote in the survey above. ] (]) 15:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


== "revolutionaries" ==


I've been going through the cites in the lead, due to the RfC above, and I'm now questioning this text which has been in the lead for a long time: {{tq|A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries, and have little allegiance to liberal democracy, although some social democrats also participate in the antifa movement.}} I notice the citations in what is now footnote 7 are all from 2017, suggesting this was edited in then, but I don't think the sourcing is very strong or reflects best sources now. It might be too much to deal with this at the same time as the "far left" question, but if other editors are looking at sources too maybe it's good to consider it at the same time.
Revolutionaries ''is'' supported by Bray: {{tq| anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right... Militant anti-fascists disagree with the pursuit of state bans against “extremist” politics because of their revolutionary, anti-state politics and because such bans are more often used against the Left than the Right}} (He says the same thing in )
But it is ''not'' supported by , , or , the other sources in the footnote, and I don't feel it reflects the preponderance of good sources. My instinct, then, might be to delete "who describe themselves as revolutionaries" from the lead, even if we leave the similar phrasing in the "Movement structure and ideology" section of the body. Thoughts? ] (]) 14:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages follows developments. If a party or an organization followed, very schematically put, ideology A and now follow ideology B, both A and B have their place in the respective article, one as a historical reference and the other as a description of the present. -] (]) 08:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes I think that's right, but the sources don't say they were and now they aren't; it's just that there a small number of sources from 2017 that said something like this which makes me think this is a leftover from when we were first building the page due to a surge of interest in 2017. My question is more about whether it's DUE in the lead. I have no strong feeling on this. ] (]) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I would say not due. ] (]) 14:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== There are no "members of antifa" ==
=== Oppose adding new section ===


the intro promotes the ignorant right-wing trope that there is a group named ANTIFA. ] (]) 12:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


*I do not think it does, why do you? How would you re-phrase it differently? ] (]) 14:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
<!-- oppose iVotes above this notice and only in this section -->
*Well, not to belabor the obvious (], such a grouping exists, though I would not chase after actuaries registering them) but one of Misplaced Pages's editors, rather busy in the above discussion on whether Antifa is "left" or "far left," is stating they are a member of Antifa. Should we warn them off an entity that does not exist? -] (]) 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Who says they are a member? Or maybe they belong to a group which does have members. But in any case, antifa is not an entity, per sources it is a movement. What supporters call themselves doesn't matter. I've changed the lead to make that clearer. ] ] 12:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Literally nobody in this conversation has stated they are "a member of Antifa". On which editor are you casting aspersions here? ] (]) 14:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Need a disambiguation page: Antifa - an abbreviation for antifascist. Anteefa - a conspiracy theory that leftist revolutionary vanguards in the United States are using antifascist actions as a lampshade to foment violent revolution. ] (]) 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== “Non-violent”?? ==
{{closed|(non-admin closure) this is not actionable. the editor needs to read the full sentence next time. ] (]) 14:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)|text={{not done|Factually incorrect - the statement in the lede regarding diversity of tactics is sourced to two citations.}}
<br>
This adjective in the opening description is not supported and should be deleted. ] (]) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


:There are three citations for that statement at the end of the third paragraph. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 14:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}}
=== Discussion ===
<!-- discussion to be carried on here not in the iVote section -->

Latest revision as of 05:38, 21 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antifa (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues. Q1: Why doesn't Misplaced Pages say that antifa is "far left"? A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern but please be aware that this issue has been discussed many times before. You are encouraged to review Misplaced Pages's policy on consensus-building and the following discussions before posting on this subject: Q2: Why doesn't Misplaced Pages say that antifa has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States? A2: There is no legal statute in the United States which allows designating a domestic group as a terrorist organization. Only foreign groups may have that status. Statements from former United States Attorney General William P. Barr and former U.S. President Donald Trump do not equal a legal designation. Q3: Why is 'antifa' spelled in lowercase? A3: Many editors have argued that antifa is a common noun, based on available sources. There was no consensus to switch to 'Antifa' in this RfC.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconAnarchism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
 Anarchism WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · history · talk · purge
Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help?

Did you know

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles for creation

Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (510)

WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED]
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
WikiProject iconSocialism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
Enforcement procedures:
  • Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
  • Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
  • In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
  • Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, when it received 11,936,594 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Extremist organization

Antifa should have extremist in their description They took part in many violent atacks,from normal assaults to assaults with deadly weapons (the "bike lock incident") 213.233.85.208 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be making a claim based on original research. It would be more compelling if you could point to reliable sources that use the terminology. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/08/eric-clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-berkeley-rally-bike-lock-assault-case
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/professor-charged-berkeley-trump-protest-assault/ (a trusted[REDACTED] source btw)
youtube video linked by cbs news
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg&ab_channel=SHUTTERSHOT (the incident in question WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT AHEAD)
should i provide more data on antifa's violent activities? 78.96.206.170 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Not interested in the YouTube as it's not an RS or someone random person's label, neither of the reliable sources mention Antifa, and believe it or not, you can be a violent anti-fascist and have nothing to do with Antifa. And of course one person's actions can't label everyone in a movement, that would be like calling the old civil rights movement because one person, or even a number of people, were very violent. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I just looked at your posts at Talk:White pride. Looks like you are on a bit of a mission. You seem to also be the IP who started that complaint. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
if you see any bias on my arguments please notify me of them so i can further learn from my mistakes
maybe i did a mistake when asking for a definition before stating its use by extremists groups but i didnt intend to justify discrimination in any way shape or form 78.96.206.170 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
It's just as disingenuous however to omit violence that can be attributed to antifa. I agree the extremist prefix is a needed addition. The ADL sources already highlight that antifa violence is significant enough to be mentioned. Just because some antifa don't use violence doesn't mean the instances they do need exclusion from the article - harking back to the other discussion of a no true Scotsman fallacy, you know, the one where the editor lead the reader to the conclusion that violent antifa is not actually antifa. HoadRog (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
"Last year, police searched Clanton’s apartment and seized flags, pamphlets and other paraphernalia associated with Antifa and anarchist movements. He was arrested following the search, Berkleyside.com reported."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-professor-accused-of-hitting-trump-supporters-with-bike-lock-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-gets-probation.amp
His association with antifa is corroborated here. It's a high profile case. His use of Black bloc tactics and violence is also evidence of his affiliation with antifa. Neglecting to mention this high profile incident would be a serious issue for the writers & readers.
I would also add absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. antifa violence and black bloc in general is to make identification hard, so repeat violence is easier and consequence-free. HoadRog (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Was it "high profile"? Maybe on right wing social media, but not outside of that. Reliable sources have mostly ignored that one event, six years ago. If reliable sources treat that one event as a specific example of why antifa is "extremist", then propose those sources. One brief news article which barely even mentions antifa and says nothing about antifa's ideology or politics is useless. Your WP:OR about black block is also useless. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
That reply and source were specifically to highlight Eric clanton as both a political violence user and antifa member, as a pertinent example of antifa violence that editors have argued doesn't exist or is insignificant. You talked past that.
Honestly I am losing a lot of respect for a cabal that charades itself as an unbiased encyclopedia. I don't know why Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages and Media bias in the United States that is well documented both anecdotally and academically is coincidentally ignored when it comes to writing contemporary articles. Editors generally don't turn over stones they think will challenge their confirmation bias. I advise you not to reply to this second paragraph to prevent derailing and further strawmanning and deflecting.
https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa
Extremist antifa exists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/05/29/a-man-clobbered-trump-supporters-with-a-bike-lock-the-internet-went-looking-for-him/
WaPo covering the attacks
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-professor-accused-of-hitting-trump-supporters-with-bike-lock-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-gets-probation.amp
Fox covering the attacks
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/professor-charged-berkeley-trump-protest-assault/
CBS covering the attacks
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/26/eric-clanton-former-calif-professor-arrested-in-vi/
Another source covering the attacks
https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Eric-Clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-13142123.php
California based news site covering the attacks and also verbatim says the assault(s) "drew widespread attention" so that quip about it being a big deal only on "right wing social media" is moot and kind of speaks to a potential lack of wanting to do sub-superficial research. HoadRog (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I also think that source 5 also mentions that some antifa members do take violent actions, cited sources back my claim here 78.96.206.170 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
They don't care. There's a narrative the editors are playing into. You can't change the article to be unbiased but you are welcome to try and make an edit request through the proper channels. If you are up for it, you can submit a new article covering the bike lock attacks. HoadRog (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The lead says "Antifa political activism includes non-violent methods like involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing. Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."
What parts of that do you think are not true?
Your sources are also pretty old. The Eric Clanton one is from 2017, one individual anti-fascist person out of many thousands, Antifa has no members, the sources don't say he is even an Antifa supporter so far as I can see, just an anti-fascist. Even the right wing Washington Times says "went viral in the days following clashes between Trump supporters and so-called anti-fascists."
Our MAGA article doesn't even mention violence - but there are a lot of sources out there that show it is often violent. Do you think there's no violence involving MAGA supporters? Doug Weller talk 09:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
So the lead supports the content and could use a tweek, seems to be what everyone is talking aboit so thsgs a nothing.
Old sources is a cop out and meaningless here, thats also about the age of most of the sources since Antifa kind of pettered out.
No true Scotsman is another tired argument, they have no members, everyone is a member, only a member if self identified, only a member of RS say very specific things, only if the RS says it and the person and their mother agrees, and so what worming around the point. But only if it's negatove.
Finally the broader article doesn't mention it but the article dedicated to the thing probably shoild. Again that is just an OtherStuff argument and means nothing for the content that should be here. PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@PackMecEng So we don't need sources to show someone supports Antifa and isn't just an anti-fascist? Doug Weller talk 14:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Who said that? The issue is your interpretation of sources. PackMecEng (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This is often discussed if you look at the history of this specific article, but it perfectly illustrates the horrible left wing bias Misplaced Pages suffers from. Articles about politics from like 2015-now are the worse in my personal opinion. The issue is that the allowed sources on this site are voted on and they usually most any left leaning tabloid (stuff like Salon or Mother Jones or Daily Beast) while not even mainstream right wing publications, like Fox News. What this means is that most things get defined on here through a heavy left wing lenses and this article is a perfect example. Its just a naked propaganda puff piece for Antifa by describing them as moderate left wingers and erasing all negative press about them. Its not uncommon to find editors self identifying with this organization as well. I dont expect much change other than Misplaced Pages will lose more and more credibility, what little it has left. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Why does the article claim that antifa relies on "non-violent" protests? Did no one see Portland burn? 2601:1C1:8381:6DE0:2711:ECBF:E353:F2B4 (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that antifa "relies" on non-violence. Please read the entire lead of the article, or at least the entire first paragraph, or at least the very next sentence after the one you rushed here to complain about. Grayfell (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Should "far-left" be added to the lead?

Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. The second sentence's Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism is more accurate. If we must cover left-right politics in the lead, the preponderance of sources describe Antifa's politics as broad and ambiguous in a way that is better summarized as just left-wing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No . The opening section presents the article's subject accurately, i.e. per sources, and, moreover, is well and carefully written. -The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Changing my suggestion to Yes, and I declare my sincere apologies to all concerned for my previous, inexcusably hasty one. Sources quoted herebelow, along with additional ones found (e.g. on BBC, in Forbes, in PBS, or even amongst the original antifascists, in Germany), strongly support the change to far-left. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
BBC says Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of 'mostly far-left activists.
Forbes says antifa isn't far left: what exactly is the difference between Antifa and the far, or radical, left? Well, like everything in America right now, it depends on who you ask. Officials like Trump and Barr are using the terms interchangeably, blurring the lines between the two. By doing so, administration officials are attempting to inject volatile language into an already combustible situation... in President Trump’s mind, and the minds of his supporters, the radical left and far left are interchangeable terms for Trump’s political adversaries. Using this term has been a tried-and-true tactic of the President since his election in 2016, and as a result, the terms have become divorced from their more classical political meaning – which includes political views that fall outside of mainstream democratic and liberal perspectives. By increasingly painting all Democratic views as “radical left,” President Trump has negated the real meaning the words. Which is why the interchangeable use of the terms Antifa and radical left is so troubling.
PBS says "far-left-leaning" not "far left".
DW is about German antifa, a different topic (and note it says protests might attract sympathetic participants who wouldn't necessarily define themselves as anarchist, or indeed as far-left. Often German antifa groups enjoy their best turnouts when organizing counter-protests against far-right demonstrators. These events can draw in people from almost all walks of life.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Well the BBC one indicates to me there's definitely an argument for inclusion. If it's "mostly" far-left, why would we not say "far-left" or "left-wing to far-left"? It would be WP:UNDUE to not call them far-left here.
As for PBS, I think it's pretty safe to say "far-left-leaning" means the same as "far-left". — Czello 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Read back the examples I provided.
Forbes states the following, with emphasis added: "Antifa a loose group of radical activists...dressed in all black and wearing black face masks (so called black bloc tactics)...known to use violent tactics... protests include taking part in violent anti-capitalist marches." Try as much as you want, the cumulative assessment of such a group cannot by any means be termed simply "left." A simply left organization is not radical and does not engage in violence. End of story.
PBS: "Antifa is an umbrella term for far-left-leaning movements." When each and every movement is far-leaning then the umbrella organization can be termed "far left" without any loss of accuracy.
For the German case, note that Antifa deploys the same tactics everywhere in the US and Europe, per sources. They are all beyond the spectrum of simply the left. So, the German Antifa is a useful indicator, especially when the report comes from an anti-fascist medium such as Deutsche Welle.
As to the BBC, it sometimes, in a rather British way, will hedge its bets with "rather's" and "mostly's" but, more often than not, its journalistic integrity surfaces: "far-left", "far-left", "far-left".
You are on a false path and I should not be the one to break these news to you. -The Gnome (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but the underlined words in your Forbes quote don't equal "far" and it's WP:OR to say they do. Forbes says antifa are "radical activists" but also explicitly that antifa are not "radical left".
Re PBS and BBC, call me old-fashioned or British but I think journalists use words for reasons and if they qualify with the extra letters of "leaning" or "mostly" they're avoiding making an excessive claim and so should we.
You've now added three more BBC links. The first one doesn't call antifa "far left"; it says a loose confederation of anti-fascists - or antifa, for short. There is no one antifa organisation or political philosophy. They're a mixed bag of anarchists, socialists and communists. Some conservatives might see all socialists as far left, but Misplaced Pages doesn't. However, the last two BBC links do call it a loosely affiliated group of far-left protesters so I agree that the BBC do sometimes use this phrase, while on other occasions (here's another) they qualify this.
Re DW, the idea that because a reliable source says something about people in one country their words can be applied to a wholly different country is not a good way of using sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@The Gnome: the BBC article linked uses "left-wing" and "far left" interchangeably. It is a justification against the proposed change, not for it. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Three additional letters to a word make for a "wordy" situation? I do not think that is a correct assessment. -The Gnome (talk)
This is an odd reason to oppose, if you ask me. "Left-wing" doesn't already imply inclusion of "far-left", any more than "right-wing" implies inclusion of "far-right". On top of that, there are plenty of existing articles that have a range ("x to y") in their infobox, such as Conservative Party (UK). It's not wordy at all. — Czello 14:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Wordiness is not simply measured by word count. Even one or two words can make a sentence considerably more convoluted and ruin the natural flow of the sentence, and the choice of words matters too; there may be a set of two words that, when added to a sentence, make it seem as wordy as if you were to add a different set of twenty words. Further, adding words to an already long sentence is generally worse than adding them to a shorter one. These reasons, among others, are why although there are many infoboxes on Misplaced Pages that contain an "X-to-Y" ideological description, few (none that I am aware of, actually) go for such wording in the lead. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No There is no reason Misplaced Pages editors to add their opinions to the article. TFD (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    That's evidently not happening given the abundance of sources. — Czello 10:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No We've been down this road multiple times, see the FAQ and Archives. The discussion over the last month did not result in a consensus for the change, there's not enough reliable sources to overcome WP:DUE and include such nomenclature in the lede and infobox. Arguments that it stayed in the article too long are invalid, because the entire point was to not get into an edit war during the discussion. Once that was resolved and it was removed, suddenly people began claiming the addition was the "stable version," and edit warring to keep it in. This is not policy compliant, and we need to put this to rest. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No. While some sources say this, they are far from the best sources and a majority don’t say this, and some directly contradict it. Nothing has changed since the last RfC (in fact, newer, stronger sources tend to be less likely to say “far left”). BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Some sources contesting or contradicting use of far left:
    1. Antifa – short for "anti-fascist" – is the name for loosely affiliated, left-leaning, anti-racist groups that monitor and track the activities of local neo-Nazis.--USA Today, 2017
    2. antifa, a loose movement of left-wing, anti-racist and anti-fascist activists.--The Conversation, 2021
    3. Antifa’s organisation (or lack thereof) is reminiscent of Anonymous: there is no hierarchy or central platform, and anyone can claim the title and set up a local branch. The decentralised character of Antifa and lack of theoretical basis ensure appeal to all “anti-fascists”, but also make it difficult to pin down what exactly it is they oppose.--The Economist, 2017, i.e. no specific ideological position
    4. Trump’s rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the mainstream left. “Suddenly,” noted the antifa-aligned journal It’s Going Down, “anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along.’ ”... tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. --Beinart, 2017
    5. Anti-fascist organizing has long existed outside of mainstream leftwing organizing in the United States. But as the far right has gained stature and attention amid the rise of Trump, anti-fascism has gained relevance... Shane Burley, a journalist and researcher who studies the far right, said that anti-fascists struggled to be “taken seriously” by other leftists in recent years, as mainstream groups took aim at “systemic racism” rather than specific racist groups. But with the rise in “violent, casual racism” after the election, anti-fascism tactics will gain in popularity, he said.--Guardian, 2017 i.e. appealed beyond far left to mainstream left
    6. Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is not a concrete group, rather an amorphous movement. Anti-fascists of the movement tend to be grouped on the leftward fringes of the US political spectrum, many describing themselves as socialists, anarchists, communists or anti-capitalists.--Al-Jazeera, 2020
    7. according to 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.”--NYT, 2021
    8. The U.S. antifa movement appears to be decentralized, consisting of independent, radical, like-minded groups and individuals. Its tenets can echo the principles of anarchism, socialism, and communism. Members do not necessarily adhere to just the tenants of these philosophies, however... Contemporary U.S. antifa adherents likely do not share a list of enemies, as the movement lacks a unifying organizational structure or detailed ideology that might shape such a list., --Congressional Research Service, 2020 no mention of "left"
    9. Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of 'mostly far-left activists. -- BBC, 2020
    10. in President Trump’s mind, and the minds of his supporters, the radical left and far left are interchangeable terms for Trump’s political adversaries. Using this term has been a tried-and-true tactic of the President since his election in 2016, and as a result, the terms have become divorced from their more classical political meaning – which includes political views that fall outside of mainstream democratic and liberal perspectives. By increasingly painting all Democratic views as “radical left,” President Trump has negated the real meaning the words. Which is why the interchangeable use of the terms Antifa and radical left is so troubling.--Forbes, 2020 i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination
    11. The mainstream media is eager to label this a natural continuum, but the reality of the antifa is far more complex. Months of interviewing self-proclaimed members of the antifa uncovered a loosely organized tribe of individuals whose philosophies and tactics run the gamut from literally singing “Kumbaya” at rallies to hunting down Nazis to break their bones — and who recently have been united in part by a modicum of mainstream acceptance.--Alta, 2018 no mention of left, stresses heterogeneity
    12. Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of mostly far-left activists. They include anarchists, but also communists and a few social democrats.--BBC, 2020
    13. the usually loosely organized groups of left-wing protesters in Portland, Ore., and other U.S. cities that have adopted the name antifa — which the FBI indicates is nowhere as great a terrorist threat as right-wing groups — position themselves as outside the moderate liberal mainstream. For both the right and the left, antifa connotes an uncompromising radicalism. However, a look at the historical roots of the antifa movement reveal much more prevalent strands of pragmatism, compromise and coalition-building. In some cases, the movement also reflected a surprising embrace of moderation and reconciliation.--Washington Post, 2020, i.e. moderate not extreme
    14. Antifa has become a conservative catch-all under President Donald Trump.... Yet antifa doesn’t appear to have any organizing structure and is connected only by an amorphous political ideology. Still, the term is a potent one for conservatives. It’s the violent distillation of everything they fear could come to pass in an all-out culture war. And it’s a quick way to brand part of the opposition... “Antifa just became a term used by anyone and their grandma to describe somebody who was opposed to the open fascism that was being paraded around in all kinds of media,” said Alexander Reid Ross, an instructor at Portland State University and the author of “Against the Fascist Creep.” “I think with the popularization of the alt-right, there was sort of a counterpopularization of antifa, to the point where it simply describes people who are anti-fascist or people who are against racism and are willing to protest against it.”--Politico, 2020 i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination/increasingly taken on by people not from the radical left
    15. Ever since the term Antifa came into common use in 2017, the American far-right, aided by pundits in conservative media, has seized upon it, casting it wherever there is civil disobedience or anarchy. Crowds that turned angry, from Black Lives Matter protesters to environmental activists to student protesters, have been labeled Antifa by conservative commentators. It’s a political tactic, said Mark Bray... The image of Antifa as radical anarchists bent on political violence became a rallying cry for the far-right.--USA Today, 2021 i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination.
Adding couple of conclusions from these sources: (a) as our current article already makes clear, antifa is heterogeneous, a loose affiliation, not amendable to overky specific ideologival labels, (b) as a single issue canoaign it does not weigh in on issues rrlevant to distinctions within the left, (c) it has been subject to misunderstanding, misreporting, moral panics, hoaxes and disinformation, and much of this has focused on attempts to demonise the left, so labelling far left would play into this, (d) as it grew more popular after 2017, it increasingly became a label taken on by anti-fascists outside the radical left and anarchist milieux. Additionally a point not made in these sources but thats been playing on my mind: it is often linked to anarchism which some editors (in a form of SYNTH) seem to think is evidence for "far left", when in fact anarchism has an ambivalent relationship to the left, with many anarchists seeing themselves as outside it
BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes Numerous reliable sources including peer-review academic journals have used the label. (, , )
Reliable Sources that use the label of Far-left:
1.) CNN
2.) Reuthers
3.) New York Times
4.) ABC
5.) CBC
Finally I think the issue of weight should be noted what is being asked that "left-wing" be changed to "Left-wing to far-left". This is not some unreasonable change that completely changes the page. If anything it is a fair compromise between people who want "left wing" and those who say "far-left".3Kingdoms (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
You say Numerous reliable sources including peer-review academic journals have used the label.
The first source cited is paywalled and the title, abstract and references imply it's not a piece about contemporary US antifa. Can you give the quote? Is it more than a passing mention?
Am I correct that the third source cited doesn't call antifa a far left movement? (The only use of far left I can see is "network analyses of far-right and far-left hashtags (i.e., #bluehand, #whitegenocide, and #antifa)".) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
If you go to the bottom of the "Should Antifa be marked as far-left" you can find the sources and where the mention of far-left is made. From the first source Antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement. The American Far Left includes 'groups or individuals that embrace anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and to bring about change through violent revolution' (Department of Homeland Security 2009, p. 6). The third source implicitly calls the movement as far-left by describing the hastag #antifa as far left.
Regarding one of the sources you put out number 9 says its mostly made up of far leftists. Second none of them really apply here since no one is saying that the "left-wing" part be removed, only that "far-left" be added. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
We don't care about what you think is implicit in a statement. Only what is explicitly stated.Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
It explicitly labels #antifa as far left.  3Kingdoms (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@3Kingdoms Can you link to the DHS statement please? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I unfortunately do not have access to the document itself to give the exact location, but here is the source that cites the DHS report. . I hope that helps. Cheers. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@3Kingdoms I don't have access to that, what does it actually say? I ask because I have never been able to find this actual statement anywhere. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
From what I can see of the source it says " Antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement. The American Far Left includes 'groups or individuals that embrace anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and to bring about change through violent revolution' (Department of Homeland Security 2009, p. 6)." This is all I have access to. My apologies. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned both about the ellipses in the middle of this quote and that it's being presented, a quote direct from a primary source, citing to a secondary source but containing nothing of the secondary source beyond that they quoted the primary source.
Also that source, while on the website of a journal publisher, is a living reference work rather than a paper, analysis, meta-analysis, etc. As such it's basically just a bibliography. Which brings us back to WP:PRIMARY and thus a serious WP:DUE consideration. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Which is why I am saying I have never found a Federal document. What exists is a New Jersey State report which doesn't call them terrorist. I am struggling with my internet, back tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I will be online later but only on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
If a bunch of people wanted to label antifa a far right group, would we "compromise" by calling them a "far left to far right group", in spite of how inane and unhelpful such verbiage is? Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Your point does not make sense and is a strawman. Numerous reliable and academic sources have been presented to show the far-left label being applied to Antifa. There is nothing inane or unhelpful about calling antifa "left-wing to far-left". It captures the divergent groups within the movement. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it was. But it's certainly a decent metric for determining which articles are getting the "primary focus of coverage". Most of those sources were already cited by others and are reliable either way. Just10A (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • We do not use Google to number and compare hits but to find and identify sources. And the Google-found sources mostly and clearly have "far-left" in the their appellation. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No per Aquillion, FelipeFritschF, TFD, The Hand That Feeds You, BobFromBrockley. Needlessly wordy and very awkward phrasing. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No - Per above. This needs too much context and nuance to fit in the lead as a bland fact. The goal of the article should be to provide context, not to nudge and hint towards ideological conclusions based on cherry-picked and misrepresented sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    What do you believe is the "Cherry-picked" or "misrepresented" sources? Because for me most of the sources in support of the label simply say some version of "Antifa is a far-left group". 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • These aren't "ideological conclusions", they're labels used directly by the sources. I don't see what additional context or nuance they require to fit into the lead, any more than any other article with similar labelling. — Czello 07:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It is a mistake to expect everything with "similar labeling" to be treated exactly the same regardless of context. Among other issues with this approach -many other issues- far-left politics "does not have a single, coherent definition". It is impossible to talk about something being labelled as far-left without discussing its ideology, but even with that in mind, this is a misleading way to do that. The use of this term, in this context, would cause confusion and would imply different things to different editors based on their prior assumptions and biases. This is a bad thing for an encyclopedia article to do. Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
So are there no instances where “far left” is appropriate because of its imprecise definition then? Wouldn’t that standard equally apply to “far-right” or many other ideology names? Surely this can’t be the standard.
If Reliable sources use it then reliable sources use it. (and they do) That should be the primary base of our analysis. Just10A (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No per User:Gamaliel and the list of editors he includes. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No. As shown in the FAQ, this has been discussed to death already & reading over the current discussion so far, this will continue to be a waste of editor's time. Regardless however, the phrase "left wing to far-left" is pointless when describing a non-centralized movement. Some individuals who consider themselves part of the movement may be considered far-left, but unless the content of the movement as a whole is in some way, inherently "far-left", the umbrella term of left wing (which far-left is a part of) is perfectly descriptive already. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No. The additional words seem to be a novel term that doesn't convey any additional information beyond the existing version. VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes any source I pick up either explicitly states they are, or engage in behaviors that are, far-left. None of the sources contradict the premise of Antifa being far left. It's always the same 4 editors having a bone to pick on this talk page coming up with purity tests for edits. HoadRog (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    HoadRog, did you see the list of sources I've posted above which contradict the premise? (I think using a contentious label like far left for a group that an editor believes to "engage in behaviours that are far-left" is original research. In fact, a tiny minority of the sources cited in the article now use the words "far left".) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not interested in engaging in pedantries. This is the most curated and biased article on Misplaced Pages I have ever seen. HoadRog (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    If reading and interpreting the WP:RELIABLESOURCES and engaging in the WP:CONSENSUS-building process is "pedantry" to you, is it possible you are WP:NOTHERE to build a better encyclopedia? Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No for the lead, however I would support such verbiage in the infobox. There is ample precedent for doing it this way. The problem with using "X-to-Y" ideological descriptors is that they are simultaneously wordy without explaining very much. As others have pointed out, the lead is a great place to write, in longer sentences, actual descriptions of their ideology and praxis. In fact, the article already does this, and adding an "X-to-Y" description is not actually providing any further description, just hampering the flow of the sentence. The correct place for such short, sweeping phrases is the infobox. And again, there is ample precedent for this; very few articles use the bloated terminology being proposed here in the running text of the lead, but they do use it commonly in infoboxes. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No. Antifa, meaning anti-fascist, is too broad a movement to characterize it as 'far left,' or in some contexts even 'left wing.' It's true that most people in antifa fall into anarchist, communist, or socialist categories, but not strictly true. There are groups that are explicitly anti-fascist that are not necessarily leftist. The U.S. Democratic party, for example, or the Green party, could be considered to fall under the antifa umbrella because they are anti-fascist, but they are definitely not socialist or communist.Coalcity58 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Coalcity58 If far left and left wing are not good descriptions, what would you use? PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think I would avoid either label altogether and maybe just rewrite the definition of 'antifa' to say something to the effect that it's a 'broad' or 'diverse,' diffusely organized, or not formally organized, association of groups holding antifascist views. Coalcity58 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I find the most recent proposed phrasing of "left-wing to far-left" particularly obnoxious for editorial reasons. Do any reliable sources use that phrasing or is that a Misplaced Pages invention. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
It appears mostly as a wiki tool when something is called by different sources “X wing” or “far X”. An example of this would be the Right sector article. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
That language is just the result of the WP:CONSENSUS policy of seeking a compromise. If anything, it's actually too generous. It's worth noting that most of the reliable sources listed so far exclusively call ANTIFA far-left. Not "ranges from left to the far left." The proposed "left-wing to far-left" lead language is just there to reflect that there is some range in the descriptions. Just10A (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Just10A: can you link the discussion that resulted in consensus for that phrasing? VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I meant that WP:CONSENSUS calls us to compromise: A consensus decision into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal There are an abundance of editors and sources for both positions, and that proposed language reflects that range as required by policy. I was explaining why the proposed language is worded the way it is, not that it's already been settled. Just10A (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Compromise does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do not have to bend over to include "both sides" to adhere to consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Not saying that. Try reading instead of being argumentative. Just10A (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Insulting my reading comprehension is not a good look. You argued that the consensus rules "call us to compromise," which I rebutted. The fact you don't like being told "no" is your own issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
No you didn't. You cited WP:FALSEBALANCE. However, as cited above (and explictly said in my comment if you read it), there are an abundance of reliable sources and significant weight that associates antifa with the "far-left." Thus, it's not false balance, it's cooperating with editors to properly convey what the myriad of sources reflect. WP:CONSENSUS explicitly says to "try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns" and promotes collaboration. So yes, it does call us to compromise when the RS supports it. Again, come back after you've read next time. Just10A (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Insisting on personal attacks, I see. Yes, I cited FALSEBALANCE because that's what your argument boils down to: give in to your side as "compromise" instead of adhering to WP:DUE. I'll not be replying any further, since you seem determined to have the last word. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Again, FALSEBALANCE applies to fringe theories, not things openly and meticulously sourced by many editors and reliable sources. I realize it's tempting to want to argue back when someone says something you don't like, but you should really give Misplaced Pages policy an objective look before doing such things.
Also, just to be clear, there were no personal attacks in this exchange. Just10A (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Just10A that it is not fringe to say that antifa is far left, but falsebalance still applies if it's a minority view. This is why I emphasise below that putting forward instances of the use of "far left" isn't enough; to use that phrase in the lead in our voice, we need to see that it is what the preponderance of good sources (ideally the best sources) say, and not a minority view. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Just10A: Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. If it wasn't clear, I object to this specific phrasing because it seems to be novel and reads awkwardly to me. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you have an alternative phrasing? Could help with compromising. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any issues with the extant description of "left wing". It's a blanket term that doesn't need further qualification. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
then why are they already adding "far-right" to matt gaetz ? 2601:580:4580:9F30:C147:966E:51E8:2377 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
should be "far left wing" 100% 170.55.61.26 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment on sourcing. Clearly some sources use "far-left" or "far left" to describe contemporary US antifa. Showing this does is not sufficient for us using this designation in our voice in the lead. There are a huge number of potential sources on this topic, so to use a descriptor in our voice in the lead we would need to see that (a) the WP:BESTSOURCES use it, (b) the preponderance of (and not just some) reliable sources tend to use it, (c) no more than an insignificant minority of RSs reject, contest or contradict it. So far, yes-!voters are simply dropping in arbitrary examples, but none of them so far seem to be good examples of best sources. To make it easier, some suggestions on sources that aren't best sources:
  • scholarly articles by scholars in other fields, e.g. social media, who are not experts on political ideologies and movements.
  • introductory pieces from 2017 when "antifa" was suddenly in the public eye and mainstream news sources rushed out badly researched "explainers" on a topic that they were obviously new to, and which were superseded by better sources later.
  • takes from advocacy organisations that are borderline reliable and hostile to the left.
  • pieces that identify them with the left including the far left rather than with the far left specifically, e.g. CNN's very cautious "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." or PBS's "antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left-leaning movements that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists".
  • opinion pieces by people who are not experts on the topic.
  • anything by right-wing blogger and "persistent internet troll" Eoin Lenihan.
  • articles about other topics.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Major, mainstream media cannot be dismissed as biased sources. BBC is not biased: "far-left"; Reuters is not biased: "far-left"; PBS is not biased: "far-left"; The New York Times is not biased: "far-left"; The Los Angeles Times is not biased: "far-left"; etc. A veritable abundance, rather than your very inaccurate "mostly." -The Gnome (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with this assessment by the Gnome. This is a pretty conclusive set of very reliable sources that use this label, multiple times. — Czello 14:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I didn't call these sources biased. Maybe read what I actually wrote. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
You dismissed every single source that does not abide by the lie about Antifa being simply an organization of the broad left, like the social-democrats, the socialists, the neo-marxists, and others. And, yes, of course, I read what the opposite party is proffering as arguments before addressing them. So, brass tacks: I simply cited impeccable sources. Which go against your general and quite unfair dismissal. Seize the opportunity and, as a short cut, consider in a somber manner whether Antifa per sources looks to be closer to a Socialist party or to a anarchist organization. -The Gnome (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Frankly, since you are a member of Antifa yourself, I'd expect a better defense against the term "far-left." Are there, for example, instances or cases, of intentional avoidance of violence, of non-radical speech, and the like? -The Gnome (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Please note that both our article and all reliable sources are clear that antifa doesn't have "members".
And yes, all of the reliable sources make it clear that violence is more often than not avoided. E.g. USA Today: lack of highly public engagement by anti-fascists doesn’t mean the movement has gone away. Antifa experts and self-proclaimed anti-fascists said activists do what they have always done: quietly research and expose racists, bigots and other people who mean harm to their fellow Americans and work on community projects that support marginalized people. “In the broad spectrum of activities that are effective in anti-fascism, most go completely unnoticed compared to street action, which is really just the tip of the spear,” said Chad Loder, an anti-fascist activist in Southern California. “That’s really just an activity of last resort for Antifa.” Because many people define Antifa only by the actions of a minority of activists, rather than recognizing the entirety of the movement, they miss the whole picture, said Stanislav Vysotsky, a professor of criminology and author of the book "American Antifa." “The street demonstrator is such a small portion of what anti-fascist activism entails that it's very much blown out of proportion," Vysotsky said. “Ninety-five percent of anti-fascist activism is nonconfrontational and nonviolent.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Major mainstream media is mot WP:BESTSOURCE and balancing appropriate academic work against mainstream media is WP:FALSEBALANCE.Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Per my point (c) above, I have now added a (collapsed) list of sources that contest or contradict the "far left" designation to my !vote in the survey above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"revolutionaries"

I've been going through the cites in the lead, due to the RfC above, and I'm now questioning this text which has been in the lead for a long time: A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries, and have little allegiance to liberal democracy, although some social democrats also participate in the antifa movement. I notice the citations in what is now footnote 7 are all from 2017, suggesting this was edited in then, but I don't think the sourcing is very strong or reflects best sources now. It might be too much to deal with this at the same time as the "far left" question, but if other editors are looking at sources too maybe it's good to consider it at the same time. Revolutionaries is supported by Bray: anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right... Militant anti-fascists disagree with the pursuit of state bans against “extremist” politics because of their revolutionary, anti-state politics and because such bans are more often used against the Left than the Right (He says the same thing in his interview with Vox) But it is not supported by the BBC, NYT, WaPo or Al-Jazeera, the other sources in the footnote, and I don't feel it reflects the preponderance of good sources. My instinct, then, might be to delete "who describe themselves as revolutionaries" from the lead, even if we leave the similar phrasing in the "Movement structure and ideology" section of the body. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows developments. If a party or an organization followed, very schematically put, ideology A and now follow ideology B, both A and B have their place in the respective article, one as a historical reference and the other as a description of the present. -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes I think that's right, but the sources don't say they were and now they aren't; it's just that there a small number of sources from 2017 that said something like this which makes me think this is a leftover from when we were first building the page due to a surge of interest in 2017. My question is more about whether it's DUE in the lead. I have no strong feeling on this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I would say not due. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

There are no "members of antifa"

the intro promotes the ignorant right-wing trope that there is a group named ANTIFA. 2001:56B:9FE1:560:0:49:CDB8:E001 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I do not think it does, why do you? How would you re-phrase it differently? TFD (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, not to belabor the obvious (of course, such a grouping exists, though I would not chase after actuaries registering them) but one of Misplaced Pages's editors, rather busy in the above discussion on whether Antifa is "left" or "far left," is stating they are a member of Antifa. Should we warn them off an entity that does not exist? -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Who says they are a member? Or maybe they belong to a group which does have members. But in any case, antifa is not an entity, per sources it is a movement. What supporters call themselves doesn't matter. I've changed the lead to make that clearer. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Literally nobody in this conversation has stated they are "a member of Antifa". On which editor are you casting aspersions here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    Need a disambiguation page: Antifa - an abbreviation for antifascist. Anteefa - a conspiracy theory that leftist revolutionary vanguards in the United States are using antifascist actions as a lampshade to foment violent revolution. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

“Non-violent”??

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (non-admin closure) this is not actionable. the editor needs to read the full sentence next time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Factually incorrect - the statement in the lede regarding diversity of tactics is sourced to two citations.
This adjective in the opening description is not supported and should be deleted. 2603:7080:A704:409E:B044:CF04:598C:C769 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There are three citations for that statement at the end of the third paragraph. — Czello 14:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Antifa (United States): Difference between revisions Add topic