Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Issues (June, 2023)

Political Position

I didn't understand why the intro doesn't say left-wing to far-left despite being supported by the sources.

Extremist wing

Research exists on extremist antifa groups and should be included. https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-White-Paper-Network-Enabled-Anarchy-25-Sept-259pm.pdf Their positions on guns are also unclear. For example, some antifa groups participated in the 2020 VCDL Lobby Day (source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/akwv4k/why-antifa-is-siding-with-thousands-of-pro-gun-conservatives-in-virginia)

On wikicommons there is also some photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416077901.jpg

Criticism

There is no criticism section, it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Beyond right-wing and center-right criticism, there are also left-wing critics of the antifa movement (see Noam Chomsky; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/noam-chomsky-antifa-major-gift-right-wing-anti-fascist-alt-left-a7906406.html).

I propose to create a section with all the legitimate criticisms of the mainstream right and left. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

p.s. It should also be noted that although U.S. groups are not put on a proper list of terrorist entities, there are lists of domestic threats.

See: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/27/military-extremism-target-list-478200

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000178-7031-dae3-affa-f6f7374a0000 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The very first sentence in the lead says "Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈænti(ˌ)fə/) is a left-wing". . .

Check the FAQ at the top of the page for both the "extremist wing" question and the later insinuation of terrorism, please.

As for criticism, it's preferable to incorporate criticism into the article as it applies to the information being presented, as opposed to having a separate section for criticism. This is not a policy that prevents one, but a guideline that typically leads to better articles. I do not support having a separate section, but feel free to seek consensus on creating one. King keudo (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@King keudo True, but "left-wing to far-left" is usually used (it was also used on the Communism article) when sources use both designations. Using only "left-wing" is unclear, since left-wing politics reject certain political methods. "Center-left," "left-wing" and "far left" are different positions in the political spectrum. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@King keudo p.s. I didn't understand the answer about the extremist wing, I did not say that the movement was designated terrorist by the U.S. government, but that there are reliable sources for the extremism within the movement. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Then the change in qualification to your first request is also covered by the FAQ at the top of the page. Outside of seeking consensus for a separate criticism section, I see all of your queries are solved through the FAQ at the top of the page, or you can also view the FAQ by clicking this link The archived discussions also cover distinct groups that utilize the antifa label. King keudo (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@King keudo I don't see how the FAQ resolves this issue. Reliable independent sources report groups within the U.S. antifa movement as extremists. According to policy WP:NPOV this information should be included.

What is the reason why such sources should not be used? What is also the reason why, if sources support both "left-wing" and "far-left" you don't want to include "left-wing to far-left"? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this isn't as clear as it could be: the FAQ contains numerous archived discussions about the description surrounding "left-wing" and more. There's even one at the very top of this talk page. These discussions include things like the Politico article you shared above - that's not a RS calling antifa extremist - it's an article about a leaked "training document" that lists them as a potential source of "extremists [that] could be infiltrating the military". These are requests that will need significant reliable and verifiable sourcing to change consensus for.

I link the FAQ because it was created as a repository for the most frequently discussed things for this article - and it does cover all of your queries as far as I can tell. King keudo (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@King keudo The discussion you refer to is a proposal to change "left-wing" to "far left." The current proposal (made by me) is to include both left-wing and far-left (left-wing to far-left).

"Our primary research question was whether memes and codewords, private or fringe online forums, and hybrid real-world/online militia—the three characteristic tactics that support outbreaks of extremist violence for both Jihadi and Boogaloo extremism—are also prevalent in anti-fascist and anarcho-socialist groups."

https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-White-Paper-Network-Enabled-Anarchy-25-Sept-259pm.pdf

I did not write that the Politico article should be used to say that antifa is a movement with extremist elements (for that I suggested the paper presented by the Miller Center for Community and Resilience at Rutgers University and NCRI). So please don't write things I didn't say; the Politico article is simply for writing what the article says, that exists a "Pentagon's target list for extremist infiltrators" and antifa is in this list. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I see no other way to discuss this, so I will no longer attempt to engage on these points for you - I'm having a hard time assuming good faith in this discussion any further. You want to include terms that have been discussed extensively and rejected. The FAQ covers more than one discussion about these terms. I'm sorry, you are not presenting any novel claims or stances on this point. Feel free to seek consensus from others, but at this time I am not in favor of your desired changes. King keudo (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@King keudo As I pointed out to you, you are referring to different discussions and you are giving me vague reasons. You keep insisting to look at threads whose proposal was different or where different sources or edits are discussed.

I don't understand why you have trouble entering information about the extremist fringes of the movement as per source. Secondly, if sources describe the movement as left-wing and far left, the article should refer to the movement with these labels (i.e., Antifa is left-wing to far-left...).

These are just extremely common practices on Wikipedia. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This proposal is no different than the old ones. Attempting to play semantic games is not going to get you anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds Ok. I request the intervention of the administration and community in accordance with WP:CONADMIN.

The reason is possible cherry picking and guideline violations: WP:AOBF; WP:NPOV; WP:NOTCENSORED; WP:OR; WP:DEM.

If you think the things I wrote should not be included elaborate a serious reason, because I did not propose to replace "left-wing" with "far-left" but to include both left-wing and far-left by writing "left-wing to far-left" (these positions in the political spectrum are both supported by sources). Politico, for the information I proposed to include is a reliable source. The Miller Center and NCRI paper also is an independent and reliable source. I am for the addition of the latter in the "Analyses and studies" section. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

p.s. @HandThatFeeds N.B. NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

The article fails to show more position on the issue from multiple research centers. Even in case the sources were biased, it would not be sufficient for WP:BIASED. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't going to work. You're tossing out policy & essay names without understanding how they work, which is blatantly clear given your "request the intervention of the administration and community" bit above. If you'd actually read that page, you'd know this isn't how you make that work.

You don't get to just scream "NPOV!!!" and get your way, nor magically summon admins (who don't settle content disputes) just by citing specific policy pages.

If you continue to disrupt the page, rather than listening to the experienced editors here, then I'll actually have admins intervene to remove you. Take the time to understand why people are objecting to your changes, or else that's the only way forward. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds The discussion to start (really) took about a day, basically it is being discussed now. Maybe next time start a discussion and argument. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to convey here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds In addition to not assuming good faith (from the beginning; see "play semantic games") you told me that the FAQ discussions covered all the things I discussed - simply not true.

In the only previous similar discussion (the discussion at the top of the page) you objected to another user that one cannot label the entire antifa movement as "far left," and I therefore proposed to include both labelings used by the sources: i.e., both left-wing and far left. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds The version I proposed antifa is left-wing to far-left, does not suggest that the antifa movement is all far-left. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You've also got a really bad habit of double posting and over pinging people.

I have zero interest in listening to this until you actually bother to learn Wikipedia's rules and norms. Please do not ping me any further. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the policies, in fact WP:CONADMIN states Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (NPOV is a policy) and Sometimes merely asking for an administrator's attention on a talk page will suffice. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be wikilawyering against consensus. Repeatedly spamming this talk page is disruptive. This also appears to be an attempt to impose false precision on the left-right political spectrum. The political spectrum is designed to be an extreme simplification. Any attempt to pin-down precisely where antifa lies on this spectrum is misguided and overly simplistic, at best. A criticism section would not be appropriate, with WP:CSECTION explaining some, but not all, of the reasons this would be a bad idea. Do not ping me again on this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

There is controversy and criticism, and it should be included. Perhaps you should find real reasons why not to include these things.

D.M. In the discussion I had also written among many things that there is almost nothing written on the topic of guns. Antifa Seven Hills, Redneck Revolt, Socialist Rifle Association support guns rights and have participated in pro-gun events.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akwv4k/why-antifa-is-siding-with-thousands-of-pro-gun-conservatives-in-virginia 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

And let it be noted that I did not propose to write an article devoted only to controversy and criticism; by the way, the paper I reported should be placed in "Analysis and Studies". 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"The political spectrum is designed to be an extreme simplification. Any attempt to pin-down precisely where antifa lies on this spectrum is misguided and overly simplistic, at best."

Where antifa stands on the political spectrum is very clear, there are social democratic left-wing factions and far-left factions close to revolutionary anti-capitalism. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

And in any case, are not the editors who are in charge of the choice of political positions. Sources classify as "left-wing" and "far left," and an editor should enter the information respecting WP:NPOV and WP:OR. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also remind you that Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. So as far as I'm concerned I write in the style I like. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I also remember that Wikipedia:Criticism (and related WP:CSECTION) is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. So let's keep it on the official guidelines and policies. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user! As a neutral observer, I must ask you to not bludgeon the process as it is a form of disruptive editing. Also, please take care to not spam this talk page as it is another form of disruptive editing. Thank you! Yasslaywikia (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia Okay, but let's remember WP:IGNORE and that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines and that includes WP:UNDUE which states that: The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

While you're free to start a discussion on whether or not Antifa is a far-left to left-wing movement on the political spectrum, please keep in mind that Q1 of the FAQ section of this talk page demonstrates that previous discussions on the matter have been inconclusive. I also advise you to read the essays which explain what wikilawyering and civil POV pushing are, which may explain why some editors are taking issue with this discussion you've started — your insistence on following the neutral point of view policy is why I think that reading through the civil POV pushing essay is worthwhile. As for the ignore all rules policy, please read through this explanatory essay on what the snowball clause is (exercise common sense and avoid bureaucratic behaviour). Thank you! Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia Your response has a dishonest premise; the discussion is about many more changes. Please note that WP:wikilawyering and WP:civil POV pushing are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as is already written at the top of the relative pages. Not specifying this is dishonest to me and other new users.

WP:NPOV guidelines and policies: NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. and The relative relevance of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.

Now gentlemen should give me a reason why, without violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, the studies and analyses of Rutgers University's Miller Center on Community Protection and Resilience and the Network Contagion Research Institute should not be included despite the fact that they are accredited, reliable and independent sources. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I did specify that they were essays, aside from the neutral point of view and ignore all rules policy, of course. While these are not official policies, some Wikipedians, like myself, choose to accept their advice and allow others to review it for themselves and see whether or not they agree with it. To quote part of the banner at the top of the civil POV pushing essay:

"It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

As for the studies and analyses of Rutgers University, I am not sure what to say about that one! As a neutral observer, I am more concerned about the behaviour and conduct of other Wikipedians, however, I will say that, when consensus has been reached on this topic that their studies could perhaps be included. Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia Can you explain these two steps for a moment? 1. nor by editor consensus 2. relevance of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

1: While editor consensus plays an important role in deciding what is added to Wikipedia, it is mainly reliable sources that we use to determine what is added to Wikipedia. Empirical evidience such as peer-reviewed journals relating to science cannot be challenged. However, the extent to which reliable sources are included within the text are dependent on the due weight section under the neutral point of view policy. Here, it would be appropiate to discuss the inclusion of the studies you've mentioned as similar discussions have happened before which were inconclusive.

2: The viewpoints which Wikipedians or the general public are irrelevant to empirical evidence. However, it is important that Wikipedians discuss the inclusion of substantial claims like these on designated contentious topics like antifa. As I've stated previously, similar discussions have happened time and time again on this page - please see Q1 and Q2 of the FAQ section on this talk page. We're seeing this inconclusiveness happen again with this discussion, where previous arguments are being reiterated time and time again. I might as well drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. (another essay) Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia Gun discussion is not in the FAQ; NCRI paper discussion is not in the FAQ; previous discussion (Q2) on Politico mentions using the source for "domestic terrorism"- not what I proposed (ergo this is another discussion). Discussions for "far-left" in the FAQ (Q1) talk about replacing "left-wing" with "far-left"; Already said for me both should be included because they are supported by the sources. So "left-wing to far-left".

I think you and others are making strawman, and that previous discussions are generally short (c. 1-2 days), with limited involvement (c. 1-3 users), and different topics. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not as invested in this topic as you and other Wikipedians are, however, the addition of far-leftism to the political spectrum of those who are part of antifa is fundamentally similar to replacing left-wing with far-left, and while this isn't as specific as what you're proposing, it gives you the idea that similar discussions have happened before and haven't come to a clear consensus.

I think that the inclusion of the use of guns by antifa proponents should be discussed on this talk page first as it has been so far, however, it is important to remember that consensus in favour of its inclusion must be reached before being added to the article, as with the other topics you are pushing to be added to the article.

As for the accusation being a straw man, me and others are only trying to understand what you're trying to add, and based off of the answers the FAQ section gives, some of your proposed additions are rather similar to those that have already been answered in the FAQ section. Editors will give their opinion on the addition of content like this, which will bring us closer to reaching consensus on the topic. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia There is a lack of information on more extreme positions e.g. armed protests and real examples of antifa groups. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As I've been saying repeatedly, discuss! These are all good, but what we need to be reaching is a consensus on whether or not we should add what you're proposing to add. While I'd say that you should be bold and add what you desire to add right now, the problem is that the article is semi-protected, meaning that you and me can't edit the article right now. The best thing to do is simply discuss, discuss and discuss until we reach consensus. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Are non-gentlemen allowed to answer? If so, I'd say the most obvious reason the Miller Center report can't be used is because, with the exception of a single image caption (page 9), it doesn't say anything about antifa, which is the subject of this article. There are very occasional exceptions, but generally for a source to be cited in an article it has to contain material about the subject of that article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts

Antifa is a contraction of "antifascist," and the term antifascist is explicitly used, the fact that we talk about antifa is clarified on the news:

https://www.voanews.com/a/extremism-watch_anarchist-groups-tied-riots-4-us-cities/6195936.html

Redneck Revolt, featured among others in the paper is generally considered an antifa group.

"bringing it under the wide umbrella of Antifa (anti-fascist) groups"

https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy/redneck-revolt 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts

"Our primary research question was whether memes and codewords, private or fringe online forums, and hybrid real-world/online militia—the three characteristic tactics that support outbreaks of extremist violence for both Jihadi and Boogaloo extremism—are also prevalent in anti-fascist and anarcho-socialist groups."

https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-White-Paper-Network-Enabled-Anarchy-25-Sept-259pm.pdf 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Antifa is a subgroup of anti-fascism, not a synonym. The article attached to this talk page makes this fairly clear, especially when read in conjunction with the anti-fascism article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts Anti-fascist and antifa is sometimes used ambivalently (edit: not a native speaker, I meant ambiguously), and there is no doubt that Redneck Revolt is an antifa group. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "ambivalently" (are you thinking of "ambiguously"?) and don't know what Redneck Revolt has to do with the points made above. It doesn't seem likely that there's going to be a consensus for the changes you're proposing. Rather than continuing to defend your original points, I'd suggest taking some time to read around the sources in some more depth (including the sources currently cited in the article), as well as some of the previous discussions in the talk page archives. Lots of the sources are now on the older side, and most of the major discussions are at least a couple of years old, so it's certainly possible that there are changes that need to be made. Having done that, you'll probably be in a better position to identify changes that are likely to receive broader support. (I hope it goes without saying that this is intended as friendly advice that you're entirely free to ignore.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts

If you had glanced at the paper you would have noticed that it also talks about Redneck Revolt. It is a paper that talks about antifa groups, but according to you it is invalid because it uses the term "anti-fascist" instead of "antifa."

I disagree with this point because in so many other sources these groups are described as antifa. In the template you (I am speaking in general) included Redneck Revolt as part of antifa.

https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-White-Paper-Network-Enabled-Anarchy-25-Sept-259pm.pdf 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You're conflating antifa with anti-fascism. The former is an anti-fascist political movement based in the United States, whereas the latter is a general term for opposition to fascism worldwide without much nuance.

Violence within antifa is suggested as being a fringe view amongst antifa, and to quote the article from VOANews you provided:

"“Extreme anarcho-socialist fringe online forums on Reddit use memes calling for the death of police and memes for stockpiling munitions to promote violent revolution,” the report said."

I've highlighted where it says fringe in the quotation, and this shows that, as far as antifa goes, that using gun violence as a means of achieving their goals to be a fringe view, so I'm not too sure whether or not this would warrant inclusion as it could give undue weight to the fringe view, which would violate the neutral point of view policy. Yasslaywikia (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia The policy you speak of (WP:FRINGE), however, refers to the sources not to the opinions of the antifa group as told by the sources. Btw, I am totally in favor of explicitly writing down which groups have these ideas and I don't see a risk of violation of WP:UNDUE since there are other positions and the groups involved would be explicitly mentioned. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

...isn't one of your main arguments is that (some proponents of) antifa are using gun violence as a means of achieving their goals? The VOANews article, which is a reliable source as listed here says that some extremists who are proponents of antifa (please correct me if I'm wrong about this) want to use gun violence as a means to achieve their goals. The VOANews article is simply describing the fringe views that these extremists have in comparison to the rest of antifa. Because of this, it wouldn't be wise to give this fringe view significant coverage in the article, if at all, and if it is decided through consensus that this has to be mentioned, then it should be brief and concise as to not give undue weight to the fringe view. Something that is also mentioned under the neutral point of view policy is that by giving undue weight to a fringe view, you are creating a false balance being the fringe view and the widely accepted view held by other proponents of antifa, which is not allowed under any circumstances. Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia "Using gun violence" is an exaggeration; I think it would be better to write that this fringe (e.g., the Redneck Revolt) support guns and promote the use of weapons for political purposes.

WP:FALSEBALANCE applies if the source position is fringe, not if the source describes ideas of a group that may be fringe. I don't recall proposing to pass off these ideas as majoritarian within the antifa movement.

The point is that within the movement there are certain positions and ideas, and this needs to be pointed out. There are pro-gun antifa and anti-gun antifa; the article is poor in information on the subject. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding the policies I've outlined here, the source itself doesn't present a fringe view, it describes one. The fringe view of supporting the use of guns and weapons for political purposes is described within the VOANews article. It is called a fringe view by the article. A false balance is created by putting an unnecessary amount of emphasis on a fringe view or giving it equal or similar validity as a widely accepted view. Perhaps some detail could be included on the stances which proponents of antifa have on using guns, but I don't think any more than a few sentences need to be said about it. As for me using "gun violence" to describe the fringe pro-gun view that some proponents of antifa have, I used it because it seemed appropriate given the emphasis put on the use of guns to achieve their goals. Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia Emphasis is relative, in my opinion saying that there are about from 3-4 pro-gun groups does not take up all that much space, it is just relevant information.

p.s. I will also consider the Vice News article if there are no objections:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akwv4k/why-antifa-is-siding-with-thousands-of-pro-gun-conservatives-in-virginia 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I forgot to point out that CEP describes antifa as follows:

"Antifa (an abbreviation of anti-fascism) is one of the most prominent far-left movements in the United States"

https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy/antifa 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The Vice article is not reliable. [1] The antifascist group they featured ended up featured in Newsweek after they had to issue corrective statements. Do not include unreliable yellow-journalism in a hot-button article please. As for CEP - they're a pro-centrism political advocacy group. At the very least WP:DUE would question using them as a basis for amending the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223

This article does not seem to dismantle the Vice News version, in fact they do not deny participation, but simply did not maninfest with "neo-Nazis and Klansmen." Idk, it seems to me that Vice News is talking about conservatives and not neo-Nazis:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akwv4k/why-antifa-is-siding-with-thousands-of-pro-gun-conservatives-in-virginia

https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-deny-marching-neo-nazis-virginia-gun-rally-1482920#Echobox=1579463894

We might not even mention Antifa Seven Hills, but for them (who are a primary source) to say that they "never indicated we were attending as a group" is not enough for me.

Redneck Revolt is described as an antifa group also in other circumstances by other newspapers:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-professor-brought-his-guns-to-protect-protesters-at-white-supremacist-rallies-then-his-troubles-started/

I don't think that CEP goes against WP:DUE because there are other positions, and it is expected because WP:BIASED exists.

"Antifa is a contraction of the phrase “anti-fascist.” It refers to a decentralized network of far-left militants that oppose what they believe are fascist, racist, or otherwise right-wing extremists. While some consider Antifa a sub-set of anarchists, adherents frequently blend anarchist and communist views. "

https://www.csis.org/analysis/who-are-antifa-and-are-they-threat

"Short for anti-fascist, antifa is politics or activity of radical left opposition to the far right that refuses to rely on the police or the courts to stop fascism."

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/rutgers-expert-explains-antifa (the author is Mark Bray)

"ANTIFA, or anti-fascist, is a decentralized collective of far-left activists intent on combatting the rise of organized, far-right extremists."

https://trackingterrorism.org/group/antifa-anti-fascist-action/ (n.b. TRAC also deals with non-terrorist entities despite the name.) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are unable to understand how the newsweek article invalidates the Vice article. It clearly does. And the Newsweek article, reporing the statement of Antifa Seven Hills is a secondary source. It's an absurd claim that we can't include a quote in a secondary source because the quote is a subject of the article and is thus "a primary source". As for the rest: Are we treating literal spy agencies as reliable sources now? Because CSIS is not what I would call reliable for anything related to Leftist politics. They're spies who serve a Capitalist state. Spies lie. It's literally their job. I can't speak to the Chronicle of Higher Education article as it's paywalled so perhaps you can summarize what you believe to be the relevance there. The Rutgers piece is Mark Bray's opinion and, while I would assert he's expert enough for it to be WP:DUE inclusion in the article I would not support revising the lede based on one researcher's opinion. A paywalled blog post on a website called "tracking terrorism" with no author byline isn't a reliable source for anything at all. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Antifa Seven Hills statements count as a non-independent and primary source (see WP:INDEPENDENT), and do not appear to deny participation. We can cite their position, no more than that.

My friend, that TRAC is a "paywalled blog" is your very respectable opinion, but it is not that of reliable sources.

As I've said to others before but I'll say it again WP:DUE: The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm rather at a loss as to what this last part of your argument is in reference to. And please don't call me "my friend" - I dislike familiarity from total strangers. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am saying to avoid discussions concerning personal/political positions. The Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC) is an accredited and generally considered reliable source. The reason you can only see the introduction and cannot see some of the information is because you need a license to read the full page.

p.s. I was just trying to be friendly. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw, is Reuteurs reliable?

"One Antifa activist’s journey, from college honors student to on-the-ground combatant, offers rare insight into this far-left movement and its motivations."

"You wouldn’t know it, but Armbruster, 5'5" and under 130 pounds, is a militant activist in the far-left Antifa movement. "

"In reality, Antifa is not a well-structured organization, but rather a loosely organized, secretive movement of like-minded far-left activists."

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-antifa-profile/

It seems really absurd to me not to put "left-wing to far-left" despite all these sources supporting it. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Btw, is Reuteurs reliable?" According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, yes. "Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable." Dimadick (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick

Is the Public Broadcasting Service reliable?

"Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left-leaning movements that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-is-antifa-a-look-at-the-movement-trump-is-blaming-for-violence-at-protests 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not included in the list, so I don't know about its reputation. Dimadick (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick

Do you think these sources are okay?

The Telegraph; The Washington Post; U.S. News & World Report

"Inside the shadowy far-left antifa movement..."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/22/inside-shadowy-far-left-antifa-movement-whose-violent-tactics/

"Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is not a national group, but more of a far-left ideology spawned as a reaction to the far right..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-antifa-minneapolis-protests/2020/05/31/4f66c7a6-a36a-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html

"President Donald Trump on Sunday tweeted that the U.S. would label the far-left movement a terrorist group despite what appears to be a lack of clear legal authority."

"Antifa, short for "anti-fascist," is not considered an organization but is rather a diffuse, decentralized movement of individuals and small groups of people who typically subscribe to a similar, radical far-left ideology."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-06-01/white-house-addresses-trump-pledge-to-designate-antifa-a-terrorist-group 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is considered reliable by Wikipedia. The Washington Post is also considered reliable. U.S. News & World Report is also considered reliable. You can check the list at some point. Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know I can check the list; no problem then to add far-left? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

Scholars tend to reject the equivalence between antifa and right-wing extremism. -> Scholars tend to reject an equivalence between antifa and right-wing extremism. 2601:404:D400:4AF0:FC77:3FB8:628E:9E60 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done; please note that the distinction here is that using "the" refers to a specific equivalence. Other editors might disagree with this change. I found this request reasonable and implemented it but do not rule out going back on it later. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

The source says:

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

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

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

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

The proposition appears contrived and attempts to justify the act of destroying a third party property as a reasonable course of action. For example, in the case cited above, the arson attack damages a third-party property (i.e., it is neither a property of the neo-Nazis nor of the police).

From the way the phrase is written it sounds like they damage police property, but that is not what the sources say, so it would be better:

"Some who identify as antifa also combat far-right extremists (such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists) and, at times, law enforcement; antifa adherents also resort to digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage as a means of political action" (or at least a similar phrase) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Lacks consensus. The cited CNN source doesn't support that wording, nor anything close to that wording as far as I can see. Misusing a source to imply something it doesn't say is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell If you want we can write - literally - what the source says (i.e., "threw Molotov cocktails and smashed windows at the student union center"). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That would fall into a question of WP:DUE Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Okay, so I am for the first proposed change. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't support either wording. Do not misrepresent sources. Grayfell (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell "and, at times, law enforcement, with tactics including [...] property damage" suggests that the property is police property (i.e., it is state property) or private property of police officers but it is not. So the sentence should make it clear that these property damages affect third parties. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the sentence structure. It does not follow that the tactics are aimed specifically at law enforcement, but that they have certain targets (which happen to include law enforcement), and then goes into the tactics they use.

At least now I understand what you are actually requesting, as your previous comments were unclear. But again, the sentence itself is fine. You're misapplying the tactics to only one of the multiple targets listed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds I think the sentence could be written better. "Some who identify as antifa also combat far-right extremists (such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists) and, at times, law enforcement, with tactics including digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."

If I had not read the sources I would not have understood that the owners of the damaged property are neither neo-Nazis nor law enforcement (or the state). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds I suggest changing: "and property damage" to "collateral damage on property of others." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That is just awkwardly worded, passive voice, so no. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

93.45.229.98, as I previously said, do not ping me again on this talk page. I will add that you should not ping me anywhere else, either. Pestering me over these kinds of pedantic misrepresentations is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Same. I do not need pinged here, I'm already watching the Talk page. There is no reason to change the wording on the article, it's fine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I also would prefer not to be pinged for these sorts of things. I'm of the opinion that nothing on CNN is WP:DUE rewriting the lede in the manner you are proposing and oppose using this source to make these changes to the lede. Antifascism is not new, nor is it new in the USA. Academic sources should be preferred - this isn't a "current events" article at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the consensus response here too. The current events point is particularly pertinent. In 2017, when the word "antifa" entered the news, lots of RSs rushed to provide hastily written and often poor quality 'What is antifa' type articles. At that point, this page got a lot of interest from editors and readers and some of those sorts of articles were used. Six years later, however, there are now much stronger sources written by actual experts and we don't need to rely on these old news articles. Let's stick to what is due and strongly sourced. (Please don't ping me in any replies, as I already watch this page.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Over-reliance on Klein as source

The article uses this source several times, including in the lead:

• Klein, Adam (2019). "From Twitter to Charlottesville: Analyzing the Fighting Words Between the Alt-Right and Antifa". International Journal of Communication. 13: 22. ISSN 1932-8036. This present climate of partisan tribalism has given rise to new actors and factions representing the far ends of the political spectrum. [...] On the far left, Antifa represents a fast-growing crusade designed to confront all forms of fascism, principally the aforementioned groups but also, at times, law enforcement. Antifa has no single spokesperson but rather presents its movement as a collective of nameless vigilantes, typically outfitted in concealing masks and black combat gear, ready for battle.

I'm not convinced using this source so heavily is appropriate. It's not so bad it shouldn't be used at all, but Klein's specific position for his area of expertise isn't broadly mainstream. The source, and Klein's work in general, focuses on communication, specifically online communication -not political science, ideology, or any other relevant area.

Giving Klein the benefit of the doubt, I think his description of antifa was tailored to its context as background for the article's main point. The paragraph is the 'background' subsection of the journal.

The added quote, strictly speaking, doesn't say that antifa "combat" anyone, it just says they "represent a fast growing crusade" and wear combat gear. "Crusade" is hyperbolic (and a particularly poor choice of words in this context), and the bit about combat gear and masks is conflating black bloc with antifa, which a common and understandable mistake, but is still a mistake regardless. Other, more reliable sources, clarify this mistake, so using this source to emphasize this one point from this one obscure source is non-neutral. It presents the position that antifa are violent extremists, but that's not what the source is actually saying. This seems like a disservice to both the author and this article. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell Contrary. The term "crusade" clearly indicates clash between factions. The whole point of militant antifascism is the squaddism - usually rejected by liberal antifascism. I am clearly referring to contemporary anti-fascism not historical antifascism which was a big tent. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I have specifically told you to stop pinging me on this talk page. Your WP:OR is just as inappropriate here as it is on the rest of this page. You have exhausted good faith and are disrupting the talk to promote your personal opinions as fact. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Literally my personal opinion: https://crestresearch.ac.uk/resources/understanding-21st-century-militant-anti-fascism/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with my point at all? It sure looks like WP:SYNTH, which makes this original research, like I said.

Per your linked source: While the willingness to use confrontational violence separates militant anti-fascism from non-militant forms, militant anti-fascists exercise restraint in their use of violence. This is significant.[2] The source is specifically saying that militant antifascism is separate, and emphasizing the importance of its use of restraint. The source doesn't mention "squadism" and it's unlikely this old pejorative British term would belong in an article on US antifa anyway. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw, download "Full Report: Understanding 21st-Century Militant Anti-Fascism".

Look as well at American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant and Antifascism and Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook seeing antifa's views on liberal antifascism.

Connect the contents of these three sources (+ any book on historical resistance to fascism); my previous statement is not an opinion. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Make your point or bow out of the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The point: antifas are not liberal antifascists. Let's stop pretending that they are moderates. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

To expand on the issues I had with this specific quote:

The use of the word "crusade" is inappropriate in this context. This word is inflammatory and not value-neutral, especially regarding antifa. Far-right groups often use the word "crusade" to emphasize to their bigotry. That's clearly not what he was referring to, so he shouldn't have used that word as a communications expert. In isolation, this wouldn't be a big deal, but it is not in isolation, and it's not the only poor choice of words in the source. He used inflammatory language in an article about the use of polarizing language on the internet, which is at best very sloppy.

The last sentence of the included quote:

Antifa has no single spokesperson but rather presents its movement as a collective of nameless vigilantes, typically outfitted in concealing masks and black combat gear, ready for battle.

Per many sources, including the CREST Research link in this section, this is not typical at all. The use of masks, combat armor etc. is a minority of antifa, and the assertion that a leaderless anonymous movement "presents itself" as vigilantes is almost nonsensical. This claim is contradicted by other, more reliable sources, again including those already linked. Either this was Klein's lazy attempt to provide context for the rest of the paper, or this is a fringe perspective. Either way, we shouldn't be using this quote for statements of fact, and I don't think this is significant or interesting enough to present as Klein's opinion with attribution. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Grayfel, the only reason this article is encyclopedic is because of the violent clashes between antifas and right-wingers in U.S. Remove this and the article loses its meaning (in terms of historical utility).

The CREST Research, p. 34:

"Tactically, while militant anti-fascists endorse the use of violence, there are occasions when militant anti-fascists may also purposefully direct activists towards non-violent forms of confrontation:"

I don't think "occasions" is enough. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Klein is a relatively minor academic with a middling h-index and a rather low i-10 index considering the progression of his career. He does focus significantly on radicalization and digital media across his career so he is operating from within his topic of relevance. Ultimately I'd suggest his opinions are due within the article but should not be used independently to construct a wiki-voice statement about any given movement. Instead I'd say he'd be due specifically for commentary regarding how radicalization may occur on the left within digital media spaces. Down article, not in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That being said I'm reading the paper in question and at least within the abstract it is focused on the UTR riots of Charlottesville. Where antifascists were not the principal cause of violence. They were the victims of it. More to follow after I finish reading the article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Antifa stands against neo-Nazism and all other forms of hate. But the words of aggression leading to Charlottesville, whether trained to incite or directed to defend, had been telegraphed on both ends of this fight online. This study takes a closer look at the nature of those fighting words and the rhetorical pretexts that were expressed to justify forceful action." Yeah. This paper is explicitly not speaking to the material tactics of "antifa" as a category. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The quote being pursued is an uncited declarative statement made in the background section of the paper. I'm leaning more on that specific quote is WP:UNDUE unless it's supported further on. After all one thing the author says clearly is: "Little scholarly literature exists on the alt-Right and Antifa, two movements that seem to grossly personify the current tribalism of U.S. politics. Prior studies in the communication of politically extreme movements provide valuable insight into the groups’ ideologies and discursive strategies. Studies of the ultraconservative John Birch Society, for example, explore the group’s common use of conspiracies surrounding the spread of communism to reveal an underlying ideological fixation on the “disease of collectivism” (Stewart, 2002, p. 426). And research into the left-wing hacktivist group Anonymous, often deemed an anarchist organization in the press, found clear political motivations behind its operations (Coleman, 2014)." - If he's saying the closest academic literature he can find to discussions of anti-fascism are about Anonymous then he clearly didn't try too hard. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Antifascist movements have periodically surfaced in Europe and the United States since the 1960s." The Christie Pits riot was in 1933. This paper is a bit of a joke. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"To analyze the provocative nature of the alt-Right and Antifa movements on Twitter, this case study monitored the activity of four representative accounts. On the right, the Proud Boys’ and the Oath Keepers’ official Twitter accounts were selected for their characteristic expression of Far Right political views and their opposition to Antifa. On the left, the Antifa Berkeley and Antifa NYC accounts were chosen to represent two of that campaign’s most active bases, where conflict with the alt-Right had begun to spill over into local altercations." Ok I'm starting to definitely go into the this guy should be treated according to WP:FRINGE - what kind of a methodology is this? "I followed four twitter accounts. I am now an expert." Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Although most of Antifa’s combative tweets were signals to defend, some crossed the line into force, such as a meme that read, “When you punch a Nazi the whole world punches with you.”" This whole article is reaching for an equivalency he fails to demonstrate beyond fragments of a half-baked method of tweet-analaysis. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

OK I finished and I have to say: this paper is garbage and should not be used to comment on anything beyond the specific content of two Antifascist twitter accounts and two far-right twitter accounts. It completely fails to demonstrate anything it sets out to do. Its methodology is laughable. I've done more thorough academic literature reviews on my blog for goodness sake and it's just... it's not good. I generally support greater reliance on academic work and I went into this thinking, "ok this guy's obscure but he's a prof and this is supposed to be his area of focus" but no. After reading this paper in full any claims it makes regarding Antifascist self-perception as "vigilantes" are entirely unsupported by evidence and its claims of antifascist violence seem to lean on establishing an equivalency between doxing by two antifascist accounts and sharing literal videos of literal violence in progress on far-right accounts. This paper should not be used. For anything. Anything sole-cited to it should be removed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the Klein article as a source. I also removed any statement sole-sourced to Klein. I have not modified any statements that have multiple sources of which Klein was one. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also other sources describe antifa as a sort of category within anti-fascism (see your comment This paper is explicitly not speaking to the material tactics of "antifa" as a category):

The CREST Research, p. 34:

"The militant anti-fascist movement, or Antifa, is a de-centralised, non-hierarchical social movement. It is loosely structured on dispersed networks of local groups. It has a distinctly anti-authoritarian orientation, consisting, for the most part, of anarchists; anarcho-communists; left-libertarians; and radical socialists. The movement is transnational, but it responds in local condition"

Simonm223, for criticism of the source methodology: it seems that is the same method used for the boogaloo movement, indeed there researchers selected anonymous accounts on 4chan (btw, on 4chan you can't even check if a comment is official).

That the evidence of vigilantism (the act of preventing, investigating and punishing perceived offenses and crimes without legal authority) within the antifa movement, seems to me a bit of a non-truth. Why would a left-winger go to Unite the Right? There is nothing strange in what Adam Klein wrote in the paper. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OSE for the boogaloo movement. I really couldn't care less what is happening on another page. I am talking about the research methodology of this specific article which was an opaque time-limited analysis of the theme of tweets from four accounts, two far-right and two antifascist. The broader claims made by Klein, such as that antifa constitutes a vigilante movement were unsupported by the literature review (he claimed to not find any literature on antifascists) and were unsupported by any research findings described within the very sparse discussion of methodology. Frankly you have significantly misrepresented Klein by cherry-picking quotes from within the article to focus on and there's quite a bit that I personally would not object to. However the question is not my personal gut feelings regarding antifascism but whether this source is due inclusion in this article. And with the shoddy methodology, the shoddier literature review, the clear factual errors such as dating the inception of antifascism in the US and Europe to the 1960s, and the absence of any replicable findings really at all about anything this paper is not good science. It's just some guy's opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, Adam Klein should be moved to "Analyses and studies" as "Online activities." His positions on why the antifa groups has elements of vigilantism (the paper discusses whether it is activism or vigilantism) should be included with attribution. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any defense for why this article by Klein, considering what I said, merits any inclusion anywhere? "My personal opinion" doesn't really cut it. I actually provided, you know, examples of factual errors and shoddy research. From the article. With quotes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am for including it, with the conditions I have already mentioned, probably because the author is talking about post-World War II anti-fascism, plus that statement ("Antifascist movements have periodically surfaced in Europe and the United States since the 1960s") does not undermine the study of online activities. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

So, in summation, no, you have no argument for the quality of the scholarship beyond inferring what you think the author might have meant. Because A) he did not specify post WWII antifascism and B) antifascism as a movement never stopped. There were anti-fascist committees being established in Romania in 1948. There was the 43 group in England. The fact I can pull these examples off the top of my head without even going to the various books written about the history and practice of postwar antifascism is an example of the shoddiness of the Klein paper. And as for the "study of online activities", as I mentioned, the methods in his paper are very opaque and depend on what boils down to an affect analysis of tweets from four accounts leading up to a neo-nazi riot. There's nothing substantive here about antifa online activities. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering that it is a paper on "antifa" I assume that the source dealt with the period after World War II. As mentioned above, in any case, "A)" does not invalidate the content of the paper. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Somehow I am not all that happy when I read "I assume" when an editor is discussing a source. Carptrash (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Little mention of actions against mainstream conservatives

(just to note that i don't expect any changes but just i'm just making an enquiry)

this article portrays antifa as being an exclusively anti-fascist, anti-racist etc organisation and talks about examples of such but doesn't talk about their common activism/violence against mainstream conservatives/republicans like commonly protesting outside of conservative speaking events at universities e.g [3], their brain damage inducing assaults and attempted murders of conservative journalists [4] [5], etc etc.

it is quite convenient to call anybody you dislike a fascist to justify violence against them.

also it's quite odd to describe Michael Reinoehl as being the "suspected" murderer of Aaron Danielson because although he obviously couldn't be convicted due to being dead it's not really disputed by anyone that he was in fact the murderer JH2903 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

brain damage inducing assaults

While Andy Ngo likes to say he's brain damaged, which strikes me as an incredible self-own, the entire source of that claim that he received brain damage is... Andy Ngo. With zero medical evidence to back it up (a subarachnoid is not "brain damage").

it is quite convenient to call anybody you dislike a fascist to justify violence against them

And conservatives love to call anyone they don't like "pedophiles" or worse. This is irrelevant to our article.

also it's quite odd to describe Michael Reinoehl as being the "suspected" murderer

We're literally going by what WP:RS say, because he was never conclusively proven to be the murderer. Likely? Yes. But not proven. So we're stuck on that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's be clear that Michael Knowles (political commentator) and Andy Ngo are not "mainstream" in any sense. They shouldn't be victims of violence, but we shouldn't take them at their word either. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't even consider Ngo a journalist, his primary focus is as a social media influencer. He's definitely not a "mainstream" conservative by any stretch, the overton window hasn't moved that far right. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"They shouldn't be victims of violence" Last I checked, determining whether crime victims deserved the treatment or not is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. We summarize what sources say, but we do not pass judgement. Dimadick (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@JH2903 not every black bloc is antifa. commie (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly (to me) none of the references "3" "4" and "5" above mention antifa in them. So it's okay to use them on a talk page but they really have nothing to do with the article. Carptrash (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point. These refs don't verify anything about antifa. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"it is quite convenient to call anybody you dislike a fascist to justify violence against them." An old concept. See the article on the proverb give a dog a bad name and hang him. First destroy someone's reputation, then wait as he/she suffers "difficulty and hardship".Dimadick (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that none of the people protested were "mainstream conservatives" and that the sources for the first two do not mention antifa. Students have been routinely protesting controversial guests long before antifa.

Andy Ngo has been brought up at least 17 times in discussions. I don't know why his interactions with antifa are not mentioned. There's no mention of their attack on Democratic Party of Oregon offices either. TFD (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am for adding the missing information. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

As commie said above: "not every black bloc is antifa." I just read a few articles from reliable sources about the situation that also involved the Democratic Party offices vandalism and all I see are anarchists (and possibly as usual, people simply dressing up in black who want to cause trouble.. which can be ANYBODY) and I don't see anything that screams: 'these are antifa, doing anti-fa things.'. Centerone (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The black bloc anarchists explicitly identified themselves as belonging to the antifa movement:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/us/portland-protests-fbi-surveillance.html

Antifa is a decentralized movement with no leadership, and it is ridiculous to say that these are not adherents of the movement. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We rely on how they are described in reliable sources. Editors are not allowed to make the determination themselves. TFD (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i don't see anyone explicitly identifying themselves in the article you cite, and the article itself never attributes "actions against mainstream conservatives" to antifa without grouping them with other "groups" or identities. this could be guilt-by-association. EDIT: i can't actually find anything about mainstream conservatives in your source at all. commie (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

commie, the relationship between this happening and antifa was made by Oren Segal of the ADL:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/destructive-protests-by-anarchists-and-extremists-signal-divided-left-as-biden-administration-begins/2021/01/23/70f93610-5d8c-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html

Portland’s protests undercut claims by Republicans that far-left groups have embraced Biden and have committed destructive acts in support of his policies, said Oren Segal, vice president of the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League. “There have been so many efforts to link Biden to the radical elements of the left, including antifa,” he said. “This demonstrates a disconnect between that messaging from the Trump administration and elected officials, who tended to lump together the left more broadly with these radical elements.”

For what I had written earlier:

The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, told lawmakers in September 2020 that the bureau was pursuing “quite a number of properly predicated domestic terrorism investigations into violent anarchist extremists, any number of whom self-identify with the antifa movement.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/us/portland-protests-fbi-surveillance.html

p.s. " i can't actually find anything about mainstream conservatives" - The other things were written by other users, I take it for granted that you are referring to them. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Segal's statement does not claim that these actions were by antifa. The newspaper itself points out that the protests "undercut" any claims tying those protests to antifa & Biden. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I interpreted that Portland's protests undercut claims that put Biden's policies (e.g., modern liberalism) and antifa under the same umbrella, and that the vandalizing of the Oregon Democratic Party headquarters by extreme-left demonstrators evidence that there is an obvious misalignment between antifa and Biden. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

None of the three sources you linked mention antifa. More generally, while right-wing alternative media has heavily emphasized the things you mentioned, academic coverage has generally been much more skeptical - see eg. [6]. I don't think it would make sense to add these things now, based on WP:SYNTHy interpretations of news reports, when we have higher-quality academic coverage that is much more skeptical and which specifically says that more WP:FRINGE media has been breathlessly trying to give them undue weight - my concern is that we could easily end up with people trying to make those fringe-y arguments in the article voice via synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Some sources use the term "anti-fascist demonstrators"(https://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/959109593/portland-police-charge-8-after-demonstrators-vandalize-democratic-party-offices). While center-right* sources, such as Newsweek use the term "antifa demonstrators."

I don't recall any mention of the sources cited in your paper (Fox News, Breibart, etc.); I also remember that your paper says "Antifa (short for "antifascist"...)" And in virtually all centre/centre-left media, the use of the term "antifascist" rather than "antifa demonstrator" is preferred.

So we may well omit it but it is clear that overall the sources suggest that the protesters are part of the antifa movement, especially in the WaPo article.

*Based on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

See[7]. Mediabiasfactcheck is deemed unreliable.

But so is Newsweek: Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013). Doug Weller talk 10:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is total bullshit

Not a forum for unsourced generalisms about analysis "to the quantum level"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
People need to be read up on reactive trauma to understand that responding to violence is not violence itself. If the perpetrator is a sociopath/psycopath like most of the far right, then the response to their response is just about the same as the person who punches the bully and then gets in trouble for it... It's total bullshit. The response is not violence itself but is typecast as such to continue the misguided belief that the narcissistic party is the victim. 27.96.192.128 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, but how does that apply to any problem with this article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) I'd be curious if you could find some sources saying that their violence is more akin to self-defense. It could be a positive addition to the article. Ashvio (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC) No part of antifa is about violence and any reference to it should be removed from this article --27.96.192.128 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) There is a bunch of double speak under the analysis that has crept in that could be interpreted that some people support violence. I want to be specific as a person who holds a degree in political science (therefore sociology) no part of responding to violence is violence. Moreover pacific behavior (aka pacifism) is not passivism (e.g. Ghandi). But then you need to have an understanding of peace and conflict studies to understand that microcosm and I am not sure that even the article itself will nutshell that for someone who doesn't have a four year degree. You would also have to understand structuralism to understand why its non-violent. Structuralism is the pure science, which goes all the way down to the quantum level and good luck to that without actually doing a research degree to at least have a basic understanding of what structures are, and how structures overlap with systems science, and how this affects the world properly without a level of scientific understanding. I mean to say, Honors research methodoly only vaguely touches on it. Any references to violence need to be removed... --27.96.192.128 (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Analyses, reports and studies" sentence

@Willbb234: I'm not convinced by your edit summary here. You say the sources don't explicitly support the sentence, but it seems to me they clearly do: the Guardian piece summarises the Center for Strategic and International Studies database, which found no association between antifa and domestic terrorism, and the Politico article describes a Department of Homeland Security report that didn't identify a terrorist threat associated with antifa. You're right that the former describes a law enforcement document that did assert a connection between antifa and domestic terrorism, but that doesn't conflict with our wording because it's neither an analysis, a report or a study. Perhaps most importantly, the purpose of this sentence was to summarise the "Analyses and studies" section of the article; without it, the lead does a worse job of summarising the article as a whole. Is there a way this could be worded (or sourced) that would be acceptable to you? I'd also be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: thanks for reaching out.

• The Politico article says that None of the DHS drafts POLITICO reviewed referred to a threat from Antifa, the loose cohort of militant left-leaning agitators who senior Trump administration officials have described as domestic terrorists. which is certainly not the same as saying that they concluded that antifa is not a major domestic terrorism risk. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all.
• The Guardian article says that “Leftwing violence has not been a major terrorism threat,” said Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert who led the creation of CSIS’s dataset. which seems to be the statement from one man, and certainly not the conclusion of a report or study, although he is most likely basing his conclusion from the CSIS dataset. A quick scan of the dataset/report (I believe this is the correct one) does not come to this conclusion.

The issues I have with the sentence Several analyses, reports, and studies have concluded that antifa is not a major domestic terrorism risk is that it says that there are "several" of these analyses, reports and studies, which is simply not the case. It also says that these supposed reports have come to a conclusion, which again is not the case. As for the providing a summary of the "Analyses and studies" section, I would be open to suggestions regarding this, although it seems as if some of the themes discussed in the section are already talked about in the lede. Willbb234 22:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

How about something like the following: Multiple investigations have failed to find significant evidence connecting antifa to domestic terrorism. On your penultimate point (re "several"), bear in mind that the sentence isn't just summarising the two sources cited but also the others cited in the section (LaFree 2018 is particularly relevant here). As such something like "multiple" or "several" seems appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Collapse block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How about stating the facts that a response to violent outbursts from far right extremists is not violence itself. This would be quite simple... The perpetrator is the one that started the agitation not the party that responds to it, however well indifferent. Otherwise we enter the territory of many things that have been well studied under Gaslighting and victim blaming that the Trump administration liked to entertain. An incoherent lack of understanding of what violence is vs. what it is not seems to be the majority problem in life. The response is not the violence. It's a bit like the game of punching someone in the dark, and then when they respond and everyone else sees it they blame the victim. Yeah, lets not fall into that trap again. Once again like very many other topics such as domestic violence labeling the wrong party often ends up with the victim being put in prison because no one understands how the system of violence actually works (in this case "domestic terrorism"). Lets not engage in this activity of blame shifting that is well defined shall we? Perhaps a recap on a preexisting article about structural violence would suffice as enough evidence that this phenomena has been well studied and is not just baseless rhetoric. Reference points 8 and 9 from the footnotes on that article on structural violence and oppression (aka fascists in this case as the oppressor) would be particularly relevant to the discussion and understandig why antifa in this case is not the violent party (which in this case the word violence can be used interchangeably with terrorism) Structural_violence#Footnotes) --115.69.5.133 (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your relation to 27.96.192.128? Because you're repeating the same talking points they made, without sourcing to support it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree that papers from 2020 can be called "dated", and I think they can reasonably be summarized as saying that there's no major domestic terrorism risk; but I've added a third paper from a year later, which is a survey and clearly reaches the same conclusion (The results indicate that there is little evidence to support the position of a heightened risk of a far-left threat.) I'm also a bit baffled by the idea that sources from just three years ago could be described as "dated"; naturally most of the sources will be from that era because that's when Antifa got the most attention (and, as particularly relates to this sentence, that was when the government pushed to define them as a major terrorist organization.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion: why have you added in content that is still under discussion and there is not yet a consensus to add back in? And saying that you disagree that the sources are dated is not a valid reason to include the information. If you read above, the discussion is over whether this sentence is supported by the sources, not over the date of the sources. Please revert your edit so that this discussion can proceed - the onus is on you to find the consensus. Willbb234 11:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that is a flat misuse of WP:ONUS. The text has been stable in the lead of a high-profile article for three years and therefore unequivocally has consensus; if you wish to remove it, you must demonstrate consensus to do so. The point is moot because a simple nose count shows that it's 5-1 at this point in favor of retaining it; even when you made your reply, it was already 3-1. As a note, I'm keeping track of editors who abuse WP:ONUS in this way for ongoing discussions over it and am going to bring this up on the relevant talk page as a clear-cut example. --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Of note, this issue is now at ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide the quotes from the sources which support the sentence. Willbb234 11:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion: please provide the quotes from the sources which support the statement. In one of the sources, you have cited pages 122-138 which doesn't help in narrowing down which part of the source actually supports the statement. I am also struggling to find the exact wording which supports the statement in the other source on page 1. I think it has already been discussed, but the Politico article does not support the statement, although this is currently included in the list of references. Willbb234 15:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion here. The sources seem appropriate to support the statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Please expand on this. Willbb234 13:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel there's anything that needs further expanding. You've yet to find anything to override the consensus that these sources support the statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234 Out of curiosity, do you still have a 1rr ban? Ah, it appears you do - plus a pretty impressive block record.[8] I think you are lucky not to have had a TB at least for gender given your last block. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Doug, there's users here trying to improve content on Wikipedia. If you don't have a constructive comment, then please don't say it. Willbb234 14:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234 This behavior is the same sort of behavior that people have warned you about in the past and that you've ended up blocked for. I've read your talk page. You use "onus" a lot there and seem to think that others are using it incorrectly. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What behaviour? Discussing content on a talk page? You're making no sense, Doug. Willbb234 15:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page it seems you just don't get it. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate how the sources support the statement. That's how Wikipedia works. Right now, there is no consensus. Willbb234 14:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Denying reality is a you problem. You do not have any consensus for a change, therefore the existing consensus holds. That is how Wikipedia works. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop sealioning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I make a simple request and in response I receive accusations and attacks. Why don't you discuss the content instead of blabbering on about "denying reality" or whatever that means? You've already been warned for incivility and insults against me, so if you continue down this route, I will file a report at ANI. Willbb234 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I also ask that you re-familiarise yourself with WP:ONUS. The content was removed by me a while ago, so consensus needs to be established for the content to be added back in. What Aquillion did goes against this process. Willbb234 15:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Last person to take me to ANI got themselves blocked. Feel free.

And again, you're misusing ONUS as Doug said. ONUS has been satisfied by multiple other editors disagreeing with you. You do not get to stonewall and demand satisfaction. Period. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Aquillion here; three years or so might be "dated" for some issues, but I don't think that description (let alone the "quite dated" in the edit summary) applies in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Question

Antifa (Germany) is listed as far-left, but this one is not, almost the entirety of the article are things praising antifa, almost nothing about the bad things, how come? It seems as if this is glorification and a (far)left-bias, which Wikipedia has been accused of. -- Bongo Cat^{[cetacean needed]} 23:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Bongo Cat^{[cetacean needed]} 00:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is considerable use of the terms "far left" and "radical left" in sources normally considered reliable — Reuters, The Telegraph; The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and PBS — including Mark Bray.

The omission is probably an editorial bias. Nor is it clear in the incipit that they are a specific category of antifascists who are hostile to liberal antifascism (i.e., the "militant antifascism"). In general everything related to antifascism has a strong far-left pov-pushing, just look at the fact that on English Wikipedia there is not a single article on "Badoglian" partisans (the rightist antifascist partisans), the so-called "Autonomous Military Formations" (it: "Formazioni Militari Autonome"). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, put your money where your mouth is and create an article on Badoglian partisans. Meanwhile bring some reliable sources for your claims above. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ummm, it looks like they listed several reliable sources. PackMecEng (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to “they are a specific category of antifascists who are hostile to liberal antifascist”. Doug Weller talk 22:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"The militant anti-fascist movement, or Antifa, is a de-centralised, non-hierarchical social movement. It is loosely structured on dispersed networks of local groups. It has a distinctly anti-authoritarian orientation, consisting, for the most part, of anarchists; anarchocommunists; left-libertarians; and radical socialists. The movement is transnational, but it responds in local conditions."

[...]

"WHAT IS ANTI-FASCISM? Anti-fascism can be defined simply as opposition to fascism. However, this opposition can take active and passive forms (expressed in action and/or argument). The labelling of the opponent as ‘fascist’ rests with the anti-fascist. 3.2 THREE TYPES There are three main types of anti-fascism: Militant; Liberal; State: ● Militant anti-fascism. A type of anti-fascism that engages in non-legalistic forms of direct confrontation and violence. ● Liberal anti-fascism. A type of legalistic antifascism that abstains from violence and calls on the state and authorities to take action against fascists. ● State anti-fascism. An ‘official’ type of antifascism, sponsored by the state, which can be extolled as state doctrine (as in the former German Democratic Republic, for example). Each of these three types can manifest in a different form. Militant anti-fascism is typically the preserve of the radical left, but it does not have to be, as the historical example of the 43 Group in 1940s Britain reveals. Types (a) and (b) constitute civil society’s antifascist movement, with militant anti-fascism forming the so-called ‘radical flank’. At various moments, these forms can work together collaboratively (through so-called ‘united’ or ‘popular fronts’ for example). At other times they remain separate and sometimes antagonistic."

Full Report: Understanding 21st-Century Militant Anti-Fascism, pp. 4–9

"Conservatives or even moderate liberals who oppose fascism do not find a warm welcome [...] Bray scoffs at what he calls "liberal antifascism," the faith that America's marketplace of ideas will defeat fascist arguments, or that our political institutions and law enforcement agencies can forestall fascist politics and actions. Historically, fascist and fascistic ideas have thrived in open debate," he notes. "An anti-fascist outlook has no tolerance for 'intolerance.' It will not 'agree to disagree.' "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/01/the-history-theory-and-contradictions-of-antifa/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've never been sure about Wray, I think he's got an agenda but I don't know what it is. Reading those sources I'm missing anything about "In general everything related to antifascism has a strong far-left pov-pushing,". I do see in the Crest report "Militant anti-fascists do not see ‘fascism’ everywhere and generally retain their focus on the political space which is commonly understood by the mainstream society as ‘far right", "militant anti-fascists exercise restraint in their use of violence." Interesting discussion of digital activism. Also "On both sides of the Atlantic, the most likely risk in terms of the escalation of violence from the sub-lethal to lethal rests with impressionable individuals imbibed with anti-fascism’s de-humanisation of the far right. This is the individual who might lack the framework of restraint, who might only loosely associate with a militant anti-fascist group, and who is motivated entirely by their hostile response to ‘fascism’ as an egregious and abhorrent injustice." In the Crest report the only mention of "far left" is the title of something on British anti-facism.

Speaking in general, ie not country specific, it does say " It has a distinctly anti-authoritarian orientation, consisting, for the most part, of anarchists; anarcho-communists; left-libertarians; and radical socialists." I think that's the only place it uses the word "left", let along "far left". Doug Weller talk 13:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked that yet another drive-by post has misrepresented a source to try and push "far left" into the article.

Well, not that shocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Crest paper uses "radical left-wing ideologies":

"Antifa

A highly decentralised, radical social movement, comprised of geographically dispersed, non-hierarchical autonomous groups that use both violent and non-violent forms of direct action against ‘fascism’ and other forms of the far right. Its activists mainly subscribe to a range of anti-authoritarian, radical left-wing ideologies." (p. 10)

Also:

"The provenance of the term Antifa is not North American but German. It is a derivation of Antifaschistische Aktion, a militant Communist Party-sponsored organisation, which was active during 1932- 33. In the 1980s West German autonomists revived the term Antifa. It was later adopted by militant antifascists in the US as a way of drawing attention to shared repertoires of militant ‘direct action’ alongside radical anti-authoritarian praxis." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your own quotes defeat your purpose: neither quote uses "far-left" (radical left wing is not synonymous). Your attempt to conflate the terms is novel synthesis, which is not allowed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to being a blatant strawman, if you look up "radical left-wing" in Wikipedia it leads to the article "far-left" (which says among other things "radical left" as a synonym). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Who cares? Our articles aren’t reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources used are. No? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources used don't support the change you're wanting made. That's it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence (i.e., reliable sources based on scholarly consensus) for the claim that communism, anarchism, and radical/revolutionary socialism are not extreme left? Do you have any evidence (source support) for the claim that "radical left-wing" differs from "far left" or "radical left"? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not how it works. You have the onus to provide sources which apply to this specific article, calling it "far-left". You cannot just jump around drawing conclusions and expect to get anywhere. This has been done to death in previous discussions, and consensus is that it doesn't go in without a reliable source specific to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually you are the one who has to bring reliable counter-sources that disprove the 8 sources discussed. From what I can see no source would seem to say "antifa is not far-left", "antifa is not radical left" or "antifa is not militant anti-fascism". However, the opposite is supported by the sources... 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you're going full WP:IDHT, I think we're done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Explain yourself better. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@93.45.229.98 no u commie (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I misread the comment, I thought you called me a communist ("commie"). (that's your username, not a part of the comment).

In the case of Reuters referring to the "far-left Antifa movement," it can be inferred that the source describe antifa as "far-left". No? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

The FBI did an investigation and determined Antifa did not exist as a organization. Why is Wikipedia gaslighting America? 2601:346:80:6320:5D45:1AE2:4CE6:E0D4 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Already done The article does not say it is an organization. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre

@Koavf, Objective3000, Doug Weller, and Bishonen: ??? jp×g🗯️ 23:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

See my talk for details. This was all just a matter of me adding a file to this page. Two users have figured that it doesn't belong, so I have no interest in re-adding it. If others think it should be re-added, that's fine for them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"A 2021 pamphlet developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation correlates antifa symbolism and slogans with domestic terrorism"

The sentence like this is not good but to eliminate everything is wrong in principle... In my opinion the sentence should be reinserted like this and not eliminated:

"In a 2021 pamphlet developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is claimed that anarchist violent extremists (AVEs) use antifa symbolism."

Btw, this should also be done for the MVEs (the Oath Keepers, the anarcho-capitalists, the Three Percenters, etc.). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The grammar in your correction is ... bad. Sorry, it wouldn't be an improvement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the typo... The fact is relevant: "In a 2021 document prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it is stated that anarchist violent extremists (AVEs) use antifa symbolism." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what we'd call a "passing mention." The document isn't about antifa, so the fact that a few violent extremists have used the symbols isn't really pertinent to this article. See WP:DUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the best reason not to use this image in the article. It also doesn't provide any value to the reader as an image. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear--I genuinely think some do not understand this--it is not an image but a document. That may not change anything about your perspective, but I've seen it called an image several times and this is not a single graphic, but a narrative work that includes graphics. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I could have been more clear with my language. The visual display of an image of the front of the document is unhelpful to the reader. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The only thing the document states about antifa is that: “’ANTIFA’ (short for anti-fascistj: refers to individual(s) who oppose fascism. It is more an ideological concept than a single organization or group, but like minded individuals may collectively act together or form an anti-fascist group.” Nearly exactly what our article says. It also has a disclaimer stating: “The use or sharing of these symbols or phrases alone should not independently be considered evidence of AVE presence or affiliation or serve as an indicator of illegal activity. Additionally, some individuals use such references for their original, historic meaning, or other non-violent purposes”

The inclusion of an FBI document titled “Animal Rights or Environmental Violent Extremism” with a caption of “A 2021 pamphlet developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation correlates antifa symbolism and slogans with domestic terrorism” I believe to be highly misleading and rather the opposite of much of the section text. I'll add that almost no readers will notice that the document doesn't actually say what the title suggests in this context because it is quite difficult to read.

As for the argument about the block, not interested. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

How is the document difficult to read? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a 12 page document with scanned text comprising 4,582 words but only two sentences about antifa. AFAIK, you cannot perform a search on "antifa" to find the two sentences without OCR conversion of the document. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The same file "readable": https://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-AnarchistViolentExtremismSymbols.pdf 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's an actual PDF text doc instead of a scan. It's only two of the twelve pages that were added to the article, although the more relevant two pages. Of course the caption that was added was still totally false. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic. If you want to quibble about user conduct, there are places for that. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Koavf acted in good faith because on November 24, 2023 various leftist groups spread this news: https://popularresistance.org/fbi-labels-anti-fascists-and-anti-racists-as-violent-extremists/ In this version there is an error i.e., the Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVEs) are missing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Domestic_Terrorism_Symbols_Guide_Part_01.pdf There are duplicates in the file (Militia Violent Extremists, MVEs) that are repeated twice. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Sorry, I don't see how something publicized on the 24th affects something an editor did on the 23rd. Nor in any of his forceful criticisms of me on his talk page did he mention that. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) The article was originally published on November 22: https://unicornriot.ninja/2023/fbi-labels-anti-fascists-and-anti-racists-as-violent-extremists/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) And, lest anyone need some kind of proof that I was acting in good faith (which someone alleged I wasn't on my talk page, a baseless accusation), I posted that article on social media with time stamps and everything. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) I was clearly wrong about the dates and it’s obvious that you saw the Unicorn Riot post. I don’t believe I accused you of posting in bad faith and I certainly didn’t think that, I simply felt that it was a mistake as neither the pamphlet or your caption met our policies and guidelines as they hadn’t been discussed in the article so far as I could see. I also noted that the pdf wasn’t a live page but in the “vault” which I presume is some sort of archive. That’s a secondary point without knowing why we shouldn’t use such a link. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC) I should point out that you cannot use the live version (i.e., version 6 or 7) because the documents are classified (of course they are accessible, but classified) – you can obtain the materials from the public websites of law enforcement professional associations. The FBI Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guides (intended for law enforcement agencies) are always entered into the FBI Vault once declassified (i.e., when it does not say "for official use only" but "unclassified"). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Someone on my talk page explicitly said that I was not assuming good faith. The person who did that made a baseless and incorrect accusation. I'm only interested in pointing out how that is untrue. (Not, e.g. assigning blame or relitigating irrelevant things, etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Whatever, all's well that ends well. Make peace and end it. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Yeah, agreed. I sincerely have no clue at all whatsoever why some users keep on posting about this over and over again. It's honestly the weirdest and possibly most inappropriate behavior that I've seen in over 20 years using Wikipedia. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC) @Koavf If anyone is interested in this argument I suggest they read your talk page and decide what is untrue about what either of us said. I’m not going to continue explaining or justifying myself here. Doug Weller talk 21:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) And literally no one asked you to or identified you as someone who needs to. See my comments here where I just wrote "a user", etc. I don't know what you think is happening Doug, but you keep on going on about this for some reason and no one is disputing your actions or trying to reinstate the edit I made. I sincerely have no clue what the endgame is or why these multiple threads exist. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC) It was Unicorn Riot journalist Arturo Dominguez who spread the controversy ("FBI LABELS ANTI-FASCISTS AND ANTI-RACISTS AS VIOLENT EXTREMISTS"). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Antifa (america)

there should, imo, in the headline of the article be made more references to the global antifa movement. As of now, it almost implies that donald trump was solely responsible for it. I also,for starters suggest the article to be renamed to Antifa in the United States as it is not solely american, and the article is a shining example of americancentrism. 2001:1C01:3B0E:EB00:B417:B6C3:168A:55F4 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The title is already Antifa (United States). I'm not sure how much more United States specific that can be made. King keudo (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Edits by FMSky reverted, one of the new sources contradicts them as does the 2nd paragraph of the lead

I've reverted them. I can't figure out how a source that says " 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" can be used to say in Wikipedia's voice that Antifa is a far-left movement. And of course the first sentence of the lead and short description being change to say far-left contradicted the second paragraph of the lead which says "Individuals involved in the movement subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies, and tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views. 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" Doug Weller talk 08:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The other 3 refs clearly label them as far-left though. Also why remove the Counter Extremism Project part`? --FMSky (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think all of them do. The NBC News source, by my reading, isn't describing them that way itself but attributing that description to the far-right and then overtly casting doubt on that. It says That the Jan. 6 attack was actually driven by far-left antifa activists dressed up like Trump supporters, or by federal agents dressed up like Trump supporters, or by some combination thereof. The only trouble with the conspiracy? The feds keep arresting these supposedly far-left agitators, and the rioters' own social media posts and FBI affidavits show they're just Trump supporters. That's the only use of "far left" anywhere in it and it clearly doesn't support what you're trying to use it for. I also don't think the Counter Extremism Project is significant enough to be WP:DUE when cited as a primary source here when we have so many higher-quality sources available. More generally, this is something that has been discussed extensively in the past (as you can see above), so if we're going to go into it again we'd probably want really high-quality sources, not just a smattering of sources that mostly just use the term in passing. The most basic problem is that the highest-quality sources writing about antifa specifically generally describe it as having a broader base (see the citation bundle on the second paragraph); a handful of older news sources characterizing it more briefly aren't going to change that. --Aquillion (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There are lots more who describe them as that, these were just 4 random ones i found in 30 seconds googling, i also just noticed these sources someone posted above who went largely ignored Reuters, The Telegraph; The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and PBS — including Mark Bray. The question is do MORE sources even label them left wing as opposed to far-left? --FMSky (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. If good sources say it has a broader base, we can't call ignore them and call the movement far-left. I've said before I'm not impressed by Bray, he's got an agenda. And see this from the Brookings Institute[9]

"“Antifa” is a label under which left-wing extremism is often lumped. Contrary to much commentary, Antifa is not a group or an organization in any traditional sense; rather, it is a set of beliefs shared by a few activists, many of whom disagree with one another considerably. Antifa is short for anti-fascist (itself a word used broadly and inconsistently), and many of its members today focus on what they consider to be anti-racist activism. They do not have a tight organization or coherent command and control, and indeed the concept of hierarchy is anathema to many local groups. In a few cities, their ranks are slightly coherent, but in most places, it is a small group of informal activists. Much of the information put out about Antifa, including by prominent figures such as President Donald Trump, has exaggerated its coherence and reach.2 Russian influence operations have also attempted to amplify disinformation linked to Antifa."

This looks like a useful source. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Also vey recent, which is good. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

revisit far-left

would like to revisit the opening sentence - it really should be updated to far-left-wing

Stossel tried: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA

is he not a reliable source? 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

John Stossel is not a reliable source for anything other than what his own personal opinion is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

ok great, can we still revisit the fact antifa is far-left-wing ? 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not if you're basing that on a self-published YouTube video by John Stossel. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

is reuters a reliable source? https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-antifa-profile/ 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

far-left is mentioned 5 times in the article.. 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This one actually would be useful toward the label "far-left". EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reuters is reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an RS which does use "far left". However, a single source is not enough when we have repeatedly established a strong consensus that the preponderance of RSs either say that not all antifa are far left or do not use the term. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

no, is forbes a reliable source? https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/06/01/what-is-the-difference-between-antifa-and-the-radical-left-it-depends-on-who-you-ask/?sh=3578a25f5533 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Forbes articles by staff are considered generally reliable. See WP:FORBES. This particular article strongly argues against using "far left"for antifa: Comments like Barr’s raise an important question — 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. As a result, they are sowing deeper seeds of confusion about who might really be engaging in criminal activity. In the section entitled "What exactly is Antifa?" no version of the term "far left" is used. Reading on, the article strongly cautions against the conflation. In other words, 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 is why the interchangeable use of the terms Antifa and radical left is so troubling.... By conflating Antifa and the “left,” President Trump and his followers are leading the country down a confusingly perilous path with no easy way to define its future. Yet among all of the complexity of the past several months, one thing remains abundantly clear: In crisis, language, like leadership, matters. Thank you for bringing to our attention a source which adds evidence to the current consensus against adding "far left". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

We have sources that say that some supporters are other than far-left. Which should be obvious. In any case the Forbes source does not say Antifa is far left, it says " Antifa and the so-called “far left” " - distinguishing Antifa from the far left. It calls Antifa a " a loose group of radical activists t It says correctly that some are violent. And it says that "By conflating Antifa and the “left,” President Trump and his followers are leading the country down a confusingly perilous path with no easy way to define its future." So we can't use it to call Antifa far-left.

We need to stop these duplicate threads, possibly all by the same person or group. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

what about reuters? they specifically say antifa is far-left 71.44.156.129 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"we have sources that say that some supporters are other than far-left" - you can say the same exact thing about far-right groups.. 71.44.156.129 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Examples please. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The ADL states that "most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left"

Similarly, Bray argues that "it's also important to remember that these are self-described revolutionaries. They're anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum." ABC News notes that "while antifa's political leanings are often described as 'far-left,' experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism." According to CNN, "Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."

Anarchism is often considered a far-left ideology 84.247.97.14 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant of right wing groups. We can’t use sources about anarchism that aren’t about Antifa. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

there's only one source about "anarchism" - the rest (1-5) are sources clearly showing antifa is a far-left group. 84.247.97.14 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a group, for the start, and the sources don't say what you claim they say. This is a waste of time. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

As usual when people keep pushing this narrative. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think they meant "movement" not group 50.242.166.193 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I like how most of the sources you cite here contradict the point you're trying to make, 84.247.97.14. The ADL states that "most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left"... ABC News notes that "while antifa's political leanings are often described as 'far-left,' experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism." According to CNN, "Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."

In other words, they say some or most antifa are "far left" but others aren't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

you can say the exact same thing about right wing groups that have the "far" label added. Can we remove the "far" label from those articles? 50.242.166.193 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Those are other articles with other sources about other groups, generally actual organizations. If you have a suggestion on those articles make that in the TPs of those articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a RFC on whether to change it to far-left makes sense, since this keeps getting brought up --FMSky (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It keeps getting brought up because pundits and politicians have pushed an agenda to label all of antifa "far-left" via Red Scare rhetoric. We've had this debate multiple times over the years (see the archives), and consensus is that the majority of reliable sources adhere to treating antifa as a broad spectrum of leftist groups, not solely "far-left". This is tiresome and becoming repetitive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've warned FMSky about his behavior here and an edit summary. Note that contentious topics includes all pages and also edit summaries, we expect a greater emphasis on civility in these areas. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We have had seven RfCs about this now. I think the most recent was 2020. What has changed since then? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree we need a NEW RFC on this, things change. Why is Doug and The Hand That Feeds You afraid to have another RFC ?

There's no pushing of anything, right wing articles on wikipedia all have the "far" label added, It's only fair to have this looked at again. Thanks. 50.242.166.193 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Whataboutism. This article talk page is about this article, not other articles. How many times must we go through the exact same discussion? This is a waste of editor time -- which is WP:disruptive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

References