Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Please provide a reliable source for citation 16 and remove the defamatory information regarding pro-violence when you fail to find one. 24.208.64.172 (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Many sources are cited for that, albeit the citation style is unusual. El_C 23:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

'Diversity' in Antifa

The first sentence of the article states that Antifa is a 'diverse' group which runs counter to all anecdotal evidence. The statement should be removed until it can be sourced. 121.45.171.107 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You’ll find the sources on this talk page and its archives. From editors mentioning dozens of sources saying as much, when others have argued what you’ve suggested. It’s your responsibility to check the archives. It is absolutely not a monolithic nor an organized movement. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be referenced in the article as per WP:VERIFIABILITY, not in the archives of the talk page... I have just done it. Alcaios (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Well done, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I sent you a thank you for this, but I hadn’t said so in a comment. In my reply to the OP, I was simply saying that the notion that this runs “counter to all anecdotal evidence” was pretty thoroughly refuted. Thanks for taking the initiative. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Best regards, Alcaios (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

It currently states that ANTIFA uses violence to protest in the United States and up to this point in time, it is not proven that the violence in the United States protests has been initiated by anyone promoting the anti fascism movement. Please delete “use of violence in protests.”. BrentCrawford (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are multiple sources in the article that report a proportionately small amount of violence by antifa activists, along with advocacy of violence by antifa writers. If you have wording changes to better reflect what the sources say, please propose that wording here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be plenty of evidence that Antifa members engage in violence routinely. SJMccarthy (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please provide references as to "routinely". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
My preferred version already has consensus. Please provide any sources that support your alternative facts. SJMccarthy (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a pointer to the consensus discussion where "routinely violent" was decided.
BTW, interesting that you have 5 edits starting yesterday, but you know enough about Wikipedia to refer to "consensus". Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another name? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You know, this may shock you, but people can read Wikipedia rules all on their own. No matter how "interesting" you find it. SJMccarthy (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comment is a non sequitor, and didn't answer my question -- but I'll transfer it to your talk page, where it's more appropriate.
Oh, and just a reminder: you failed to provide a pointer to that consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"Routinely" is too vague. "Antifa engage in violence as part of a legitimate political strategy" seems to be more reasonable wording, and it can be supported by the sources. Alcaios (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

In the real world, not all communists or anarchists are revolutionaries, certainly not socialists

I was thinking last night about this "far left" debate. One problem of course is that the far right sees even parts of the center as far left (and let's not even get into the bit about Nazis being far left). I see the far left as being the revolutionary left, a pretty easy binary distinction without a big grey area. So let's see who is what.

Communism. Clearly has revolutionary elements, starting with the Russian revolution (where there was no opportunity of course to come to power democratically. In real life today there are of course still revolutionary communists (although I wouldn't count parties such as the Chinese or North Korean parties as actually revolutionary any more). But most of the larger parties are part of the democratic process in their countries, at times taking part in coalition governments. For instance, there are two in India List of political parties in India, at times winning control of one of the Indian states. List of communist parties gives details about communist parties which have or are part of coalition governments. So we can't say that all communists want to overthrow the government - being a communist does not make you a revolutionary. Heck, a poll last year showed that more than a third of millennials in the US approved of communism[1] - these are far left revolutionaries.

Socialism - left-wing, not far-left, part of the democratic process. Also seen favorably by a large number of young people in the US.[2]

Anarchism - as it says, some are revolutionary, some evolutionary.

None of this should be necessary, but sadly it is. The book I describe above and Mark Bray's recent comments about the majority of their activities should be enough to make it clear that Antifa is not simply a collection of far-left revolutionaries mainly resorting to violence. Note that stating the facts does not make me an apologist. That sort of accusation has to stop as it's a violation of discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug: I would have to include ideology as a defining factor in whether a person, organization or movement is far-left or not, as well as their commitment to revolutionary action.
Communism is a difficult one, primarily because there's really not a unitary form of communism. You've got the original Marx-Engels concept, the Lenin-Trotsky revolutionary internationalist version of that, Stalin's "revolution in one country", which was not really revolutionary in any significant aspect, Mao's version, which was revolutionary and then not and then batshit insane and then post-Mao slowly mutated into the barely communist capitalistic authoritarian melange it is now. More, you have the little revolutionary communisms of Ho and Castro and Che and Pol Pot, Eastern European Communism in which ideology played a small part and kowtowing to Moscow played a large part, and then Western European bourgeois communism which seeks to work through the democratic system -- which does not necessarily make them "democratic" (see the example on the other end of the spectrum of Hitler working through the Weimar democratic system to "seize power"). Given all that, it's really impossibly to describe "communism" per se as "far-left", or really as any one thing. Sure, that's where its roots are, and if you want to think of "communism" as meaning "Marxist-Leninism", that's certainly far-left. I suppose "communism's" most enduring characteristic is opposition to capitalism, but, then, look at China today. (I always thought there was a lot of truth in Ned Beatty's speech in Network about how the Russians "get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.") China's defining feature is authoritarianism, not communism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I wrote this before reading Beyond My Ken's response above and I am just linking to what I wrote because I do not want to go off-topic, but I thought this was interesting, including Beyond My Ken's reply. I absolutely agree that pointing this out does not make you or us apologists.--Davide King (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
If we use the definition of "far-" or "extreme" found in the German constitution, an extremist party opposes liberal democracy and the constitutional order, while a radical one accepts free elections and the parliament as legitimate structures. I would argue that what makes a politics "extreme" (being far-left, far-right or ultra-liberal), is the amount of ideological concessions you're ready to make to competing ideologies. The far-left wants to destroy liberalism and conservatism (and is hostile to social-democrats, the so-called "social traitors"), as the far-right wants to destroy socialism and liberalism (and is hostile to conservatives, the so-called "cucks"). Alcaios (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Political scientists rarely use the term far left and there is no agreed definition. It's main use is in journalese and polemical writing. i suggest we avoid poorly defined terms in favor of unambiguous phrasing. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Political scientists rarely use the term far left What? haha. I will improve the article far-left in the coming days as I have done for the far-right Alcaios (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
On the far left, Antifa represents a fast-growing crusade designed to confront all forms of fascism... Klein (2019)
...far-left movements in the US such as Antifa were actively engaging in violent actions attacking alt-right demonstrators... Alizadeh et al. (2019)
Through network analyses of far-right and far-left hashtags (ie, #bluehand, #whitegenocide, and #antifa)... Wu (2020)
leading to violent street battles between the alt-right and Antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement... Perliger & Sweeney (2019), quoting (Swenson 2018)
Dr. Hawley said he believed the far-left activists, known as antifa, were welcomed by the white nationalists Fausset & Feuer (2019), quoting political scientist George Hawley.
I can provide additional sources if needed. Best regards, Alcaios (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, 'far-left' is commonly used, both by RS like NYT and WaPo and by academic sources. If Antifa is also described in other ways by other sources, we may want to include those descriptions too. But "far left" is widespread mainstream characterization of Antifa in a wide variety of RS. Here's an academic source that calls Antifa in particular "far-left" (see p. xxv). So yeah, claiming that our sources are wrong is obviously OR. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
No, saying that using sources isn't simple isn't OR. I was making two points. One is that we need to stop with some of the aspersions and ridiculous statements being made above. Secondly is that our sources are conflicting, partially because of lack of analysis by a lot of the media. The same newspapers even use differing labels at times for the politics of this amorphous movement. Do you think that you can use that source at Black Lives Matter to call it far-left as p. xxv does? 57% of Americans support it according to a recent poll.[3] Your source is clearly wrong to call it far-left. I find it a bit odd that although the introduction calls both movements far left, the actual discussions of them doesn't mention anything like that. This is a more useful quote from p.17 "While Antifa’s tactics have “elicited substantial support from the mainstream left,” its use of violence makes supporters hesitant to fully embrace their presence at extreme right-wing events (Beinart 2017). Antifa activists contend that “anti-fascists promote acceptance of a diverse, multicultural world [whereas] right-wing extremists reject the diverse reality of modern life” (Jackson 2017). “Hate speech against vulnerable minorities leads to violence against vulnerable minorities” (Beinart 2017). Therefore, Antifa activists contend that they will continue to defend the weak and vulnerable, meet violence with violence, and protect the advancements of modern civilized society that they see threatened by the messages of individuals and groups on the extreme right wing of American politics." Doug Weller talk 17:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
What is the relationship between a political denomination and the amount of support in the US population? I seriously don't understand why you're using this argument. Trump cannot be described as far-right because he is supported by 40% of the US population? Alcaios (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, I often read the argument that sometimes scholars provide the political denomination of a person or movement without justification. I agree that it is always better for scholars to fully disclose their methodology. Yet, the irony is that some editors have being doing the same thing with newspapers for years. I would tend to rather trust a scholar that don’t justify an assertion that a journalist that don’t justify an assertion, even if it’s not desirable in any case. Alcaios (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I have cast no aspersions, so if you are replying to me, which you appear to be, please retract that. Second, I did not say that "using sources isn't simple" is an OR statement, so that was a misrepresentation of me. Third, your opinion of whether a Professor of Political Science is wrong really isn't relevant to content. Finally, this is not a forum, and not a place to discuss BLM. But yeah, this expert does identify BLM as far-left. Whether that would be due in the article about BLM would require more work to find out, but it is not relevant here. I do not know what content proposal you are making related to the many quotes you provided from that book. My point--which you apparently haven't denied--is that here we have an academic source that, along with central and respected reliable news organizations like NYT and WaPo, characterize Antifa as far left. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea why you are taking my comments personally. You've misunderstood what I said in both cases. I'm a bit worried if you think that aspersions haven't been cast by other editors here. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised you invoke WP:NOTAFORUM in regards to BLM, yet you continue to discuss it nonetheless, Shinealittlelight. El_C 01:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: I didn't think I was continuing to discuss it; I thought I was explaining why BLM was beside the point and how it might be relevant elsewhere without going into further detail (and there's plenty of detail there that I didn't go into). But hey, if you think I violated that policy, I can understand that position. I don't always understand every policy perfectly, and so I'll defer to your superior experience and strike what I said. Thanks for your help. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just struck me as a bit peculiar, Shinealittlelight. No, no policy violated by anyone in this discussion that I am able to immediately discern. El_C 02:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
One cannot cherry pick two or three academic articles out of the 100s of thousands published and form any view as to the frequency of the use of a term. A better way would be to use Google books search for far right[4] and far left.[5] There are far fewer books with far left in the title and most of them are polemical rather than academic. There is for example no Routledge Companion to the Far Left. There's no textbook that defines the term, it basically means more left than I am. TFD (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you should rather use Google Scholar to display the 213,000 academic sources[6] referring to the term "far-left". It is used as a political concept by a substantial number of political scientists. But what does it have to do with the subject? If we stick to the debate, many academics have described the Antifa as far-left, and many other scholars have described the movement as "left wing". Both views should be mentioned in the article. What are you referring to by "cherry pick[ing] two or three academic articles out of the 100s of thousands"? Among the publications, I have curated those that were the most cited (even if published in 2018–20) and published in the most esteemed journals to avoid WP:OVERCITE. Alcaios (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, both the denominations far-left (with the recent refs) and left wing (subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies (...) the majority of adherents are anarchists, communists and other socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries, although some social democrats and other leftists also adhere to the antifa movement. (...) the movement is pan-leftist and non-hierarchical) are now mentioned and sourced in the article. What are you contesting exactly? Alcaios (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Out soon, American Antifa The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism

Sadly not cheap.[7] It hasn't actually been released yet

Some quotes from the author:

"I describe antifa as a decentralized collection of individual activists who mostly use nonviolent methods to achieve their ends. Their goal is to resist the spread of fascism. That word can be an inexact term, but generally antifa activists see fascism as the violent enactment and enforcement of biological and social inequalities between people." + "But the antifa label is most often applied to smaller-scale groups of like-minded people who live in the same community, working to prevent fascists from threatening their targets and from attracting new followers. These groups are rarely militant or violent. Most of them engage in commonly accepted forms of political activism. For instance, anti-fascists often work to find out where fascist groups and people are active in an area, and then share that information with the wider community, bringing that activity to public attention."

"Culture is another part of anti-fascist work, including art and music. By creating T-shirts and stickers with inclusive messages, and hosting concerts, film screening and art shows, anti-fascists work to create an environment of inclusion and equality that doesn’t directly attack fascism but simply exists in opposition to it.'

"There are more militant anti-fascists, too, who mostly engage in non-militant activism but are willing, at times, to use more confrontational tactics. These people are more open to counterprotesting, sabotage and the use of force, which includes acts of violence."[8]

As this is the product of research, it's going to provide a much broader and more nuanced view than we get from the media. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is propaganda and should not be included. SJMccarthy (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, pure propaganda, straight from that most radical of publishers, Routledge.
(Oh, I'm sorry, you don't get the joke do you?, because you have absolutely no idea who Routledge is or what kind of books they publish, or what their reputation is. You just knee-jerked out a response to something you didn't like.)
And "Stanislav Vysotsky", isn't that a ferriner? And ain't the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater where he teaches that commie symp place where they make all the students read Das Kapital while burning Senator Joe Macartney in effigy? Beyond My Ken (talk)
You should consider reading up on WP:CIVIL before responding like this again. SJMccarthy (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to post that pointer to a consensus discussion which determined that antifa was "routinely violent" Perhaps you should have spent your time posting that instead of the nonsense above. And, BTW, what was your previous account, or the current account that you're avoiding scrutiny of? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop. Take a breath and read WP:CIVIL as well as WP:ASPERSIONS. SJMccarthy (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Wow, A day old editor able to spout Wikipedia policy at the drop of a hat! Imagine that!! Will wonders never cease? How much you've learned in your day of editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a CU might like to take a look at your editing history (short though it is) and your talk page (even though you deleted everything on it, including DS alerts, as "harassment"). {{Checkuser needed}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You're unhinged and you need to take a break. SJMccarthy (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You know the old saying, even an unhinged door can recognize hosiery twice a day! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You're embarrassing yourself. SJMccarthy (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, after all, "It's embarrassment that keeps us in our place." (Alan Bennett) And it's doing the laundry often which keeps the socks in their drawers. Beyond My Ken (talk)
@Beyond My Ken: What is the abuse of multiple accounts or what other account(s) do you suspect are his? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
ReaperEternal: If I knew whose sock it was, I'd file an SPI, but the evidence is overwhelming that it's somebody's sock - An editor who appeared a day ago, and immediately knows to cite CONSENSUS, CIVIL, and ASPERSIONS, goes to Caitlyn Jenner and makes gender-related edits to the talk page there as if they were previously involved, edits the talk page of controversial articles such as this one and Boogaloo movement and talks as if they are continuing a prior discussion. That should certainly be enough to justify a CU check, even without a master. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Without anything to compare his account to, I can't help much. No obvious socking is going on. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. We'll just have to wait until he slips up. The more he edits, the more data we'll have to compare him to other editors. Sooner or later, something will turn up. In the meantime we'll just have to put up with his knee-jerk comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked as WP:NOTHERE, which is obvious. And thinks he's been acting properly all along and that DS alerts are stupid. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Have you read it? There isn't a violation in this section. VQuakr (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed, though I am curious how you could know that prior to the book's release. If what you mean is, "I think this source is biased", then biased sources can still be considered reliable. We would need to look more carefully at the source and the sources it in turn uses to determine if there are any concerns there. Again, not sure how you'd know this prior to the release of the book. VQuakr (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
That should be very helpful. Bias should not be a problem because in this type of book authors typically distinguish clearly what is the general opinion, what are majority and minority opinions and what are their own opinions. So it doesn't matter what the author's opinions are. TFD (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Removal of "in the United States" from the first paragraph, as ANTIFA is a global movement, and has existed around the planet for generations, in its current form. It has nothing specifically to do with the United States of America. Editors need to learn than Wikipedia is a global site, nor only an American encyclopaedia. US-centricity is a big problem across the entire website. 14.137.77.193 (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is the Antifa (United States) article, so yes it is US-centric. I think you are looking for the Post-World War II anti-fascism article which covers the topic more generally. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Laura Ingraham

Here is my position: points of view held by politicians are most of the time relevant, since they have a direct political influence in the legislative and executive branches. On the other hand, the comments made by talk show hosts the likes of Laura Ingraham or Tucker Carlson are not relevant unless they have been quoted by several secondary sources as an ‘evidence’ of the influence of this particular comment on the wider US public debate. Alcaios (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed here, in case you missed it. I agree that your addition of the study by Gary LaFree is much better and it would be necessary to be quoted by several secondary sources as an 'evidence' of the influence of this particular comment on the wider US public debate for that to remain.--Davide King (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes sorry I had missed it. I don't know if I need to merge both sections or not now. In any case, I agree with Bobfrombrockley that If reliable sources note that Ingraham's call was significant, e.g. in influencing Trump and others in this call, then we should include it. (...) If it was not significant in this way its inclusion is arbitary and against due weight policy. So, we should either find a source showing her call was noteworthy, or we should delete. Alcaios (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The section is more appropriate to Wikiquote. Instead, it would be better to use a reliable secondary source to summarize the different positions. For example it could say that Republican politicians and their supporters in right-wing media exaggerated the threat of antifa, even calling for it to be officially classified as a terrorist organization. Then we don't have to have quotes by Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Laura Ingraham etc. all reciting the same talking points. TFD (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes they are certainly exaggerating the threat as part of a political strategy, which is a normal thing in politics as long as they don’t go too far. My point is that people like Cruz or Ingraham can have a real influence on the Republican Party and electorate. If several secondary sources mention their statements as relevant in the public debate, they should be included. If it’s not the case, they should be removed. Alcaios (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I would also move In July 2019, Republican Senators Bill Cassidy and Ted Cruz introduced a nonbinding resolution that would designate antifa a domestic terrorist organization. from the /reactions/ to the /Response from law enforcement and government officials/ section (which would be renamed). Alternatively, if we remove Ingraham from the section, we could rename it /members of Congress/. This is not a comment, but rather an official act as an elected politician. Alcaios (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The non-binding resolution is nothing except political theatre and should not be used in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that neither Ingraham's comments, nor the 2019 simple resolution, belong in the article. Davide King has already provided a link to my views on the former; on the latter see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Calls to define Antifa as a terrorist organization. I'm not sure when or why the consensus in that discussion was overturned. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Antifa is not unitary

I think some effort needs to be made to go through the article and soften the impression that it gives in many instances that "antifa" is a unitary thing. Clearly the militancy, willingness to respond to fascist and racist activity with violence, and ideological beliefs are different from local group to local group, and even from individual to individual. Even though we are at pains to say that it is a loosely affiliated network of groups, we still write as if "antifa" is militant, or "antifa" is far-left, or "antifa" is violent. All these should be rephrased to indicate trends across the broad movement, and not be phrased as definitive statements about what "antifa" is or is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that antifa is not a monolithic group is mentioned several times in the article, both in the lede and in the first section. comprising a diverse array of autonomous groups, subscribing to a varied range of left-wing ideologies, etc. We don't write that antifa is far-left, militant and violent. The current wording is Antifa involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents or the police has led some scholars to characterize the movement as far-left and militant. That doesn't mean all antifa are violent, but that antifa have been involved in violence. It could perhaps be better worded and we could stress even more that the movement is diverse, but we're only following the wording used by the sources in the latter situation. Alcaios (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can;'find now the example that provoked by comment. Maybe I'll come across it later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
With due respect, Beyond My Ken, do you not see that this is actually corroborating what I said in the section below: "Slight rewording would bring the article into the realm of neutral POV"? The very fact that you are pointing out a lack of unity means that labels such as "fascist" or "racist" are up to the interpretation of those individuals who suggest that they are associated with Antifa. Antifa is not an organisation. If people choose to attack someone who they deem as "fascist" or "racist", it does not automatically imply that those labels are verified and 100% correct.--Hypernator (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I see no relationship between them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why does this article have the same few people editorializing, despite the sources?

The sources linked don't identify antifa as being "mostly peaceful", as FDW777 points out. The sources linked don't portray antifa as necessarily accurately identifying people they oppose as being far-right, Nazis, or white supremacists, as AmbivalentUnequivocality points out. But a few editors seem to consistently oppose portraying them as not being mostly peaceful or attacking those that they perceive to be far-right, Nazis, or white supremacists, despite that being exactly what the sources state. I just don't get it. Wertwert55 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. That you don't agree with the outcome is irrelevant, consensus is against you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent what I said. My reply was specifically directed at the original poster's claim of The claim that ANTIFA is mostly peaceful is a blatant lie, and my reply said The word "peaceful" appears in the article in the following places. Thus I did not say The sources linked don't identify antifa as being "mostly peaceful", but that the article doesn't say antifa are "mostly peaceful" in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Aye, I jumped the gun there. I'm remembering a different version of the article, because it currently states that antifa uses violent and non-violent methods with no input on which is used more, except for a section which uses a direct quote claiming that most of their methods are nonviolent (obviously, implicitly demonstrating that it's the opinion of the person who was quoted). My bad. I stand by my remarks on the opening section regarding antifa's identification of fascists, Nazis, and those on the far-right, because the section still doesn't accurately reflect the sources it cites. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been total consensus on what to do about it. Wertwert55 (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"mostly non-violent"

@Beyond My Ken: You recently added Antifa is a diverse and mostly non-violent left-wing movement. You appeal to this WaPo article as a source. I assume the key line in this source is the part that says: The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. I find this line from the source hard to understand. I'm not sure what Bray means by "organizing" here. I'm not sure what "violent organizing" would even be--nothing I think of as political violence is felicitously described as "organizing". So to me there's a real question about the quality of this source. But if we are going to depend on it, I propose that the article text hew more closely to Bray's actual language: it should not say that the antifa movement is non-violent, but that anti-fascist organizing is mostly nonviolent. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The sense of the comment is quite clear unless one is determined to analyze it to death. I oppose your change as nonsensical. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
So you oppose using the exact language from the article? Why do you prefer the current wording? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I oppose copying verbatim from the article, as should any Wikipedia editor, but I especially oppose reading that one sentence out of context when the very next sentence makes it abundantly clear what is meant: "But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
In toto:

The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
My proposal was just to use the term 'anti-fascist organizing'. That seems to bring it closer to the source, since that's what the source says. I don't see why you would reject that term, since it's the term in the source.
I don't agree that the next sentence makes his meaning clear. In fact, it's terribly written. The word 'but' at the beginning leads the reader to expect a reference to "violent organizing" (whatever that is), but then we're told that antifascists (not "the antifa movement" or "antifa") distinguish themselves by defending themselves and by doing something he calls "preemptively shutting down fascist organizing efforts". I guess the latter is a euphamism for violence? Not sure. It's not clear. But it's important for us to reflect the source accurately when addressing something so sensitive as the nature and extent of violent activity. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the quality of the writing, the meaning is still clear. It take a concerted effort not to understand it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
....willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down... That can include violence, but more generally the forms of militant opposition that we have seen, for instance, on US campuses to prevent far-right speakers from attending conferences (blocking the access to a campus is not violent per se). Also the next sentence makes it quite clear that the use of violence by antifa is controversial. Alcaios (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest deleting the “mostly” phrase trying to scale how much or how often they are “non-violent” as not quantifiable and besides, it is just not the point. The antifa in United States are characterized by the willingness to *be* militant at all - seeking confrontations such as coming to Unite the Right prepared with shields and clubs to do fighting, and doing small acts of arson. This is slightly followed by dressing in black and concealing their faces, disrupting reporters taking pictures. There are many other groups that send flyers and do marches and verbally confront... and then there’s antifa. The notable distinction for antifa is the willingness and desire towards violence, not the relative frequency of how often there is physical confrontations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent protests and George Floyd

"Police point finger at gangs and local groups for riot damages, contradicting Trump's claims" - just an example, "Shapiro, the Pennsylvania attorney general, says his office is focused on the criminals, whose activities take attention away from a legitimate cause. "The people who are peacefully protesting are out there for a righteous cause," he said. "We definitely need to reform our criminal justice system." In Philadelphia, police have arrested nearly 900 people in connection with a variety of riot-related crimes, from attacking police to looting. Opportunistic local people, not outside political groups, account for 80% of the arrests there and in Pittsburgh, he said."

Reuters: "Little sign of antifa in U.S. prosecutions of protest violence" "Reuters examination of federal court records found that the word "antifa" does not appear in any documents related to the charges so far. In most cases, prosecutors describe disorganized acts of violence by people who have few obvious connections to organized groups." One of the examples given is the guy arrested in Pittsburgh.

Fox News removes manipulated images from coverage of Seattle protests "Seattle has become a particular fixation for the president, who vowed to crack down on the city following a concerted attempt this week by some of the internet’s most prominent right-wing personalities to blame antifa for the upheaval there. Their claims were contradicted by local law enforcement. “We have no evidence that antifa are in any way involved in the ongoing protests,” said Patrick Michaud, a Seattle police spokesman."

Scant evidence of antifa shows how sweeping the protests for racial justice have become

"The purported peril of antifa rests on what the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab characterized this week as a “disinformation campaign, in which far-right activists have spread fears of antifa ‘terrorism’ by way of largely spurious, decontextualized or provably false claims.

"From Evansville, Ind., to Snohomish, Wash., rumors and disinformation about the impending antifa push into small-town America — in some cases warning of busloads of outsiders ready to storm tranquil communities — have not just duped unsuspecting residents, but forced local law enforcement to mobilize in response."

"Keith Rogers, the chief of police in Snohomish, a city of 10,000 residents near Seattle, was reassigned this week over his handling of an armed counterprotest fueled by false online warnings about antifa. He initiated an “emergency response operation” involving the fire department, county sheriff’s office, the mayor and the city administrator, as he told a recent meeting of the city council. “The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security formally classifies antifa as a violent domestic terrorist group,” he falsely told the body."

[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/klamath-falls-oregon-victory-declared-over-antifa-which-never-showed-n1226681 200 protestors were met with armed men. "The rumors are unfounded. But that hasn't stopped people in some communities, like Klamath Falls, from preparing for the worst. Towns from Washington state to Indiana have seen armed groups begin patrolling the streets after receiving warnings about an antifa invasion, often spurred by social media or passed along from friends."

I know we have some of this, but just adding it. Obviously there's a lot more in the linked articles. I've just removed a very pov statement by a Pittsburgh police chief stuck in the section about police response, which needs overhauling. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to give this some historical context, when Hitler had the SA step up its street fighting against the Communist Red Front-Fighters' League in the years leading up to the Nazi "seizure of power", the purpose was to create a sense of chaos and anarchy among the German people, to which the Nazis could claim to be helping to suppress the "source" of the unrest, the Communists. These moves by American far-right groups to foment false-flag violence under cover of the George Floyd protests is right out of the same playbook, and Trump and Barr have been aiding them in it, whether as dupes or not is still unclear. This is truly a Santayana moment: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Americans have never been too keen on knowing history or learning its lessons (cf. Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk...") and rather pride themselves on living in the moment and breaking historical conventions (which is to be expected, as the first democratic republic in the modern world), the result of which is a profound naivete about repeated behavior. Like the sucker at the carnival, they fall for the same scam over and over again, no matter how often they're warned. Our memories are short, and our credulity apparently unlimited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone seriously doubt that antifa exists in Seattle and such folks are participating? Not controlling or typical of antifa typical modus but just present. And seriously, this was seeming rational but then... mentions of Hitler just sound bonkers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Remove communism from the list . The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. Communism is authoritarian! 2600:1007:B120:EC72:C02A:DFFD:1D44:A66 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Existing sources support the word "communism" appearing in this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not a place to debate the meaning of "communism," especially if you are not suggesting improvements to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is an ultimate flaw in the comment as a whole anyway. You do not even need to "define" communism, but rather simply look at the word itself. There is no government or state in communism! The very concept of communism (which is an ideology) is actually anti-authoritarian. I am referring the the ideology, not the contradictory usage of the word. A party that proposes to be "communist" that gets elected or seizes power may indeed be called "the communist party" but that only relates to the supposed objectives of the party in question. It is a label for the party. The UK is not a "conservative country" (as of 2020) simply because it is run by "The Conservative Party". It is whatever it is (simply the UK)! A society or country could only be referred to as "communist" if it was indeed communally run, i.e. a self governing community. Countries have been called "communist", but that is merely a label (that is inaccurate). The true (no Scotsman fallacy here) "communist" country would have neither a government or a state. To the best of my knowledge there has never actually been a communist country, just countries that have been erroneously (and quite farcically) called "communist".--Hypernator (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your personal views and analysis cannot be used because they are WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not interested in any change. No part of the comment suggested that. I am merely paraphrasing what has already been stated on this very website. Feel free to go off and correct the page that relates to "communism" so that it meets with your personal approval. Either that or ensure that, in future, your indentation relates to the correct comment in this section. If that is indeed the case then please refer to the Wikipedia page on indentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation --Hypernator (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede RFC

The RFC on the lead section has been archived without being closed. This is obviously unhelpful but I'm not sure how to undo it. Can anyone sort this out? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Archiving was set for "3 days" insyead of "30 days". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo incident and Tacoma detention centre attack

@NedFausa: See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7#I decided to remove the whole Portland section and move it here, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 13#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 14#Ngo Attack is Due. What's changed since those previous discussions resulted in no consensus to mention this incident in the article? And, separately, see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 9#Willem Van Spronsen and Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Willem van Spronsen attack on ICE detention center; same question applies. (Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS covers both.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: You've yet to respond to to this question as it pertains to the Tacoma incident. Feel free to create a new section to do so if you prefer. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
What's the point? I can't keep up with your determined deletions of reliably sourced content, and other editors have shown they couldn't care less. I leave it to you. I'll continue adding, you'll continue deleting. That's the way Wikipedia works. NedFausa (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

I request Antifa be described as a terrorist organization. 2600:2B00:8F15:5A00:A533:3745:F51E:877F (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Before posting an edit request, you need consensus from other editors. TFD (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Change from political group to domestic terrorists. Change requested due to the use of violence/fear/and criminal acts to sway public opinion and cause change in government towards their ideology. 76.18.111.136 (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No reliable sources provided to support the change, and no mechanism under which any formal determination could be made. Guy (help!) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Left wing ideologies- anarchism

Anarchism should not be included as a left wing ideology, because it is not. Graysongardner (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a citation from a reliable source that says that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Anarchism is the very embodiment of far-left ideology: opposition to hierarchy. Even dictionary definitions as well as this website define it as far-left unequivocally. There are no reliable sources to suggest it is not far-left and therefore there is no reason to ask for one.--Hypernator (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Terrorism

Antifa is classified as a terrorist group therefore the article should state that it is a terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.195.14 (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done They are not so classified by any reliable source. Guy (help!) 09:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, to add to what Guy just said, there is much mention in the article relating to that so it would be unnecessary at this time. If the government of USA makes an official declaration then that is the point where it could be added. It is unlikely that a movement could be classified as such, anyway.--Hypernator (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the talk page header is wrong

I think

If your complaint is about a description used in the article, check first to see if it is supported by reliable sources. If it is, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted.

should be changed to

If your complaint is about a description used in the article, check first to see if it is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted.

—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. The header is referring to descriptions currently in the article, not proposed additions. If a description currently used in the article is supported by reliable sources, requests it be changed or removed are unlikely to be granted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll make it a littrle more explicit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 Done It now reads:

If your complaint is about a description used in the article, check first to see if it is supported by reliable sources. If it is, it is highly unlikely that your request to change it will be granted.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WaPo Pinocchio discussion

Concise summary/fact check of events and issues related to Antifa here: [9]. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Slight rewording would bring the article into the realm of neutral POV

The last part of first paragraph it reads: "...sometimes involving property damage, physical violence and harassment, against fascists, racists and those on the far-right."

To be neutral this should read: "...against people perceived to be fascists... etc, etc"

To state that the victims are actual: "fascists, racists and those on the far-right" is implying that that is matter of fact. There is no acceptable academic reason to say that the victims are indeed worthy of those labels under all circumstances. There is no ability to prove that.--Hypernator (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 16#"against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right". FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah I see that now thank you. Can you say why that was archived? Is it simply because the pages are getting so long they need to be sectioned off? Seems like this is a hot topic!--Hypernator (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed that archived pages cannot be edited. I will reiterate that from an academic point of view it should be reworded as I stated because the victims cannot be 100% confirmed as having the labels given. Also, it is defined as a movement and not technically a group. This would therefore imply that not all members can be held accountable. I find it odd that it did originally read in a correct academic manner and has now been made POV.--Hypernator (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Please note that we are not an academic encyclopedia, we are a popular encyclopedia which uses academic sources along with other, non-academic ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
You often mention that Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia. I'm curious to know what you mean by that. Apart from the fact that we also use reliable non-academic sources, what does "popular" mean in this context? Alcaios (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
"Popular" means that it should be able to be read easily by a wide variety of people with different intellectual abilities and educational backgrounds. It should not be reduced to baby talk on the one hand, but it should also not require a doctorate to understand either. Sure, there are certain subjects -- I'm thinking of some of the more esoteric subjects in mathematics and physics -- which are so technical that its very difficult to write about them for a popular audience, but that doesn;t mean that we shouldn't do our absolute best to make those subjects understandable to the reader who really wants to know and is willing to work at it a little. Outside of those topics, there is very little that can't be written about in standard English (not Simple English) without excessive use of academic jargon. We are here to serve our readers and our readers are a very broad cross-section of people. An academic work is aimed to the specialist, and can use the language that the specialist understands, but a popular work like ours needs to take pains to be clear and not make things unnecessarily difficult for the reader.
And, just to be clear myself, we do not "also" use non-academic sources, we use both popular and academic sources, and the former should not be avoided in favor of the latter. A reliable source is a reliable source, and there are downsides and problems with both popular sources and academic sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you are implying that people are trying to make Wikipedia inaccurate and full of POV. I do believe that you are not actually referring to the objective of Wikipedia though. The content of this Website should fall in line with academic principles if it is to be taken seriously. This means it should be accurate. If something is not academically accurate then it should not be here.--Hypernator (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
We are already taken seriously. I sometimes refer to Wikipedia as "semi-academic", if that makes you happier, but it's definitely not an academic project, nor should it be. If it was, it wouldn't be one of the most referenced websites on the Internet. People come to it primarily because they can get accurate, unbiased information quickly, and we shouldn't be putting up any barriers to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
You are detracting from the original discussion. Indeed Wikipedia is being referenced very often by dubious sites because of its dubious POV (no doubt often because the person citing it is the very person who produced that POV). The article should be accurate according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. I have pointed out how that can be achieved from an educated perspective. Indeed Wikipedia is universally panned by universities due to the very nature of its inability to follow its own rules and guidelines. It is specifically stated at universities that you will be penalized if you cite Wikipedia. Take it or leave it. The article is inaccurate and POV at the moment.--Hypernator (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess that explains the many universities who run projects having their students edit Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic work (although I've seen academic books use it), but that is at least in part because our articles can be changed at any time. But they can be a great source of references for students. And with all due respect, learning what NPOV means takes time. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I have to some extend used Wikipedia, but with great prejudice and usually only as an initial aid to gather some info. I still feel this is detracting from my original section comment. I am presenting a justifiable reason to ensure that we must indicate that there is not 100% certainty that Antifa only target those with those aforementioned labels (fascists, racists, etc). People make mistakes and not only that, it would purely be up to the individuals associated with Antifa to define for themselves what is, or is not, someone considered, for example: "...fascists, racists and those on the far-right." It has even been stated that it is not so much a group, but rather a movement. That, even more so, indicates that the combatants involved are not under scrutiny as to who (or whom) they deem as those befitting those labels. This is a serious issue, and I would appreciate if people carefully examine what I am saying here to truly realize the significance of this edit request.--Hypernator (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hypernator, I think you are a little behind the times. While universities and college dis once almost universlly forbid the use of Wikipedia as a source, that's been loosening up lately. Not that that's necessarily a good thing: we ourselves do not allow Wikopedia to be used as a source in our own articles. (See WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source) But the real value of Wikipedia to the student are the references that we provide, which they can use to expand their research.
What "dubious sites" are you referring to which reference Wikipedia, and what "dubious PoV" are they citing? If they're citing material which is truly biased or PoV, we should know about it so it can be fixed. Would you care to elaborate?
As for your suggestion, you seem convinced that it's in some way academically required, but the WP:consensus of editors who discussed the issue don't agree with you that it should be in our article -- and consensus is, indeed, part of Wikipedia's core principles. Of course WP:Consensus can change, so if you stick around, you can join in the discussion and try to convince others. In the meantime, your insistence that unless the article is changed to exactly what you want it must be PoV is unconvincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I feel I need to keep my comments regarding this as brief as possible now because it is detracting from the original section topic. It is becoming an extended discussion that is leading away from the section topic. It is filling up quickly so I would rather try to keep it focused if possible (no disrespect intended).--Hypernator (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think there's anything else to discuss. Your proposal has already been considered just days ago and rejected by consensus. That's pretty much it for now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the initial proposal actually has some merit. I don't think it should be controversial to add something along the lines of "those they consider/identify as" as a qualifier to "fascists, racists and those on the far right", as it does seem to read as Wikipedia labeling, in its own voice, anyone targeted or affected by them as such. I mean, there is a huge debate on whether Antifa should be described as far-left, despite that being a common label in RS, since there might be some members who aren't, but we are totally ok with labeling every person ever targeted by Antifa as "fascists, racists and those on the far right"? If we wanted to apply one of those labels to someone, per BLP we would need very strong support from RS. But with our current wording, we are labeling in Wikipedia's voice anyone they target with those labels, and thus treating Antifa as an RS. Taking a few pulls from the "Activities" section, that means Wikipedia is currently saying that all the businesses damaged in the 2017 Berkeley protests (some banks, a Target, Starbucks, etc.) are all ""fascists, racists and those on the far right". Same with the ICE agents doxxed in 2018. Same with any police they clash with. I mean, we don't even use SPLC as an unattributed source to label people or ideologies as "racist", and if Antifa were a source it would certainly be less reliable than the SPLC. I think that there should be serious consideration given to adding a qualifier. It wouldn't prevent us from accurately labeling people who actually are "fascists, racists and those on the far right" when they are involved in incidents, but it would prevent us from labeling anyone mistakenly or unintentionally targeted or affected, and sidestep a ton of potential BLP issues. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson are considered fascists by part of the antifa movement, hence the various speech shutdowns. Alcaios (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Not really the kind of people I'm talking about, as there's a good argument to be made that Ben Shapiro is indeed "far-right". I'm not really talking about people specifically targeted by antifa campaigns, like Milo Yiannopoulos and such, in regards to whom the statement is largely correct. I'm opposed to the blanket manner in which it is worded, which implies that every instance of "property damage, physical violence and harassment" was, without fail, directed against "fascists, racists and those on the far right". It implies that there is never collateral damage done to the property, or persons, of people who are not "fascists, racists and those on the far right". AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I was not really making a point about their political position, those were just the two first examples that came to my mind. Antifa aren’t going to read the Oxford Handbook of Fascism to determine who is a fascist or not if you see what I mean. If someone comes to be considered fascist or racist by enough people within the antifa movement, their will face repercussions whether they are fascist, racist, far-right or not. That's the danger of an extrajudicial process and mob mentality. This is in part due to the fact that overtly racist speech is legally tolerated in America. You could defend slavery in the antebellum South or deny that the Holocaust happened without facing legal repercussion, so it's not surprising that people will want racists to face justice outside of court (you cannot glorify or deny the existence of a crime against humanity in most of Europe). That deadlock is dangerous. Alcaios (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that there is a comma, so it is saying that Antifa political activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy [...] against fascists, racists and those on the far-right which is true. What you seem to have also missed is that none of the given sources use such qualifiers; the ADL clearly calls the object of antifa's harassment right-wing extremists, not alleged or perceived. Perceived was actually used in Ideology when it read antifa is united by opposition to perceived right-wing extremism and white supremacy but neither given two sources used such wording to imply a qualifier. It also goes both ways and a qualifier, which is not even supported by sources, may imply that antifa is not really against the far-right et all, that they attack anyone who disagree with them, that they often misidentify people when this is not true. We also have this:

So I do not see how that implies that antifa is always correct. See also The Four Deuces's comment that I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. Doctors treat patients, but sometimes they mistreat them. Police uphold the law, but sometimes they break it. and Bobfrombrockley's comment that It seems to me to stray into MOS:SCAREQUOTES and WP:WEASEL territory to say "those whom they consider". As per TFD, we don't say "the police arrest those they consider to be criminals" (even though sometimes the police arrest non-criminals). We don't say Anti-communism is "a political movement and ideology opposed to people it considers to be communist". Given sources do not even use qualifiers and we report what they say.--Davide King (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

1. It is impossible to confirm that someone is a fascist. It is always 100% subjective and is a label that gets thrown around like confetti. Citations are there to support an article, not confirm that certain individuals are deserving of a particular label or not.
2. This very website is being contradicted. People are not right or left wing - ideologies are. When people suggest someone is "right-wing", they are making the assumption, based on their opinion that the individual holds certain views that lean on the right. It is always an assumption and not a confirmation.
3. Racism? Completely 100% point of view. There is no logical way to confirm that someone is indeed deserving of this title without a purely subjective point of view. Someone could be "racist" because they assume that a particular person likes rap music or a certain type of food. Someone could be "racist" because they want to exterminate all people who are not considered white. One could argue that the entire population of the planet is racist because everyone discriminates whether they like it or not subconsciously.
4. Antifa is a movement, not an organisation. It does not have members, it has associates. Its associates are not held accountable in any way whatsoever. They will do whatever, to who(m)ever they choose with not one bit of accountability whatsoever. They will always 100% of the time attack anyone who they perceive as being opposed to them personally. They are not telepathic and not some kind of supernatural being with the ability to determine with accuracy what label is most befitting of an individual.
No citation will prove anything, it will merely support the various points of views of individuals or groups of people in a partial way.--Hypernator (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Fortunately for us, we are not a research or analysis organization and don't have to go through those thought processes. We just use reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Per the Manual of Style, we need to avoid expressions of doubt. We would only do that if reliable sources said they had a poor record in identifying the far right. We might add however that they also target allies of the far right, which would then include people such as Tucker Carlson. TFD (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Edit: bit of an issue with indentation sorry - I have put the comment here because the indentation is getting a bit confusing) I am unfamiliar with the Tucker Carlson in question. Are there 2 of them? The only Tucker Carlson I am aware of is someone who holds moderate right wing and moderate left wing views. I seem to remember that he did make some dubious comments about foreigners and immigrants. Which Tucker Carlson has extremist views similar to Neo-Nazis, who believe that white people are superior to others? You cannot seriously be suggesting that someone who wants stricter control over immigration is comparable to Hitler or Mussolini! This is precisely the issue that I am talking about in the original section comment. If Antifa associates have ever Targeted Tucker Carlson then that proves my entire point.--Hypernator (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, no. The idea that Tucker Carlson is anywhere close to moderate left wing is laughable, and casts into doubt your understanding of this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Which further corroborates the idea that peoples' perceptions regarding things like left and right wing are subjective and not necessarily correct or incorrect. Tucker Carlson is in favor of free speech - a liberal/ left wing ideal. Unless of course you disagree with me - which of course would not necessarily make you right or wrong. It would mean you interpret things differently, of which I respect. Also, by the way, I am going by the very page on this website that states that ideals are left or right wing... not people.--Hypernator (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This wishy-washy equivocating of yours is not going to win anyone over. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I can elaborate further. French revolution (one perspective): those to the left want change/ those the the right want to keep things as they are (conservative). From the wiki page (first paragraph) on left/right political spectrum: "The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right."
Left wing concepts (hence social equality):
1. The right/ freedom for all people to bear arms
2. Freedom of speech.
3. Freedom of the press.
A conservative in the USA wishes to preserve existing values. I am pretty certain that they would wish to preserve the above 3 (supposedly) left wing ideals that relate to social equality. Is it just me, or have conservatives very often been referred to as right-wing? Is it not correct that the French revolution has been interpreted as those on the left wanting change and those on the right wishing to keep things as they are? I do believe that the wiki page on this very website suggests that. It is wishy washy whether anyone likes it or not--Hypernator (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:FORUM. You've devolved into preaching. I will not be responding to you further. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
You're right. We should remain close to the facts, that is mentioning some representative examples of people targeted by antifa in the past, and let the reader make his own opinion. Alcaios (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Except policy says giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. For example, if I'm reading about smoking, I don't want to see a balance of opinions saying it is bad for you and others saying it is good for you. I want to know what the expert opinion is. I don't have the time or interest to review all the evidence decide if expert opinion is right. If I want to know about fringe theories, there are special articles for them. There seems to be mounting sources for starting a "antifa conspiracy theories" article, which is where that type of speculation would belong. It certainly does not belong in the opening sentences of this article. TFD (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
What you're doing is false equivalence. I'm only proposing to mention a representative sample of people targeted by antifa, by relying on high-quality secondary sources, and by following nothing else but the scientific method. Alcaios (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
We're not going to accept you performing your own "statistical analysis" for determining what to add to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
That's why by relying on high-quality secondary source is the first element of the argument. Alcaios (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you think that would constitute original research, which is prohibited by policy? And why do you think that every person targeted will be reported in reliable sources? An antifa could post something derogatory about you here on Wikipedia and the New York Times won't cover it. TFD (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any other reasonable solution but to follow what the reliable sources say about the people targeted by antifa, if we find any. Alcaios (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Which would not include performing your own "statistical analysis." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal: the current wording is Antifa political activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, sometimes involving property damage, physical violence and harassment, against fascists, racists and those on the far-right. How about this as a compromise: Antifa political activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, sometimes involving property damage, physical violence and harassment, which they aim to deploy against fascists, racists and those on the far-right. This makes it clear that they think of their opponents as racist, etc., while the phrase 'aim to' seems not to have the implication of doubt which 'whom they regard...' seems to have. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, your wording casts doubt on antifa's ability to identify fascists and the far right. We would need a reliable source that made that conclusion. TFD (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it is insufficient. It is not even pointing out that a movement like Antifa (that does not even have an official/ universal doctrine) is barely even recognizable as anything much at all. There is not one shred of reliable evidence to suggest that they are anything other than a disorganized collection of groups with anything but vague concepts and labels. It is actually quite funny looking at the ideology section of the article. It is purely a list of wishy washy vague subjective labels that do not really mean much at all. Each one of them is completely open to interpretation.--Hypernator (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I came here to make this point. This article is currently directly validating the views of this organization without citation. It would be the same as saying "a mousetrap catches mice" and "a mousetrap is designed to catch mice". It is important that editors do not assume the voice and views of the subject of an article --Willthewanderer (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
To be fair there are tons of sources in the archive here that demonstrate they are pretty crappy at identifying their targets. PackMecEng (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You need a reliable source that reports that conclusion, per no original research or synthesis. You need to beware of confirmation bias, where you seek information to support your preconceived conclusions. I can find lots of cases of malpractice by doctors, but it doesn't mean that the medical profession is pretty crappy at identifying and treating diseases. (Mind you if you go to alternative medicine conspiracy websites, you might see them follow that sort of flawed logic.) TFD (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Yup the sources support it and we go by RS here not your OR on what you think Antifa does or does not target. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Saying the archives demonstrate antifa is pretty crappy at identifying their targets is OR. None of your sources say that and you need a reliable source that does. TFD (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue here is that this is going into the same territory as the need for an atheist to prove that God does not exist. With all due respect to anyone who claims to be associated with Antifa, I see no evidence that says that it is anything other than a movement. I am attempting to use a logical argument here rather than self-referential Wikipedia guides/ principles. If Antifa were an organisation it would be subject to rules and regulations. There would be a charter, an official doctrine, or at the very least some kind of agreement. (Somewhat subjective viewpoint coming!): It could (maybe) be perceived that the very actions of Antifa are authoritarian and (oh dear, I am going to say it)... similar to fascism (forcible suppression of opposition). I would suggest that those who strongly oppose those who are polar opposites politically do indeed start to contradict themselves... OK OK, I am delving into the territory of what could be called platforming a personal opinion, but I am still in the territory of justifying the need to clarify that the movement in question is subject to little (or rather nothing) in the way of rules or regulation. It is not an organisation by the very admission of the article. It is still up to the interpretation of anyone who decides to refer to themselves as Antifa, that someone is: "...fascists, racists and those on the far-right.".--Hypernator (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a whole lot of words to really say nothing. Being a movement does not mean we can just throw up our hands and say "well, we can't figure out what's going on, it's all interpretation". We run with what the reliable sources say, which is what's in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The "we" in that statement says something. Is that "we" in reference to Wikipedia, or something else? I think your original choice to stay out of the argument was wiser. Feel free to divulge the reliable source (if it does indeed exist).--Hypernator (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia. As to the rest of your comment, this vague pontificating of yours is wearing thin. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
As much as your personal comments may be appreciated by others, they are not required on this website. I believe you do not have a reliable source that my comments are wearing thin. Also, please do not vandalize the page when things don't meet with your approval. You have made your opinion very clear but it is not relevant to this talk page. Thank you.--Hypernator (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not need a source for my opinion of your posts. And second, accusing me of vandalism for following the rules is a personal attack. I'm done with your nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The rules you refer to will be twisted into whatever they need to be, to suit someones objective. The more productive thing to do when you have a disagreement with someone is to refute them. Virtually every comment that has been said by you to me has been nothing but personal attacks. I have no need to repeat them because they are all there for everyone to see. Am I bothered by your personal attacks? No, of course not - I am an adult. Just thought it was worth pointing out that I tend to ignore that kind of thing, rather than retaliate against it. If there is anything you would like to bring to the argument then feel free to add something that relates to the original topic that is described at the top of this section.--Hypernator (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hypernator, I agree that your vague pontifications and personal comments are wearing thin. O3000 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I respect your opinion or those of others regardless of whether I disagree with it or not. I will point out that everything is a personal comment (including references to pontification). I understand that Wikipedia editors cannot be held to the same standards as academics. You will also notice that I am even attempting to provide the fundamental principles behind the stringent regulations that are adhered to by academic institutes, rather than directly dictating that people should follow those principles (although I admit I did imply that people should originally!) If you find my manner pompous then so be it, but uncertainty is the very reason why we question things like: "We just use reliable secondary sources." You no doubt do believe they are "reliable". I am not disrespecting your opinion if I say that I do not agree, I am merely showing a difference of opinion. This is a talk page and this comment is still within the domain of the edit request. Disagreement is not disrespect or pompousness unless you choose to view it that way.--Hypernator (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Shinealittlelight maybe just cut off the ending entirely and end at including harassment - or else separate who the protest is about from who owns what gets damaged. The property destruction and arson has not been of right-wing, it’s been more anarchistic. Also there are opposing statements that fascist is just a claim to enable violence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Breaking windows anti-capitalist
Firebombing ICE
General violence
Campus violence
Bay area
Roots
My proposal was to make the statement about the aims of Antifa, not what they have actually done. The proposal I made is accurate as far as their explicit aims, it seems to me, and my proposal has the virtue of neither agreeing with Antifa about who is a racist (etc.), as the current version does, nor implying skepticism about their views, as the "those they see as" language seems to do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
What the factual events are kind of need a notice, and intent of individual acts may be divorced from that. Aiming at fascists that involves just blocking traffic jump on cars and harass random folk because you can, or smashing storefronts because that’s why you brought a hammer, or setting a mobile campus light or police car on fire because you like fire... As to intent one can only cite factually the expressed intent and the opposition claims, knowing full well these are just talking points and may not reflect actual intent very well or the diversity of people.
I got out, bunch of thugs
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Re the sources presented here:

Breaking windows anti-capitalist - OK, reliable source
Firebombing ICE - Ngo in the NY Post is not a relible source, plus see discussion above ("Andy Ngo incident and Tacoma detention centre attack") of discussion of this incident 6 June
General violence - an opinion piece, can't be used as a source for a claim about facts, only for a claim about someone alleging general violence (if noteworthy)
Campus violence - does talk about violence, but not "campus violence", only fear of it
Bay area - reports opinion of some law enforcement people that antifa are violence, although article itself is more circumspect ("A spokeswoman for the Berkeley Police Department said she did not know whether antifa would qualify as a gang under California law. Any law enforcement agency trying to label antifa protesters as gang members might also run into another problem: Technically, they don’t exist.")
Roots - an opinion piece, can't be used as a source for a claim about facts, only for a claim about someone alleging general violence (if noteworthy)
I got out, bunch of thugs - reliable source for the fact that one ex-members thinks they are a bunch of thugs, not for us to say they are a bunch of thugs

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Bobfrombrockley Irrelevant. This is a discussion of why to stop the line at “harassment” and not to go into saying “aimed” or against fascists - and gave links to show those are incorrect by non-aimed and not fascists examples. The anarchistic events *did* happen, and the voiced items *do* exist in significant views, so if you prefer to google up elsewhere because you dislike the illustrative URL NYPost or wherever go ahead. But your dislike as RS is irrelevant because I am not proposing putting edits into article text that cite these - it is a list of recent things Antifa or Black bloc is known for which was random or spontaneous as in not aimed and not organized in a hierarchical manner. If you prefer, we can look at the article or if you mean RS to imply you want text added to article and show that text or due diligence, fine. But the bottom line facts are that both ‘aimed’ and harassment solely ‘of fascists’ just isn’t supported, regardless of how one gets there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Shinealittlelight I believe your proposal would in some way make it better to an extent. What I have attempted to impress upon people is that people in general are flawed in their judgement especially when dealing with vague and constantly changing (and in this present day very vague) concepts such as "far-right", "fascism" and "racism". "Far-right" has gone from being "Hitler exterminating millions of people who were considered inferior" to "someone who believes there should be more control over immigration"! Racism has gone from "people who want to kill every non-white person they see" to "someone who objects to Black Lives Matter". Fascism has gone from "all of the things Mussolini did" to "someone who disagrees with my personal viewpoint". Do you really need me, right now, on this talk page, to go to the effort off providing citations of this? No I am not going to go through that level of effort because it would probably be a waste of time. There are no reliable sources on this article to prove that associates of Antifa (i.e. those people who decide to use that label on themselves) have good judgement. Suggesting that, people prove that those who call themselves Antifa have good judgement, would be akin to suggesting that an atheist prove that God does not exist. It is a logical argument I am presenting here (or "vague pontificating" to those who do not understand it).--Hypernator (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want to say or imply that they have poor judgment you need a source, otherwise we need to stick with how sources describe them. It seems anyway that your argument is that reliable sources cannot properly identify fascism, racism and the far right. TFD (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, the labels are too wide and open to interpretation. I somehow doubt the article will be changed now. The process of proving how unreliable the labels are would be extremely difficult. Quite simply, that is because it is too obvious. If such imprecise labels are being used by broadcasters, news organisations and commentators with such reckless abandon, then why should Wikipedia do any different?--Hypernator (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with The Four Deuces. You are saying that antifa and reliable sources cannot properly identify fascism, racism and the far-right, except that is exactly what they do. We have According to one group member, antifa's identification research on whether an individual or group is "fascist, Alt Right, White Nationalist, etc." is "based on which groups they are a part of and endorse". While noting that "Nazis, fascists, white nationalists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes" are specific overlapping categories, the main focus is "on groups and individuals which endorse, or work directly in alliance with, white supremacists and white separatists. We try to be very clear and precise with how we use these terms". The reason why that qualifier was removed in the first place was that given sources did not actually use the qualifier.
Furthermore, sources such as the ADL and the Los Angeles Times say misidentificaton happens sometimes (meaning occasionally, rather than all of the time), not often (meaning frequently; many times). Yet, in the case of the Los Angeles Times it says supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis, i.e. it is disputing they are white supremacists or Nazis, not that they may be far-right, as right-wing populism overlaps and has been called far-right. So the addition of a qualifier, not supported by sources, smacks me of political bias. Again, this The Four Deuces comment is relevant: I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. Doctors treat patients, but sometimes they mistreat them. Police uphold the law, but sometimes they break it. So thinking that the wording imply 100% accuracy rate and adding a qualifier that is not actually used by given sources seem to be related to political bias rather than an improvement.--Davide King (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of talk about just following the sources, and "The reason why that qualifier was removed in the first place was that given sources did not actually use the qualifier" but that's not true. The sources given do not support such unconditional phrasing, and several of them include exactly that kind of qualifier. The ADL says "Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump" and describes them as "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries". The AOL reference says "In Paris on May Day Antifa members attacked police with improvised bombs, engulfing multiple officers in flames, according to reports" and does not label those police as fascists, racists, or the far-right. The NPR article says "They dress in black and wear masks when they confront right-wing groups" (not fascist, racist, or far-right), and "They point to what they regard as the racism and white supremacist ideology of the other side". The CNN source says that they "protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites" (and again does not label these as fascists, racists, or the far right) and says "Levin said Antifa activists feel the need to partake in violence because 'they believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist'". I checked every source given, and none of them support the current wording. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I am in agreement with what you have said. It is compounded by the notion that it is not an organisation, but a movement. Due to it not having an official charter or rules, people who describe themselves as being an Antifa activist can simply use their personal judgement as to who is, or is not, fascist (or any of the other labels).--Hypernator (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what AmbivalentUnequivocality said, I would like to add that, as far as the sources' comments specifically on violence go, none of them support the contested sentence in the lead. The ADL article states the following: "In Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists, antifa activists have aggressively confronted what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups." The AOL article discusses violence against Richard Spencer (whom the article identifies as a white nationalist), but does not generalize the nature of Antifa violence as the lead does. The NPR article states: "But [J.J. McNabb] says the Antifa shouldn't get a pass on their violence just because they oppose white supremacists." This says that Antifa opposes white supremacists, but does not generalize the nature of Antifa violence as being against "fascists, racists and those on the far-right". AmbivalentUnequivocality's quote from the CNN article generalizes Antifa violence as being against "people who they regard as racist". The Atlantic article seems to reject a generalization of the violence as being solely against "avowed racists" and instead says: "The violence is not directed only at avowed racists like Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators—at least some of whom were associated with antifa—punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California."

The closest any of the sources comes to the generalization provided in the lead is this sentence in the ADL article: "While most counter-protestors tend to be peaceful, there have been several instances where encounters between antifa and the far-right have turned violent". But neither this sentence nor the ADL quote mentioned earlier (about "antifa acitivists ... aggressively confront[ing] what they believe to be authoritarian groups) supports the contested sentence (which mentions "physical violence and harassment against fascists, racists and those on the far-right"). None of the given sources do. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Those they consider to be" wording

User:AmbivalentUnequivocality made this edit in which they added "those they consider to be" before "fascists, racists, and the far-right". This edit was reverted due to a lack of consensus (I have no issue with that). Per above, the "those they consider to be" wording is closer to the way the given sources describe the nature of Antifa violence than the current wording, so I believe that the wording should be changed to this. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

what Rudy said

Davide King, Rudy did not say the quote you are ascribing to him. Rather, that is how The Independent characterized what he said. It's a quote from the source, not from Rudy. Please revert. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Soibangla, it is not clear what exactly Rudy did say. It seems The Independent is reporting Rudy said Black Lives Matter wants to come and take your house away from you; if that is true, it was wrong for you to write, without quotation marks, that antifa, Black Lives Matter and communists because it is not clear whether in a direct quote Giuliano mentioned both antifa or communists, or only the Black Lives Matter; in which case, it is undue and does not belong to this artcle. So could someone please clarify what exactly did Ruby say? Either way, I changed to The Independent reported.--Davide King (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Davide King No, I accurately paraphrased what The Independent reported, and provided quotes of what Rudy actually said. Everything I did was standard operating procedure. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Soibangla, please link me to the direct quote. We should use quotation marks.--Davide King (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Life is too short. Bye. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
This makes no sense.--Davide King (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's my transcript of the video posted by the Independent.
Giuliani: It is no longer a protest about Mister Floyd.
Ingraham: Right.
Giuliani: That ended a long time ago. This is an anarchist, organized anarchist, supported with a lot of money. We had outbreaks in about thirty cities, over the weekend. There were well over a hundred people wounded with guns and twenty-five Americans killed over the weekend.
Ingraham: Yeah.
Giuliani: That didn't happen accidentally, or, that's part of the plan. And we gotta wake up to it, and we gotta stop being silly. People who say they are favorable to Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter wants to come and take you house away from you they want to take your property away from you,
Ingraham: Yeah.
Giuliani: They want to let criminals out of prison, all criminals out of prison.
I don't think it needs to be in an article about Antifa, unless his analysis somehow informs policy. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, thanks! So not even mention of antifa or communists, just anarchist and Black Lives Matter.--Davide King (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Except the video is not the only thing the source reported. I correctly paraphrased what the source reported, while Davide King quoted from the source as though that was a Rudy quote. I can't believe we even have to discuss this. soibangla (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not quote from the source as though that was Rudy quote, nor I meant to do or imply that; I quoted from the source as that was exactly what the source paraphrased/quoted/said.--Davide King (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
A careful reading of the original sentence shows that is, in fact, exactly what you did. soibangla (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
My issue is that antifa, Black Lives Matters and communists should be in quotation marks because it is not clear what is meant by it (actual communists or merely liberals?) because as reported in the article conservatives have used Antifa and Black Lives Matters to describe a centralised organisation when that is not the case. They are both decentralised movements.--Davide King (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The source says "communists," with no allusions whatsoever to liberals, despite the efforts of some to make them synonymous. Can't you just admit you got it wrong? soibangla (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No, the source actually say unspecified communists, so yeah, that may mean the source itself is not clear what Giuliani meant. Giuliani did not mention communists, at least in the above transcript.--Davide King (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
at least in the above transcript But elsewhere in the RS? That's enough, I'm done with this. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Elsewhere in the source there is nothing because it only says unspecified communists and that was the only mention of communists I could find in The Independent. Did I miss anything? So please, take your condescending attitude back.--Davide King (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
To add, I think [...] and unspecified communists made it clear the phrasing is quoting the source and not what Giuliano said.--Davide King (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Now I see you've clarified that, but it adds unnecessary verbiage. My original language was more succinct. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, whether Rudy said [antifa,] Black Lives Matter [and communists] are working together to do away with our system of courts and take your property away and give it to other people, they should be in quotation marks.--Davide King (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it is standard procedure to accurately paraphrase a source while quoting an individual. And that's what I did, and it was entirely proper. soibangla (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
And what I did was using exactly the quote from the source.--Davide King (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
And incorrectly ascribing it to Rudy. soibangla (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
... which I corrected by adding it was reported by The Independent.--Davide King (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
...which is an acknowledgement that I was right all along, but rather than just admit that and restore the original succinct language, you decided to add unnecessary verbiage to clutter the article. soibangla (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly fine and is also what we wrote above regarding a Politico report. You also did not take in consideration that other users such as K.e.coffman may find it undue, so our diatribe may be moot.--Davide King (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a need to quote Rudy in the first place? He's a private individual, so it's unclear why the quote belongs in the article. It comes across as undue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
He is one of Trump's closest confidantes, and this is an example of a coordinated effort to link antifa to protests in order to delegitimize them. soibangla (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Then why not saying exactly that?--Davide King (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"Trump's personal attorney" soibangla (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure how that [being Trumps personal attorney] implies [it] is an example of a coordinated effort to link antifa to protests in order to delegitimize them; so maybe, if the source also makes the connection, we should clearly state what I quoted from you, otherwise it is fine just saying Giuliani is Trump's attorney.--Davide King (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, I don't see the use in including any of Rudy Giuliani's "opinions" on antifa at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Giuliani did not even mentioned antifa, at least in the above transcript, so yeah, it may be undue. The Independent did.--Davide King (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
As I said before, the video is not the only thing the RS reported. soibangla (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
And as I wrote above, something I believe you have not addressed, the only mention of communists is when the source actually say unspecified communists (which is different from communists without the unspecified qualifier you did not use; so yeah, that may mean the source itself is not clear what Giuliani meant and thus it should be in quoted marks.--Davide King (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Rudy is advancing a coordinated false narrative on a TV show watched by millions. soibangla (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Then why do you not literally add that [Giuliani] is advancing a coordinated false narrative? I do not think merely being Trump's attorney imply that, so if you believe that to be true and the source say so, then you should add exactly this or a similar wording. I would support that, if the sources make the same connection/reach the same conclusion.--Davide King (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The content in question

The article currently contains: In June 2020, The Independent reported how Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani claimed on Fox News that "Black Lives Matter, Antifa and unspecified communists" were working together to "do away with our system of courts" and "take your property away and give it to other people", asserting without evidence that they receive significant funding from an outside source. Giuliani had previously criticized George Soros, who had been a frequent target of conspiracy theories claiming he funded such groups and demonstrations.[1]

References

  1. ^ Graziosi, Graig (June 23, 2020). "Rudy Giuliani says Black Lives Matter 'wants to come and take your house away from you' in Fox News rant". The Independent. Retrieved June 27, 2020.

This is mostly an unfiltered utterance, w/o much analysis or interpretation. Soros appears to be off-topic. If the sources attest that Rudy is advancing a coordinated false narrative, then it should be made clear in the passage. That would address my concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I pretty much agree with everything you have written. Do you think the source makes that claim? Are there any other reliable sources, other than The Independent, that discuss this?--Davide King (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I haven't fully examined this article yet, but if it doesn't have a section about a coordinated false narrative, it should, and I will endeavor to create or contribute to one, which may obviate the need to expound on it in this particular edit. The evidence is overwhelming that this false narrative is being pushed hard from multiple parties.soibangla (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A relevant quote from The Independent may be this:

The FBI has found no evidence suggesting Antifa groups are involved in the organisation of the protests and both Antifa and Black Lives Matter are largely decentralised and unstructured groups more akin to ideologies than traditional organisations. [...]

Fox News – especially the network's opinion hosts and commentators – has been ringing alarm bells for their viewers since the start of the George Floyd protests, but its coverage has ramped up in recent weeks due to the establishment of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle and the toppling of colonial and Confederate statues throughout the country.

Mr Giuliani's fearful warning that Black Lives Matter is coming for Fox News viewers' property was not far off from the message Tucker Carlson delivered to his viewers two weeks ago.

What do you think?--Davide King (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We already say:

During the Trump administration, the term antifa became "a conservative catch-all" term as Trump, administration officials, Trump base supporters and right-wing commentators applied the label to all sorts of left-leaning or liberal protest actions.[1] Conservative writers such as L. Brent Bozell III labeled Black Lives Matter as "antifa".[1] Politico reported that "the term [antifa] is a potent one for conservatives" because "[i]t's the violent distillation of everything they fear could come to pass in an all-out culture war. And it's a quick way to brand part of the opposition".[1] Alexander Reid Ross, who teaches at Portland State University, argued that the popularization of the term antifa was a reaction to the popularization of the term alt-right, "to the point where [the word antifa] simply describes people who are anti-fascist or people who are against racism and are willing to protest against it".[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Nguyen, Tina (June 2, 2020). "How 'antifa' became a Trump catch-all". Politico. Retrieved June 11, 2020.
So yeah, sources have reported about the creation of this narrative.--Davide King (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Similarly, [...] [Mark] Bray said that the right-wing has attempted to "blame everything on antifa" during the George Floyd protests and that in assuming antifa to be "predominantly white", it "evince[s] a kind of racism that assumes that black people couldn't organize on this deep and wide of a scale".[1]

References

  1. ^ Bray, Mark (June 1, 2020). "Antifa isn't the problem. Trump's bluster is a distraction from police violence". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 8, 2020.
I think Vox talked about it too, saying But the "antifa" discussed in the president's tweets and on Fox News bears little resemblance to this morally gray reality. They are a trumped-up boogeyman for the conservative movement, a totem used to justify their violent "law and order" approach to legitimate demonstrations demanding racial justice.
I hope this was helpful.--Davide King (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's another potential source: a fact check from WaPo: "Who caused the violence at protests? It wasn’t antifa." (already used in the article). It may be good to consolidate the discussion of various false claims into a more specific header, rather than under "Public reactions" / "Trump administration", which is vague and nebulous. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
And Trump himself, of course soibangla (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) K.e.coffman, I agree with this proposal. Maybe as a subheading of Hoaxes?--Davide King (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Davide King: perhaps: "Conspiracy theories and false claims"? "Hoaxes" implies malicious intent, while claims may be false due to ignorance, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, K.e.coffman, that would be an accurate title. Thanks!--Davide King (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

2.5 million pageviews in one day

This article reached more 2.5 million viewers in a single day on 31 May 2020. That's quite impressive, I wanted to share it. undo if breaks WP:FORUM Alcaios (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

ANTIFA

The claim that ANTIFA is mostly peaceful is a blatant lie. Assaulting people, burning down buildings, vandalizing property is tantamount to domestic terrorism. BLM is no different. History shows us all that tearing down statues, burning American flags, chanting, "No borders, no walls, no USA at all!" is a call to overthrow the government to replace it with despotism. Afterbathingatbaxters (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources to back up that propaganda? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Ian.thomson. There is no evidence incidentally that the people chanting were antifa and no coverage of it in reliable sources. I didn't see any antifa flags although I saw anarchist flags in the short clip. Anarchists calling for the abolition of government is basically what they are about and no secret is made about that in Wikipedia articles about anarchism. TFD (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
May I point out the cognitive dissonance inherent in an anti-antifa comment coming from an editor whose name derives from the title of an album by Jefferson Airplane, After Bathing at Baxter's? There is little doubt that if the the folks in the Airplane were in their prime today, they'd be out in the streets with antifa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
👍 Like 😃--Davide King (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
They would be leading it..as would the Grateful Dead 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What about using ADL as a source, @Ian.thomson ? : 

While some antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces.  They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-antifa

Zezen (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The word "peaceful" appears in the article in the following places.
  • Antifa activists also conduct research to monitor far-right activity, hold conferences and workshops on anti-fascist activism, distribute literature at book fairs and film festivals as well as advocating ways of "fostering sustainable, peaceful communities" such as working in neighborhood gardens.
  • In addition to peaceful antifa activists who held up a "community love" sign, USA Today reported that one slashed the tires of far-right activist Joey Gibson and another was wrestled to the ground by Patriot Prayer activists after being seen with a knife
  • The event drew a largely peaceful crowd of 40,000 counter-protesters. In The Atlantic, McKay Coppins stated that the 33 people arrested for violent incidents were "mostly egged on by the minority of 'Antifa' agitators in the crowd".
  • In their absence, more than 100 antifa activists marched peacefully through the adjacent village, burned a Klansman effigy and chanted slogans such as "Good night, alt-right" and "Death to the Klan", before joining another civil rights rally at Piedmont Park held by the NAACP and the SPLC
  • In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, groups of armed right-wing vigilantes occupied streets in response to false rumors that antifa activists were planning to travel to the city while similar rumors led to threats being made against activists planning peaceful protests in Sonora, California
As such, the OP's "point" is irrelevant. FDW777 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Saying that some antifa are violent is entirely consistent with saying that most are peaceful. Compare it with pro-life: While some opponents of abortion, such as Eric Rudolph, are violent, most (including four or five Supreme Court justices) are peaceful. TFD (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
From everything I've been reading on this talk page, it appears the primary concern, n root of some other issues, appear to be simple wording complications, and outdated views. The two glaring examples seem to be the misunderstanding caused by the original paragraph wording, in regards to who they target. I must admit, the wording is actually why I originally came to talk, because I legitimately thought it was trying to call all victims of antifa fascist, racist, or far-right. I'm not sure why a slight alteration to wording is controversial, but it does seem reasonable. That would likely stifle a lot of people wanting to paint the entire group as violent.
Second and of much less consequence, it's no longer accurate to say they are not organized. Though they lack traditional leadership, they are primarily controlled by certain public "figure heads" and to a much larger degree, the handful of major players funding almost all of it's activities. The figure head part may be conentous, but the donors guiding their activities and locations of protest is pretty much universally accepted, as it's all public record. Apologies for the long winded bit, not trying to get directly involved in the debate. Oh, one last thing. Keep in mind I'm considered republican: Antifa itself, for the most part, isn't violent. They DO support the groups that riot, and cheer on those who attack perceived far right. That said, it's actually quite rare for them to get violent at preplanned, organized events, such as the nation wide mass protests this year. The groups who get violent primarily concist of subsets, from both antifa n BLM, as well as traditional anarchist groups who protest alongside antifa. There have been acceptions, but if we expect honest descriptions of groups such as Proud Boys, or far right figures/groups like Crowder or Rebel News, then we must be honest in our accessments of far left groups.It is vastly misleading to say antifa is outright violent. Just with any "extreme" ideology, you will have sections that take things too far. As a whole though, that is not case.
I do ask some admin to consider my original thought on wording. I understand it makes the sentence a bit long winded, but I'm not sure what else to do to stop people misinterpreting it. Except perhaps just not including who they try to target.
Also, TL/DR: Blanket terms are always bad, regardless of political leaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kysier (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Second and of much less consequence, it's no longer accurate to say they are not organized. Though they lack traditional leadership, they are primarily controlled by certain public "figure heads" and to a much larger degree, the handful of major players funding almost all of it's activities.
That's... I don't even know where in the world you get this idea, unless it's one of those "Soros funds everything" conspiracy theories. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds Oops, I may have messed up my word choice. Sorry! Still getting used to this type of thing. I didn't mean to imply there's some secret cabal of leftwing antifa puppet masters. Not at all. When i said figure heads, i meant simply public activists that have a big presence. The targets they speak out against are usually the targets chosen by antifa. As for donors, I don't mean they literally swoop down n lay out commands, just that the demonstrations and protests they choose to fund tend to be much more successful. That's what I meant by untraditional leadership. It has no central leadership, and there's no one specific group or person that gives "orders"... just as a collective you can usually predict behavior based on what people like Shaun King post, and that the targets that get the funding tend to be much larger. Seriously, I am so sorry for coming across like one of those illuminati wannabe conspiracy theorists. Honestly, my specialty is history, not modern politics. I have habit for not choosing my words well, forgetting how illogical and passionate people can be about anything post 1890. Antifa isn't even close to an organized military or company. They have become a bit more than a completely disorganized movement though. Sort of a leaderlesss collective, perhaps? Anyway, no hard feelings if you disagree, god knows of the people in this conversation, I'm the least qualified. Was just hoping to maybe come at it from a sort of middle ground. Thank you so much for replying by the way. Hopefully I'm not too scatterbrained this time. Kysier (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
That's okay, I get ya. The real thing is, yes there are influencers, but there's no leadership or central funding that could be traced back in any meaningful way to say "These people are organizing antifa." (Also, Shaun King is... not well liked in some leftist circles, so it's hard to paint him as having any real control over antifa groups.) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

" Antifa political activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy against fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists whom they seek to combat."

This is begging the question, a logical fallacy, because it assumes the premise it is trying to argue. Whether the people antifa agitates against are "fascists" and "racists" is subjective and the very thing about which debates about antifa revolve. Wikipedia shouldn't be taking a position here. If you want to say "groups that Antifa deems to be..." have at it. But the way this is currently written is not from a NPOV. In fact, much of the article is not from a NPOV for that very reason. Anamelesseditor (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times, and consensus did not support your position. Please check the archives for the relevant discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Past discussions don't change the fact that the sentence is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy. A simple change to "groups that Antifa considers" would resolve the problem. Otherwise your argument basically amounts to a copypasta: "We call ourselves the Anti-Bad Guy Squad and we label our opponents the Bad Guys. How can people not understand this? We can never be terrorists because we're fighting the Bad Guys. It's so simple to understand. Everything we do is justified because of our name." Anamelesseditor (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Ha, I mean you are not wrong. It did make me giggle a little though. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
It was more prominent in the lead but it got bumped a sentence.[10] This may sometimes involve property damage, physical violence and harassment against those whom they identify as belonging to the far-right. While I think it could be a little more prominent and clear that it is whoever they think might be far-right rather than them being the arbiters of far-right, but in my opinion a reasonable compromise. The recent discussion that recently change it is here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Black bloc"

Not explained why not to confuse them.

Similar tactics, goals, nature, etc. IMHO.

Zezen (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That is because we are using Template:Distinguish which only renders as Not to be confused with. For us to write about why, we should use Template:About, but I am not sure if that is appropriate. I assume similar protest tactics and clothes, with both being predominantly anarchist, is the reason why.--Davide King (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Their tactics, goals, nature, etc. are very different. The problem is the news sources you watch also confuse the tactics, goals and nature etc. of Joe Biden with Joe Stalin. TFD (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, they are both "Joe"s, after all, doesn't that count for something? Cf. Donalds "Trump" and "Duck". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Good old Uncle Joe. PackMecEng (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Actions by Antifa receiving praise

Within the references to Antifa receiving praise ('Antifa actions have received criticism and praise.') the opinion articles both criticise the actions of Antifa, one says that it is a 'Major gift to the right' (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/noam-chomsky-antifa-major-gift-right-wing-anti-fascist-alt-left-a7906406.html) and the other says 'Calmer, smarter voices on the left must vocally disavow antifa's tactics.' (https://web.archive.org/web/20190805131643/https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/antifa-threat-poisoning-trump-opposition-article-1.3424272) so it seems that neither praises the tactics.

Could the references either be changed to someone's opinion that does praise the actions or remove that praise has been given from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.168.224 (talk • contribs) 10:53, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and that is a summary of Academics and scholars, so we are not going to reinstart all the sources used in that section. By the way, ref 27 also includes statements against Chomsky's, so you should not just look at their titles.--Davide King (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I am removing the edit request template because it should only be used when there is no one watching the page who has the ability to edit the article. TFD (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2020

Replace anti-Fascisti ("anti-Fascists") with anti-Fascisti ("anti-fascists") for consistency. 92.184.107.149 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Consistency with what? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The spelling anti-fascists (without the capitalization) is used throughout the article except in this case. 92.184.107.149 (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
When "fascist(s)" is referring to the National Fascist Party, as it is in this context, the capital letter is appropriate. In this case the source (a dictionary, which can be presumed to know what it's talking about when it comes to words and names) also uses the capitalised form. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The Merriam-Webster article only uses the spelling "anti-fascist" though. 92.184.107.149 (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
My mistake – I mistook an "anti-Fascisti" for an "anti-Fascist". The broader point still stands, however. 1920s uses of "anti-Fascisti" mean "anti-Fascist", not "anti-fascist", because they're referring to Mussolini's Fascists rather than fascists in general. The source doesn't contradict this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, but as you said the dictionary "can be presumed to know what it's talking about when it comes to words and names" 92.184.107.149 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Dictionaries cannot be used for capitalization. O3000 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
As per which internal rule? WP:MOS (esp. the section /Capital letters/) makes many references to "major dictionaries", and Merriam-Webster is one of them. 92.184.107.149 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I saw nothing there about dictionaries being used as a source for capitalization. MOS:CAPS says: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. The onus is on you to make your point -- not for me to prove a negative. O3000 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
(?) I already made my point. The spelling is used throughout the article and by Merriam-Webster. MOS makes several references to dictionaries and states in /Capital letters/ if unsure, check a dictionary. The onus is on you to provide a RS for the capitalization in the translation. 92.184.98.37 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing anything in the Merriam-Webster piece that gives any indication of how one would capitalise a translation of anti-Fascisti. It uses the lower case "anti-fascist" but not in that context we're interested in. I'm not particularly fussed about whether it's capitalised or not, but I'd like to understand the argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"What Antifa Is, What It Isn'T, And Why It Matters"

https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/what-antifa-is-what-it-isnt-and-why-it-matters/ here] by Michael Kenney, is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs and Colin P. Clarke who is a senior research fellow at The Soufan Center and an associate fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague. We use the source in multiple articles. It's partnered with the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law.[11] Among other things it discusses current events. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not read yet the whole article, but one phrasing got me thinking. Since we again say against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right but maybe we should wording a bit different like the given sources does, i.e. Antifa, a highly decentralized movement of anti-racists who seek to combat neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and far-right extremists whom Antifa's followers consider "fascist" and word it something like against [fascists and racists such as] neo-Nazi, white supremacists and other far-right extremists whom they identify as fascists? Could you please make a summary of it? I think it may be helpful or useful to add. Another interesting phrase is this:
--Davide King (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

After Hadger reverted my bold change, I tried to reword it into this which Hadger thanked me for, for which I am thankful myself, so I assume the new wording is fine.

For clarify, it now reads:

I think it is better than my previous proposal and the status quo ante. I believe it addresses both points.--Davide King (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see my suggested version. I think the version above leaves one with a sense of ‘activist rhetoric’, which doesn’t do the article any favors (and, perhaps, not even the movement). IDW acolyte (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge sections

Should Antifa (United States)#Accusations of terrorism be merged into Antifa (United States)#Public reactions? The first paragraph can easily go in the "Academics and scholars" sub-section, whereas the second paragraph seems adequately covered in the "Trump administration" sub-section but if there's a particular point that isn't covered it can easily be merged. FDW777 (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, it was in History section until it was changed here. Perhaps your proposal is better than both. Davide King (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Merged. Not sure if any of the Trump content really needed merging as it seemes to be adequately covered by the existing "Trump administration" sub-section. Content is below in case anyone wishes to add any of it. FDW777 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

During the George Floyd protests in May and June 2020, President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr have blamed antifa for orchestrating the mass protests, but federal arrests show no sign that any singular antifa-affiliated group plotted the protests.[1] There have been repeated calls from Trump, Barr and others to designate antifa as a terrorist organization. However, Mark Bray argued that antifa cannot be designated as a terrorist organization because "[t]he groups are loosely organized, and they aren't large enough to cause everything Trump blames them for". In addition, Bray said that the right-wing has attempted to "blame everything on antifa" during the George Floyd protests and that in assuming antifa to be "predominantly white", it "evince[s] a kind of racism that assumes that black people couldn't organize on this deep and wide of a scale".[2]

References

  1. ^ Feuer, Alan; Goldman, Adam; MacFarquhar, Neil (June 11, 2020). "Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests". The New York Times. Retrieved June 11, 2020.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bray 2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Antifa has recently been classified as a domestic terrorist group. 2601:196:8700:3FD0:ADFA:D1B3:9607:C2A5 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done:, no, no it hasn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
See the FAQ at the top of this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC at A.C.A.B.

More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. 71.178.129.13 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Also note that as a result of the ACAB discussion, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Found a niche guideline that was never widely vetted about removing guideline status from Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines, which I have also refered to here in relation to our use of sources on this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_18&oldid=975750969"