Talk:Antifa (United States)

Summary of lead sentence sources on antifa political affiliation

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

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

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

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

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

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

WaPo "Although often referenced as a monolith, “antifa” is not one organization, but a loosely linked collection of groups, networks and individual people who support aggressive opposition to activists on the far right."July 2019 or "loose collection of hard-line anti-fascist protesters," August 2019.

NYT "on the left" July 2019 in an article called "What Is Antifa? Explaining the Movement to Confront the Far Right"[1]

But I agree, there is no way ever to get stats on this. But it clearly has supporters who are not far-left, so that's out, and we say it has liberal supporters. Black bloc doesn't = Antifa. The Time author is Lily Rothman[2] Doug Weller talk 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

On the quantitative aspect, if we can find a source that shows a substantive minority (beyond individual case studies or first party anecdotal accounts) are not left-wing, we should be able to justify 'predominantly left-wing' in the lead description. Otherwise we should probably refer to the existing consensus. I'll see if I can find a suitable one over the next few days. Watchman21 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Having supporters that are not far-left does not mean they cannot be far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: there is no "they" except the supporters, it's not an organisation. If they aren't far left they can't be far-left. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. And many appear to be anarchists. I never thought of anarchists as leftists. No state versus big state, in simplistic terms. O3000 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

When the majority of the supporters are far-left we call them far-left even if a small minority are only left. O3000 anarchism is often considered a far-left ideology. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But, who says the majority of supporters are far-left? These people don't seem to be great philosophers or pol-sci students. Horseshoe theory comes to mind. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Is militant anarchism just standard left wing now? PackMecEng (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's circular reasoning: they are militant because they belong to antifa. TFD (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

PackMecEng, you are saying that antifa contains far left elements because by definition anyone who is on the left and belongs to antifa is far left. TFD (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. What I am saying is RS describe them as far-left and things like being militant and supporting anarchism are traits of the far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to "predominantly left-wing" but do object to "far left". My suspicion is that various editors inserted refs into the lede to justify "left" or "far left" rather than found a good selection of RSs and summarised their descriptions. Otherwise would NBC Bay Area, the Kansas City Star and KIRO7 local news really be your go-to sources on how to describe an emerging social movement? It is also striking that most of the sources cited there (I think CNN is the only exception) come from August-September 2017 when antifa emerged into mainstream attention, and reflect ill-informed news sources struggling to summarise what was to them a new phenomenon. That is why the person interviewed by Time, who has been an antifa activist since the 1990s, is actually a more reliable source for this particular use than a local radio station. (See my very long comment from 13 March 2020 in the Capitalisation RfC further up this talk page on why using sources that actually know about antifa are more appropriate than sources that would be generally seen as reliable but in this instance might not be well-informed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would avoid the term far left because unlike far right it does not have a clear meaning. Basically it means more left than I am. So to the average Fox News viewer, it means the New York Times. TFD (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A quick update re. use of the term 'predominantly left-wing'. I've been unable to find:

1. A quantitative RS to demonstrate that there are a substantive minority of Antifa members who are not left-leaning or left-wing.
2. A case-study-type RS to demonstrate that there is even a single member of Antifa who identifies this way.
3. Even anecdotal examples in popular blogs, commentaries or grass-roots social media posts that don't qualify as WP:RS.

For further policy context, there are no exclusion criteria for left-wing ideology among the other axiological descriptions of Antifa in the article. Anarchism is not an exclusion criterion, as someone has already pointed out, given that ideologies such as anarcho-collectivism do exist.

Every RS that commits to a political description of the movement refers to them uniformly as left-wing.

I think we have conclusive criteria to refer to the prior consensus and describe them as just 'left-wing'. Any quantitative elaboration would fall foul of WP:NOR. I'll implement these changes shortly unless anyone can find a good source. Watchman21 (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this line of argument completely. Antifa is ideologically diverse and not attached to any one movement. If any ideology predominates, it is anarchism. Although some anarchists consider themselves left-wing and some sources consider anarchism in general to be left-wing, most anarchists reject the association with the left and see themselves as neither left nor right. Therefore any source which notes anarchists among antifa by definition shows that calling it left-wing without qualification is problematic. "predominantly left-wing" is a consensual description that encompasses these different points of view, whereas "left-wing" is far more contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Those sources you reject as problematic are WP:RS. To disqualify them you'll need a RS with higher epistemic standing, like a quantitative source from a peer-reviewed journal. I couldn't find one, but perhaps you might have better success.

If you want to use anarchism as an exclusion criterion, you'll need epistemology rather than sociology. You need to show that the two are incompatible, and disprove the legitimacy of ideologies like anarcho-communism. Watchman21 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question - Looking over the ref's above, it looks like most folks are talking about this guys as "far left" or "leftist". Why are we calling them "left wing"? Can someone point to previous discussions on this topic? NickCT (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought 'leftist' and 'left-wing' are synonymous. 'Leftist' may be more of a casual term. Watchman21 (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Antifa far-left?, where I provided links to the five prior discussions to the last person who asked this question (as it pertains specifically to "far left"). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say none of those are particularly impressive or came to any kind of resolution. What I did notice is many uninvolved editors all saying the same thing and the same small group of dedicated individuals stonewalling. Does an RFC have to be held to solidify what the sources and majority of people say? PackMecEng (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If a discussion doesn't result in a consensus then the status quo remains—that's common sense. Though for what it's worth I think the August 2018 discussion was quite productive (surprisingly, considering it began with a load of nonsense posted by an editor who got themselves indef'd for legal threats the following day) and fairly clear-cut in its support for "left" and rejection of "far-left". Which isn't, of course, to say that we should be bound by it today, only that a new consensus would have to be arrived at to change that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue with that is there was never consensus for just about anything. So yeah defaults to status quo but status quo here is basically meaningless. I was more making the comment so people do not get mislead into thinking there was an actual consensus for excluding far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

PackMecEng raised concerns about the existing consensus, which I think does have some merit. The page did have something of a consensus but one that wasn't definitive. I'm open to reviewing it (perhaps with an RFC, if that's what's needed) given that it's predicated on a questionable premise.

One overlooked issue is that 'left' and 'far-left' are not mutually exclusive, the latter being a subset of the former. This means that sources describing antifa as 'leftist' cannot be used as evidence against the proposition that antifa are 'far-left'. Several quality sources describing the movement as 'far-left' may be all that's needed to justify a lede description to that effect. Watchman21 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Watchman21 and PackMecEng: - Support RfC

Arms - re "I would have thought 'leftist' and 'left-wing' are synonymous." - I'm not sure about that. I think "leftist" is a more general term. If you told me someone was a "left-wing" politician, I'd assume they were center left or left. If you told me someone was "leftist", I'd assume they were anywhere from the center-left to the radical left. If you look for definitions of leftist sources will say anything from simply "left-wing" to "radical left". NickCT (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wandering off-topic

That's just your personal ideolect. The terms are broadly synonymous; if you review a bunch of good dictionaries' definitions, you'll see that. When a degree needs to be indicated, that has the be done more explicitly: far-left, left-leaning, a bit left-of-center, etc., or one can't be certain the reader will walk away with the same interpretation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: - So, from the first 6 Google hits for "define leftist", there's Collins which says "Socialists and Communists are sometimes referred to as leftists" and Urban Dictionary (not necessarily a "good" dictionary) which says "A person belonging to the political left and usually identifying with the radical, anti capitalist, or revolutionary sectors of left politics". I don't think those definition a necessarily encapsulated in just the term "left wing". But more importantly, I think the main point is that in this case a degree does need to be indicated. So why not use "far-left"? NickCT (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Collins is a leading dictionary, but doesn't appear to contradict the idea that "left-wing" and "leftist" are synonymous. UrbanDictionary, though, is primarily a joke website written by teenagers. Anyway, I wasn't arguing against being specific about degree, just arguing against the idea that either "left-wing" or "leftist" reliably implies degree. We possibly should be degree-specific, but following the sources on that. I'm not sure I see a clear source agreement on this. It seems fair to me to say that various sources consider antifa a far-left faction, while others don't. We could quote some of the better sources directly. I just hope in the long run we are not conflating antifa as a specific movement or sub-movement (which seems to differ a lot from country to country), with anti-fascism generally. Libertarians, for example, are by definition anti-fascist but also by definition right-of-center on economic policy, even if also classic-liberal in some ways on socio-cultural matters. These things can also change over time; I learned a few years ago that the straight edge movement has a bunch to do with environmentalism and even vegetarianism these days, when those agendas were not connected with it at all in the 1980s when it originated (at that time, it was only about smoking, drugs, drinking, and casual sex). Social movements are a moving target, so source age may be a factor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: - "doesn't appear to contradict the idea that "left-wing" and "leftist" are synonymous" - So you think calling Communists simply "left-wing" is OK? Is it OK to call fascists simply "right-wing"? I don't think we're necessary disagree on definitions as much as the degree of specificity that's appropriate. I wouldn't call a fascist just "right-wing", in the same sense that I wouldn't call a serial killer just a "criminal". Sure fascist may be a subset of right-wing as serial killer is a subset of criminal, but it definitely seems a little misleading when you use terms which are so ambiguous and broad. "Libertarians, for example, are by definition anti-fascist but also by definition right-of-center on economic policy" - Well.... I guess it depends on the brand of libertarianism. For instance, civil libertarians might not hold right-of-center economic view points. Agree groups change with time, but that doesn't really impact what sources are calling this group today. NickCT (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC) It didn't say "communists", it said "socialists and communists", and "socialist" and "left-wing" and "leftist" are used interchangeably by many people, especially those right of center. You seemingly didn't bother to look at the same dictionary's entry for "left-wing" [3], which includes: "Synonyms: socialist, communist ....". See also the corresponding "More synonyms of left wing" list at the same site [4], giving "left-wing" and "leftist" as synonyms. So, I stand by what I said about Collins and their definitions. And it's just one dictionary; looking at other major ones shows comparable results. I don't know why we're arguing about this. It is not difficult to understand that "left-wing" and "leftist" both fail to automatically imply "far-left" to many readers. If you mean "far-left", then write "far-left". Next, civil libertarians are not, as a class, libertarians; this is a fallacy of equivocation, in which the compound "civil libertarian" has a different origin from the isolate "libertarian", and in which the fragment "libertarian" of the first has a different meaning that the stand-alone label "libertarian". (In the first, "civil liberties" is a specific and innately plural term of art with a unique and synergistic meaning; "civil libertarian" is simply the adjectival form of this, which in turn can be re-nouned as a person descriptor, and that is a backformation from the adjective, in turn from the original noun phrase. In the second, "libertarian[ism] is directly derived from a philosophical and singular concept of Liberty in a broader and rather Platonic or archetypal sense.) Most civil libertarians are not libertarians, though libertarians must be civil libertarians, since civil liberties are a subset of the general politico-philosophical approach to liberty espoused by libertarians. (On the other hand, Libertarian Party members might individually be neither libertarians nor civil libertarians, though most would be both. Some here and there are probably just confused kooks who have latched onto a third party just because it's a third party. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

To extract my on-topic points from the long digression above: We possibly should be degree-specific as to "leftiness", but must follow the sources on that, without engaging in WP:SYNTH to get at a "desired" answer that the sources don't actually agree on. I'm not sure I see a clear source agreement on the matter (only on the American antifa being left of center), and I don't agree that sources saying "leftist" or "left-wing" can be counted as supporting of "far-left", "left extremist", and other degree-qualifying descriptions. It seems fair to me to say that various sources consider the US antifa a far-left faction, while others don't. We could quote some of the better sources directly. I just hope in the long run we are not conflating American antifa, as a specific movement or sub-movement, with anti-fascism generally nor with other groups (characterized by rather different politics) who also go by "antifa". It is better encyclopedia writing for us to have a short paragraph on RS interpretations of how far left US antifa is, rather than just pick an interpretation that suits a present-majority editorial viewpoint and run with it as if it were the only RS view.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Well this article is on American Antifa so I would suspect that we would use the left-right definitions from America. Though I will note the source list above shows a clear majority going with far-left or a varient of that. Are there any sources that specifically say they are not far-left? I note some use left wing by itself but I do not think I have seen any that dispute far-left specifically. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would there be any sources that specifically say they are not far-left? Would there be any sources that specifically state they aren't warlocks? O3000 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

WaPo, CNN, and BBC do not call Antifa warlocks, so that's obviously beside the point. But WaPo, CNN, and BBC do all call Antifa "far-left". So we should certainly ask whether any sources say that they aren't "far left", since, if there aren't such sources, then we have a strong argument here that we should at the very least mention that they are sometimes described as "far left" in mainstream media. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Watchman21's bold initial post is misleading and even worse, unsourced. For instance, last year a Portland reporter for the BBC (in other words, someone close to the action) wrote "There is no one antifa organisation or political philosophy. They're a mixed bag of anarchists, socialists and communists."[5] I agree that it's unreasonable to insist on finding sources that say they "aren't far-left but are..." WaPo calls them leftists here.[6] Here CNN, in an article explaining Antifa, calls them "The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."[7] Doug Weller talk 13:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mark Bray, a credentialed academic expert on the subject—one of those rare birds which, reading the bulk of this discussion, one would think didn't exist—defines antifa thus: "It’s basically a politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right." One could take "pan-left" as a refutation of "far-left", i.e. as indicating that antifa includes people across the left (though of course I don't accept the premise that we have to find concrete refutation of "far-left" to not include it). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @User:Doug Weller. Thanks for your feedback. Do you not agree that 'far-left' is a subset of 'left'? If so, then the idea that the two are not mutually contradictory follows necessarily. 'Antifa are left-wing' cannot be a counterposition to 'antifa are far-left' for that reason. If you dispute that, then your issue is with logical truisms like entailment for which we don't usually cite sources. Watchman21 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Arms & Hearts. I think that's thinking roughly along the right lines.

I've just looked at your Bray source. 'Pan-left' here seems to be referring qualitatively to the political subgroups of the left (communism, socialism and anarchism) rather than a quantitative allusion to degrees of leftness, such as 'moderate-left' or 'far-left'. If 'pan-left' was referring to degrees of leftness, then the author would be contradicting himself by his use of the term 'radical' to describe the same group. ie. One can't be moderate-left and radical-left at the same time, unless one has a different understanding of radical to the textbook definition.

I think you've (inadvertently) found a further source supporting the idea that antifa are far-left. But I'm sure there are opposing views out there. I'll do a literature review if I have time and see if I have better luck. Watchman21 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

1. You can certainly be on the left and not a socialist, communist, or anarchist.
2. Pan-left would seem to suggest varying degrees of leftist ideology cooperating; not a specific degree of the left.
3. I don’t think we should be labeling a movement with a greater degree of specificity. Indeed, pigeonholing folks should be avoided even with actual political parties..
4. The anarchists in the woods with AK-47’s waiting for a race war are rightists.
5. BTW, editing pings into a previous edit often doesn’t work. O3000 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute point 1. Your point 3 has some merit. I originally wanted 'far-left' in the lead sentence, but I think the lede now looks better overall with 'left-wing' (any reader can infer how 'far-left' antifa are from the rest of the opening paragraph) but this is just a personal preference. Like your own remarks here, all of this is ultimately subject to policy.

I'm not convinced by point 2, unless you can think of better arguments. Radicalism typically refers to the extremes, or even the fringes, of partisanship. If 'pan-left' refers to the degrees of leftist ideology (including moderates and nominal followers) then it would be a contradiction for the author to describe the movement as radical in the same phrase.

I think point 4 is true, but not very relevant here. Showing that some anarchists are right-wing doesn't disprove the proposition that anarchists can be left-wing as well. I think Bray himself implies this in the source we're talking about.

Thanks for point 5. I'll bear that in mind in future. Watchman21 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

That seems sound to me. However elaborations like that probably belong elsewhere than the WP:LEADSENTENCE. Watchman21 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and it would grow starting with anarchist. O3000 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Remove the formulation "On the other hand" from the section "Response", so that the paragraph now starts with. "Historical and political... ".

Why: The formulation invokes a discussion. I understand that there are editors "on both sides", but creating dichotomy in the article based on conflicts between editors is not a neutral policy at all.

Why do I bother: I sometimes make small changes like this to wikipedia articles upon reading them, but this time the article was locked. 84.210.210.232 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the presentation of multiple viewpoints on Wikipedia does not indicate a lack of neutrality. We seek to have information on multiple viewpoints. This is an appropriate way to introduce a paragraph with an opinion differing from that described in the previous one. Furthermore, I see no evidence that this was based on an editor’s personal beliefs or a dispute between editors. We want to avoid giving undue weight to minor opinions, yes, but this appears to be an appropriate balance. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Antifa now paying vandals & theives to cause destruction, commit acts of violence & terrorism. Videos of Columbus rioters being paid are currently on Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1307:44EB:6873:EBDD:4BBE:C713 (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided sources for your claims. Such claims are common, but are usually if not always made up conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing as official membership in "antifa" — it's a leaderless movement. And second of all, how could anyone possibly know how to determine who is in antifa and who is not? (And third of all, the word "thieves" is not spelled "theives".)50.203.182.230 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Please update Antifa as a Terrorist organization as per the designation by the United States government 2001:569:7E72:A600:6878:52F0:A70A:7D4 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Is "antifaschistisch" the correct spelling ... and is antifa really a "contraction" of that word?

The Terminology section states that the word "antifa" is a "contraction" of the word "antifaschistisch". First of all, it's not a contraction. It's a shortening. Secondly, the logo of the 1930s German movement "Antifaschistische Aktion" — shown in the article — spells the word "antifascistische" with an E at the end.50.203.182.230 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The German word "antifaschistische" is an inflected form of "antifaschistisch". I think you're right on the first point since, per our article, a contraction is "created by omission of internal letters and sounds." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Designated Terrorist Organization

If the president of the United States tweets out that a movement is a terrorist organization, I don't understand how the United States hasn't "officially" recognized it as a terrorist organization. I do not believe this is a NPOV issue, since the Gülen movement is in the category, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by Turkey, even though there is no evidence of it conducting terrorist attacks. At what point would it be acceptable to add the category, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States, if not when the the head of state and head of government of the United States of America says so? —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In the United States of America, a tweet has no formal legal authority—no matter who tweets it. In March 2018, the Trump White House answered an August 2017 online petition: "Thank you for your petition requesting that AntiFa be formally recognized as a terrorist organization. Although Federal law provides a mechanism to designate and sanction foreign terrorist organizations and foreign state sponsors of terrorism, there is currently no analogous mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations." Since then, the law has not changed. Trump's latest tweets are bluster, not binding executive action. NedFausa (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump's tweets have been considered official statements by the president of the United States[[8]]. Since there is no mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations, what action would sufficient to say that the United States designates Antifa as a terrorist organization?—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

An official statement is not a law. What would be needed is new legislation by Congress, or at minimum an Executive Order by the president. NedFausa (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

At risk of sounding tautological, if there's no mechanism by which something can be designated a domestic terrorist organisation, there are no circumstances in which it would be appropriate to say that something has been designated a domestic terrorist organisation. The tweet is mentioned in the article; doubtless informed commentaries on its significance or lack thereof will be published in reliable sources in due course and we'll be able to cite those too. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Would just like to make a comment. If President Trump describes Antifa as a terrorist organization, it only becomes 'terrorist', according to an established right-wing ideology, that President Trump represents. To many people, having different ideologies, it is not 'terrorist'. If Hitler had described the anti-Nazis between 1933 and 1939 as 'terrorist', would that be 'correct'? Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 18:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the exact same thing I was trying to get across with removing "anti-facists" from the opening line. It's illogical to accept the groups claim to be "anti-fascists" (despite the group advocating fascists policies) and simultanenously ignore the president's claim that this group is a terrorist organization. That they are claimed to be "terrorist" and "anti-fascists" should go in the description or we should take out anti-fascists. This is logically inconsistent and exemplary of political bias on wikipedia. 73.227.195.63 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum. 73.227.195.63, what you are saying is clearly not the "exact same thing" that Che12Guevara was saying. What you are suggesting is that something becomes true or factual because someone says it. We go by reliable sources; the president and his tweets don't count as such. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

NBC article saying There is no domestic terrorism statute and legal authority for the U.S. to designate any domestic organization as a terrorist group, as the Justice Department's domestic terrorism coordinator has said publicly on multiple occasions in recent years. FDW777 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is probably just a misunderstanding on my part, but this times article seems to refute that (at least in their terminology) [9] 73.227.195.63 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, since a Russian group is by definition not domestic. FDW777 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for the clarification 73.227.195.63 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello all Wikipedia enthusiasts & contributors :) I suggest to add this notable source from New York Post. Which includes more context & various views to further get this Wikipedia article closer to NPOV.

• https://nypost.com/2020/05/31/trump-tweets-antifa-will-be-designated-a-terrorist-group/
• https://archive.md/LCkG1

Francewhoa (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Francewhoa, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. So since we have better sources, why include the Post? Schazjmd (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Hello @Schazjmd: Thanks for both your reply and Wikipedia contributions :) This link you shared about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is useful information & news to me. I'll try to contribute to it. As well as keep it in mind for my future contributions.

As for the New York Post (NYP)'s article, as you know there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the NYP. I agree that if an agreed on better notable source can be found it would be best. It is unfortunate because NYP's article includes multiple point of views to further get this Wikipedia article closer to NPOV.

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@Schazjmd: and all contributors :) I suggest to add this notable source VOA's article. Which includes various views to further get this Wikipedia article closer to NPOV. VOA's article includes various views such as related statements from, but not limited to, Anti-Defamation League, American Civil Liberties Union, Fire department, Mayor, Police department Chief, Secret Service.

• https://www.voanews.com/usa/trump-praises-national-guard-response-unrest-declares-antifa-terrorist-group
• https://archive.md/BjUjv

Francewhoa (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Oppose citing VOA article, which has a misleading headline "Trump Praises National Guard Response to Unrest, Declares Antifa a Terrorist Group" – he tweeted that they WILL be so designated, not that he has in fact declared them as such; also this is Wikipedia:Citation overkill and merely reiterates existing references, offering nothing new—unless you want to add in comments by various fire departments, police chiefs, et al. NedFausa (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Antifa is now recognized as a terrorist organization. 69.146.101.16 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Antifa will be classified as a terroirist organizations according a tweet sent by the President of the United States @realDonaldTrump 12:23 PM · May 31, 2020 "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization." Jlafor (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That was added to the article space nearly an hour before you made this request. NedFausa (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Now labeled a terrorist group. 2600:1700:77A0:B1A0:D451:7363:7135:7D38 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2020

(edit conflict) Trump regularly “Tweetstorms”, and thus it’s difficult to tell if this is just bluster. Unless he’s talking about designation by a particular agency, so far as I know, this is not something Trump can do unilaterally. It requires an Act of Congress. It’s also difficult to label Antifa a “terrorist organization” as they’ve not technically committed any acts of terrorism, and they aren’t an actual organization. It would be like declaring the Tea Party movement, libertarianism, or participants of a Reddit conversation a terrorist group. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

AntiFa has just been officially declared to be a terrorist organization by U.S President Donald J. Trump

SteamedHamsMan (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

See the four previous sections above. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

2601:741:2:D040:2C73:78C:7A84:D9FE (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization

 Not done See the above sections. FDW777 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The president’s critics noted, however, that the United States does not have a domestic terrorism law and that antifa, a contraction of “anti-fascist,” is not an organisation with a leader, a defined structure or membership roles. The New York Times, Jun 01, 2020 07:43:30 IST Dr. Limar Taylor (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Requesting the re-evaluation of “mostly-peaceful.” More research should probably be done before making that claim (I believe it is inaccurate) 2600:380:A838:530C:6421:3604:D1F0:3255 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Antifa is now designated as a terrorist organization. 100.35.27.224 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Tweets aren't law. FDW777 (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

@Francewhoa: removed a respected source, NBC News, and replaced it with two sources considered biased, The Washington Examiner and the tabloid, The NY Post. When I removed the examiner cite, which was little more than a copy of a tweet, they restored it. I think we should do better in a highly controversial article about an event with heavy current coverage. [10], [11], [12] O3000 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that, given the proliferation of high-quality reliable sources (NBC, NPR, NYT, BBC), there's no reason to cite tabloids or overtly partisan publications, and I'm puzzled as to why anyone would try to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur that New York Post is generally a poor source and others should be used when possible. But is The Washington Examiner considered a bad source? It's right-biased in much the same way that Mother Jones is left-biased, but I generally consider Mother Jones a reliable source. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I would use neither MotherJones or the examiner for this. The coverage is enormous in highly respected sources. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That's true, there exist enough neutral sources on this that the use of any publication with an explicit political orientation is unnecessary. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We can set aside bias: Mother Jones is reliable (but likely it's unnecessary to cite them here), the Examiner is not; it should never be cited in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that that is settled, we can go back to our normal programming; the ten (count them,10) sections incorrectly claiming Antifa is now officially a terrorist org (as if it was an organization to start with).O3000 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Francewhoa removed a respected source, NBC News

Hello @Objective3000: Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions :) And thanks for expressing your concern and asking about this edit. I'm assuming that you're referring to this edit 2020-05-31T12:54:04‎? In summary it was a good faith edit.

The following is the same as above, but with details if you're interested in those. Per my edit note, my intention was to contribute a notable source New York Post (NYP). Which includes more context & various views to get this Wikipedia article closer to NPOV.

When I saved my edit no warning were display about conflicting edits. After my edit, I noticed that someone else contribution was somehow deleted :( This was unfortunate as Wikipedia is usually good at warning contributors about conflicting edits before an edit is save. Anyhow, I noticed this challenge seconds after my edit was save, then I tried to undo my edit by myself, to restore the previous content, but Wikipedia warned that I could not do this because another contribution was made since then. Another contributor manually restored the contribution. Finally I clicked the "Thanks" link on this restore contribution. All can see this publicly here.

About my suggestion about adding the notable source NYP, about "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization", you're welcome to join the discussion above under "Designated Terrorist Organization"►"21:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)" :)

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Firstly, the discussion is here. Secondly, you violated WP:1RR as I noted on your talk page. I suggest you self-rvt. O3000 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Please change that President Trump now does consider them a terrorist group as of yesterday on Twitter and other news articles. Daddys1977girl (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity in second sentence

The second sentence of the lead, repeated below, contains a grammatical ambiguity.

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

The portion reading "...property damage, physical violence and harassment..." is ambiguous or at least difficult to read due either to the lack of an oxford comma or a missing "and". As it stands, it is unclear whether Antifa engages in "property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist", i.e. physical violence is a separate term from harassment, or whether they engage in "property damage, and physical violence and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist", i.e. physical violence and harassment are coupled together into the same term. Depending on which is correct, the ambiguity can be eliminated in the following way: add an oxford comma if they are separate ("property damage, physical violence, and harassment..."), or add a missing "and" if they are coupled together ("property damage, and physical violence and harassment..."). While in the oxford comma case there is not technically a grammatical error, the sentence is confusing to read as the eye notices there is still a lot of sentence remaining when "physical violence and harassment" appears, suggesting there will be an "and" later on so "physical violence and harassment" should be read as a combined entity—which results in misreading the sentence. This is how I first read it and if you re-read it I think you'll notice that the sentence feels like it's incomplete because an "and" is missing. I'm not sure which of the two cases is meant to be conveyed and since this is a controversial topic I thought it would be better I would post about this here rather than guess which one is intended and edit it myself. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that one might read the sentence as suggesting that antifa engages in harassment against those they consider fascists, and, separately, violence against unspecified other people? Such a reading is grammatically possible but doesn't strike me as one that anyone with a little common sense is likely to arrive at. Apologies if I've misunderstood though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well if the sentence as it is currently written is grammatically correct (the oxford comma case) then that is exactly what the sentence implies—in fact this reading is not just "grammatically possible" but is directly what the grammar implies. For a page on a controversial topic, this in-and-of-itself is cause for concern, as we shouldn't rely on people's common sense to say "oh no while it grammatically means this they probably actually mean this". But my primary concern wasn't that, it was that the sentence is currently written in such a way that most people will misread it the first time around. I know that when I first read "physical violence and harassment" my mind viewed it as a single term in the list (in the same way that "toast and butter" are read together in "for breakfast I had coffee, eggs, and toast and butter"). This is something a lot of people will do and it results in the sentence sounding like an incomplete sentence. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still finding your argument hard to grasp and it doesn't seem as though anyone else wants to weigh in. My suggestion is that you make whatever changes you think are appropriate and see what happens. If you're still not sure what the sentence is supposed to be saying, I would suggest you consult the sources it cites to determine which interpretation is closer to the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone else adjusted the sentence so the issue has been resolved. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding important context to Antifa

I suggest we add another paragraph in the intro to give antifa proper context. All references are legitimate and support the points made.

Despite the attention brought to Antifa by Donald Trump, Antifa has not been designated as a terrorist organization and has not been responsible for any deaths in their anti-fascist counter protests. Statistically, Antifa and other left-wing groups are responsible for a relatively small amount of violence compared with right-wing or extremist religious groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbtron (talk • contribs)

References

Oppose: The outdated reference to NPR does not support your claim that Antifa has not been responsible for any deaths in their anti-fascist counter protests. NedFausa (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Colbtron: You might find it useful to read WP:SYNTH. Your proposed addition would be an example of the sort of writing discouraged by that policy, in that it's piecing together aspects of different sources to create a picture that doesn't appear in any of them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: @Schazjmd: @Arms & Hearts: Thanks guys, I was hoping to provide valuable context but I see that the references are vague and out of date. There's just not very many clear stats on Antifa at this point. I appreciate your patience and input.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbtron (talk • contribs) 17:18, May 31, 2020 (UTC)

Even if these sources are oudated, it baffles me that we're just going to leave it at that. There are plenty of reliable sources proving that "far left violence" is nothing but a myth, or at the very least incidents pale in comparison to white supremacist, and extremist christian acts of violence and terror. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to specify those sources and propose changes to the article. Before doing so you may wish to read the policy I linked above, and WP:IRS, if you haven't already, however. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Vox (Bray interview): "'They have no allegiance to liberal democracy': an expert on antifa explains the group ... As I said before, anti-fascists don't have any allegiance to liberalism"
• WaPo (Bray article): "their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists."
• WaPo (Lozada): "Conservatives or even moderate liberals who oppose fascism do not find a warm welcome."
• NY Times: "Its adherents express disdain for mainstream liberal politics, seeing it as inadequately muscular, and tend to fight the right through what they call 'direct actions' rather than relying on government authorities."

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

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

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

Agree. But, I'm up against 1RR at the moment. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies and Muboshgu: Sorry to ping you, but since you've recently helped out on this article or talk page, could you please consider assisting on the above? The editor who repeatedly reinserted the above unsourced/badly sourced content is non-responsive, there's no consensus for any of this challenged material, and this is a high-profile article at the moment, so I think this needs more active intervention from others. Neutrality^talk 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, I only added this article to my watchlist this weekend, and I'm not that familiar with it. I am looking into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, removed. I see it was added over this weekend and it is not supported. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

The antifa page clearly needs work, particularly due to the increased traffic it is receiving after this weekend's events. Self-published sources, none of which I am responsible for, must be removed. As for the inclusion of liberalism as an ideology, I believe it should stay. Three (3) credible sources, which were cited long before this weekend, claim that while the entire American antifa movement and most international antifa movements hold no "allegiance to liberal democracy", some in the American antifa are liberals and subscribe to modern liberalism despite liberal anti-fascists often feeling unwelcomed. antifa is not a centralized group with one clear ideology (with the exception of anti-fascism). However, the inclusions of the liberalism category and portal may be unnecessary as it could be seen as not reflective of those entire movements. Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Mt.FijiBoiz: Three separate editors have objected to your edit, which is not supported by the cited source. Given that, there's clearly no consensus for inclusion of the challenged material (the onus of which it is on you to establish). Please remove the challenged text and the category. I would really prefer not to seek sanctions. Neutrality^talk 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted my edits. Now please read the sources that were cited or edit the Ideology and activities section which also makes reference to some members being liberals and social democrats. Thanks! Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. To the extent that there are some indications that "some members are liberals," that belongs (if at all) in the body. Neutrality^talk 03:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality: The sentence in the lead about the movement's ideology has major problems. The references that state the members of the movement subscribe to the anarchism/anarcho-communism, communism/Marxism, and socialism ideologies are all from the aforementioned non credible Antifa and the Radical Left book — the only properly cited ideologies are anti-capitalism and social democracy. Should we remove this sentence? I feel that the rest of the article does seem to cover the movement's ideological aims pretty well. Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk)

Neutrality: I removed the Greenhaven Publishing-published and non-credible source. Feel free to re-add the content (hopefully with credible sources) if needed. Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk)

Neutrality: Antifa and the Radical Left is published by Greenhaven Press, which is not a self-publishing platform. NedFausa (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa: Has Greenhaven Press been deemed a credible source by Wikipedia? The discourse on this talk page makes it appear that it has not, though this may be incorrect. My apologizes for describing it as a self-publishing platform if that is not the case. BTW, NedFausa have you received any of these weird anti-ANTIFA, pro-QAnon messages? – I fear they will be followed by massive amounts of vandalism on this page.--Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Judging from their Wikipedia page, Greenhaven Press is a reputable publisher. If you have reason to suspect otherwise, please cite WP:RS. NedFausa (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The particular source being cited here is a random book chapter by a self-described "freelance writer" in an anthology of opinion published by Greenhaven, which describes itself as being geared toward a young audience. There's worse sources out there, to be sure, but it's not a top-quality source by any stretch. I would use it, if at all, only with in-text attribution. Neutrality^talk 14:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, please sign your comment. --Mt.FijiBoiz  (talk)

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

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

QAnon

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

Far-left

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

Please don't conflate opposition to fascism with the Antifa movement. Those are not synonymous. There are many organisations that oppose fascism but are not connected with or sympathise with Antifa. Sjö (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about the appropriateness of "far-left" in the lede at Talk:Antifa (United States)#Summary of lead sentence sources on antifa political affiliation (or scroll up past the dozen or so edit requests). It would be sensible to keep discussion of this to that section. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz Please don't bring your political views into Wikipedia. Sentiments like yours are usually the problem and source of conflict itself. And this has nothing to do with Donald Trump regardless. Numerous reliable sources describe ANTIFA as being far left. - Cement4802 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned my (generally centrist to centre-right) political views, User:Cement4802. Virtually every reference you restored quoted Donald Trump - don't pretend that this has nothing to do with him - also please review WP:CITEKILL; I'm glad to see that consensus has confirmed that far-left is inappropriate.. Thanks, User talk:Arms & Hearts ... I looked for a discussion and was surprised not to see it - I assumed the edit was too recent ... gosh ... almost need a separate page for the edit requests! Nfitz (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

ANTIFA is a HOAX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, your "evidence" is an article where one guy blamed Antifa for his own actions. That... does not constitute evidence the entire subject is a hoax. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Danshawen you can't second your own motion. Since you left the second unsigned were you attempting to pass as an anonymous user to create the illusion of support? Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And on the subject of this section, obviously there should be an article for Antifa. It is mentioned in numerous reputable sources and at high levels of government. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if antifa had made the threats, it would not have met the criteria for hate. As the Hate crime article says, these can "include, and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation." Being a civil war re-enactor is not included. TFD (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

The SPLC is considered a reliable source. You can take this to WP:RSN O3000 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Add the fact that Antifa is now legally considered a domestic terrorist organization. 50.115.246.238 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Except it isn't. I assume you are speaking about the U.S. Note that in the U.S. laws are passed by majority votes of both houses of Congress, followed by approval by the president. Tweets by the president don't have the force of law. TFD (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Except it is. Here's the attorney general's statement. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barrs-statement-riots-and-domestic-terrorism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.236.162 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a statement of opinion, not an act of legislation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a statement that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) will be investigating Antifa as domestic terrorists. That's not an opinion, that is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.236.162 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Although U.S. police may treat actions as domestic terrorism, there is no legal basis for declaring a group a terrorist group. The Attorney-General doesn't even say antifa is a group. TFD (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

TFD: On the latter point, you are mistaken. In his official May 31, 2020 press release, the Attorney General states: "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly." (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. But he still isn't saying he will designate them a terrorist group. TFD (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Blatant lies in the lede

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

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

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

How is it incorrect?—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 14:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

For starters, it is. It also reads like something an alt right youtuber would write, and the citations link to a whole bunch of other citations, and a book of questionable reliability. This is propaganda. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How would you rephrase it and please provide sources. TFD (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of the ideologies listed are corroborated multiple times in reputable sources (which I recently made easier to see by adding quotes to the references). But I think "(particularly anarcho-communism)" should be removed. It's mentioned only once in a book that is not well known, as part of an article written by a freelance writer who does not have bylines in notable political sources. I do not think it merits inclusion in this page. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

After seeing the debate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#Content not supported by sources, self-published sources: needs to be taken care of, stat, I've gone ahead and removed it. To several users the merit of the single source is debatable. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

On the sentence about tactics, all of the tactics mentioned are listed in reputable sources. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

False. As stated in the next section, those tactics, especially the "physical violence" part, are listed in three year old breaking news stories which are NOT reliable sources. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is apparent that SpanishSnake is a long time wikipedia vandal and his opinions should not be taken into consideration. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Physical violence" removed from lead

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

Agree.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Physical Violence" absolutely belongs in the lede. AntiCom88 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

AntiComm88 has been blocked for having a racist username. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The removal has been reverted here. Please cite recent mainstream RS that verifies the instigation of violence by Antifa. If it "absolutely" belongs, it should be easy to provide such recent sources. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is supported by the mega cite in the lead [28]. For example some of them are CNN, AOL, BBC, and NPR. It is supported in the body by the Activities section. PackMecEng (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, actually those 3 year old citations do not support violence as a defining characteristic. You could help out here by citing specific text from recent RS sources, so that we can reconcile the conflicting views on this. I have found none. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree those citations are problematic. They are almost all explainers hurriedly published by poorly informed mainstream media sources when "Antifa" suddenly hit their radar in 2017. I think we are far better using better informed sources, e.g. actual experts, rather than see our old mega cite as eternally canonical. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are informed and widely accepted RS. You do not get to discredit RS for no policy based reason. Not how it works, full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My policy based reason is Remember that all breaking news stories are primary sources. They are, by definition, being published very close to the events that the document. Most breaking news stories from reputable news media are independent primary sources. "Independent" does not mean "secondary". Plan to replace all breaking news sources in the future with solid secondary sources. Just like the citations dated 1 June 2020 added to the lead today, the August/September 2017 sources added back then might be OK for specific facts -- but are poor for a measured characterisation of a complex movement in the lead, where we want to give a serious, considered assessment, which should be based on tertiary and really informed sources not on ephemeral news items. In the case of a contemporary political movement, that might be political scientists or contemporary historians. Are you really arguing that this or this are really the most robust sources we can find for the lead? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are not sources I cited so no idea why you would say I am arguing for them? Seems like you are setting up a straw man argument. Don't do that and perhaps you should strike the implication. But anyhow the sources that I actually did give are obviously robust sources that work just fine for the lead. You can try RSN I suppose, otherwise the long standing consensus version and sources will just have to do. PackMecEng (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue might not be that there's anything wrong with those sources per se, just that even better sources exist which contradict them. Mark Bray, for example, is quoted to that effect in the article ("The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent"). It's not unreasonable to think that a published expert on the subject is a better source than a CNN primer. But I haven't received the CNN etc. sources in any detail. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

From the same book you also have him saying on page 169 the justifications for their use of violence. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledging that they sometimes use violence and arguing that it's justified doesn't contradict the claim quoted above. "The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent" implies that a minor part of anti-fascist organising is violent. So I'm not sure what your point is. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I think there's a case to be made for removing it. But I don't have a specific proposal for how this issue should be covered in the lede or what sources should be cited. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fiddlesticks. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The removal should NOT have been reverted. This shouldn't even be discussed. Thia is exactly what i meant by the lede containing blatant lies. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer is to make it clear that they are mostly peaceful (given that Brey, who is an expert cited, emphasizes this fact.) The current list gives the impression that these things are all they do - which isn't really what the sources say - the other sources are biased a bit towards WP:RECENTISM / man-bites-dog coverage that naturally focuses on the most sensational parts, but even they don't directly contradict Brey on this. Longer-term coverage means noting these aspects but avoiding giving them such overwhelming weight. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean not really. Most RS say they are violent, the fact that you found one or two sources that say they are only kind of violent does not really over rule the majority. We do not promote fringe viewpoints like that. PackMecEng (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Agreed. There is absolutely no justification for removing "physical Violence" from the lede. AnticomWa (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata infoboxes should be avoided

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

"Members" is generally inappropriate

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

You can be a "member" in a loose network. But "individuals involved" works too. --Pudeo (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of cleaning up the article to avoid "member" whenever possible. Of course it must remain within direct quotations or as otherwise used per cited source. NedFausa (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

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

 Not done: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Once something definite and significant happens, if anything at all does happen, then we can cover it. I sort of doubt that they will be quite hubristic enough to officially designate a completely non-existent "organisation" as a terrorist organisation but maybe they will designate some specific Antifa related groups which do exist and pretend that that is the same thing. Trump's tweet is, at, best vague and, at worst, incoherent. Until anything official happens we can't possibly predict what, if anything, will need to be added to the article so it makes sense to hold back for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not going to happen, although when trump DOES manage to designate anti-fascists as domestic terrorists, there will be no doubt that the US is a fascist state. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Was just about to come here and post same thing. When someone linked to the Twitter debacle yesterday citing only a Fox News article written by Gregg Re I was both mystified how this wasn't listed as an opinion piece, nor how the writer could be a lawyer, nor how his Twitter feed could be promoting so much un-journalistic content.

It is clear that for contentious content reliable sources needs to actually provide legitimate coverage, not merely barking out the content of a Twitter feed. Koncorde (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be in there as well as the fact that antifa had little if any participation in the demonstrations. TFD (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why the division by countries?

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

Doesn't Post-World War II anti-fascism serve that purpose? Part of the issue is that, while there are anti-fascist groups in most places, they aren't necessarily known as antifa outside the U.S. and Germany. In the UK, for example, similar groups exist but the name isn't at all commonly used (though there was a group called Antifa, now defunct, mentioned in the Anti-Fascist Action article). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)