Talk:Antifa (United States)

Left vs far left

Most people generally consider Antifa far left, yet my edit to include this was reverted. Can someone else please comment on whether Antifa is classified as left wing or far left? Alex of Canada (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Alex of Canada

I'm assuming that you changed it without reading the article? Infoboxes shouldn't reflect our opinions but sources. And they say both. Not surprising as it's a movement and movements attract people with varying politics fighting a common cause. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I see someone didn't like this, removed the references, and changed the infobox. I've reverted. We shouldn't just remove clearly reliable sources we don't like so we can change the infobox. Doug Weller talk 05:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added a quote from a Rose City Antifa member saying that their supporters span the left-wing movement. Also, I thought I said this before, 'radical left' is 'far left', I'm not sure why we are using both. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I am very happy to see that colors have been added!

I have been fighting for this for about 3 weeks and they also rejected my claims even with sources. And I am very happy and thankful to whoever who got it through! :) Aviartm (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aviartm: No problem. Ergo Sum 17:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Did you add the colors? Aviartm (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Ergo Sum 17:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Nice! Aviartm (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed, pure opinion, not RS for statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no "antifa" entity, you can't say "their colors are black and red" when there is no actual "they" to apply such characteristics to. I 100% agree with the removal. TheValeyard (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think a brief and carefully worded mention of the colours in the body of the article could be acceptable so long as it was clear that it is something that several but not all groups use, and certainly not falsely presented as any sort of official thing. It is utterly unacceptable to have it in the infobox as that creates an immediate false impression that this is an organisation with a central body capable of choosing official colours like those of a political party. It is not our job to help anybody build or decorate their straw man and, whether or not that is what anybody here intended, that is the the effect this would have. If we want to dig into colours more deeply, and I'm not saying that we need to, then maybe Pastel Bloc could be mentioned as a counterexample. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Nothing has to be an "organization" to have official colors. This is quite incoherent in my opinion. You are insinuating that they have to be a organization to have colors. I am more than happy to talk this out, but if you saw a group of 30 students and they were protesting and all wore green and yellow for environmental awareness, you can easily make the conclusion that their colors are green and yellow. And we can do the same thing for Antifa. They primarily wear Black. Red is a lot more questionable, but whether we call it "colors" or "tactics" in the infobox, it should either state "black" or "black bloc" because that was Antifa does. Aviartm (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

But official means just that, official, formally decided and agreed. Movements have no way of making such decisions. I agree with DanielRegal as to how this can be handled. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

True Doug, but several movements that have no centralization can agree unconditionally on how they want to be represented. But there are several groups where there is not centralization but they all have a common image which they wish to be associated with. Aviartm (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I agree with Daniel & Doug. It's fine to say something in the article to the effect that antifa primarily wear black and/or their flags and stickers are often black and red, but putting it in the infobox without explanation adds to the common misconception that they are a single organisation. In fact, my instinct is to remove the infobox, as it isn't appropriate for a non-organisation. I've looked at some other articles for diffuse movements (Environmental movements, Anti-war movement, Pacifism, alt-right, Militia organizations in the United States, etc) and they don't tend to have infoboxes, and certainly don't have colours in the infobox.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you BobFromBrockley. Aviartm (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Politico statement doesn't belong in the lead

I've reread the article carefully and I think we need to handle it with more care. I carelessly thought that " according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO" meant that they had been given documents. Looking again, I see "Some of the DHS and FBI intelligence reports began flagging the antifa protesters before the election. In one from last September, portions of which were read to POLITICO". Read to them? Even if we believe that Politico verified who they are talking to, that doesn't make the documents authentic. Their report has been widely repeated by right-wing websites, etc, but hasn't received much attention from mainstream media, and that lack of response after a week leaves me wondering why. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a vital distinction to be made between the DHS/FBI publicly declaring Antifa to be "domestic terrorists", and them doing so privately/internally, and that private/internal designation happening to have been leaked/reported on. The former would be worth including in the lede if it were the case, but it isn't; including the latter seems like more of a stretch, and risks misleading the reader into thinking the former is the case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree, should be dropped down to the critisicsm section, which really needs to be renamed to reception. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think how it is right now covers this important fact well. It was picked up by several RS and is seen as a defining characteristic of the group. PackMecEng (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph should go. The alleged designation of "Antifa activities" as terrorist, published by Politico and those subsequently picking it up in a way pretty much designed to confuse "terrorist activies" and terrorist organizations" is unencyclopaedic as part of the lead and should be covered as part of the mainstream reaction to Antifa.

But then, the third paragraph isn't great either. Newimpartial (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

'Terrorist activities' isn't a defining character of the group. My point is that very few reliable sources mentioned the Politico report. If it were a defining activity you would see it in virtually all the mainstream sources discussing Antifa. And it isn't a 'fact', it's simply what Politico has said. No evidence has been provided. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree with removing it from the lead. The article itself is pretty vague, and as mentioned above, other reliable sources haven't seemed to pick up the story and there's no followup coverage. Gabriel syme (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Also strongly agree with removing it from lead. It is a really sloppy article that is hard to summarise because it is so slippery in what it is actually saying and about whom (e.g. slippage from antifa to anarchists), can easily be torn apart and hasn't been picked up more widely. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Slippery slope - now evidence presented in articles that are labeled "sloppy" is unworthy. How convenient. "'Terrorist activities' isn't a defining character of the group." Actually, for anyone walking on public streets who can be considered to support the President [read: "fascist"], that absolutely is a defining character of the group. It's only not a defining character for those who feel they know they will never be on the other end of the stick, the urine bottle, the mace, etc., in other words, the majority of people editing this page. GreenIn2010 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@GreenIn2010: Your comments above veer very close to being personal attacks. Please try to remember to comment on the article's content, rather than the contributors, especially with regard to politically contentious topics. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Throwing water or urine, or civilian use of mace, isn't a recognizable form of "terrorism" anywhere in the world as far as I can tell. Treating it as such smells like rampant POV-pushing, and is not reliably sourced. It belongs in the "reactions" section under "fears". Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial -- "Throwing water or urine, or civilian use of mace, isn't a recognizable form of "terrorism" anywhere in the world as far as I can tell" -- so you don't know. Maybe it depends upon whom the urine or faeces or mace are being hurled. You should come back when you can tell for sure. Quis separabit? 14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Is most certainly more trouble than it's worth, any objections to getting rid of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No objections from me. If we can find a more appropriate type of infobox than this then maybe that would be better still but I don't think the current box is anything more than a lightning rod for trouble. If we do get rid of it then we need to make sure that everything valid it contains gets moved into the body text, if it is not already there. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no infoboxes for social or political movements. Someone could create one I guess. I'm not at all sure it's that useful to have one. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox civil conflict}} is sometimes used for social/political movements, but I don't think it's anymore suitable for this article than {{Infobox political party}}. I agree that the infobox doesn't add anything to the article and causes problems by oversimplifying issues that are complex and contentious, and I wouldn't object it being removed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I support removal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazing how biased the intro is

Having worked on all different types of political pages on wikipedia for many years, I'm quite surprised at how biased this intro is allowed to be -- Antifa is presented entirely uncritically in the intro, as though they are merely defending against fascism (never defined or evidenced) when a large part of what Antifa are doing and why they have been labeled as engaged in 'terrorist activities' is the large number of attacks on unarmed individuals walking around on public streets or events who have been maced in the face, punched repeatedly in the kidneys, kicked once they have fallen to the ground, spit at, screamed at -- all toward a goal of changing beliefs and behaviors. It's medieval at best, but this intro acts like no real violence is happening and that they are merely engaged in lofty academic pursuits against "fascism". Totally biased.

Antifa supporters don't seem to be aware they are working hand in hand with the people on here who also used to defend the Bush Admin and Neocons: that's the incredible thing about the whole HRC-Antifa-NYT-Neocon alignment going on, how dialed-in the billionaire and establishment mainstream and former-Neocons are into labeling people "fascists" for their political views (I'm not talking about actual KKK - out of 30M Californians, only 21 people donated to David Duke -- that's actual evidence of the absurdity of the numbers in reality of these people). Trump supporters walking around in t-shirts and jeans, with no weapons, are attacked on public property and this is hushed-up or ignored on here to label every person who supports Trump as "alt-right". Here are some "Alt-Right" people, who literally did not even understand what was happening -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8z5DPQfwFs&feature=youtu.be And was the old veteran in a wheel chair, who wasn't afraid to speak, whom Antifa threw water all over (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV9C36zPAk), also "Alt-Right"? GreenIn2010 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article; it is not a forum for discussion about the article's topic. While some of the above is in keeping with what the talk page is for, much is not. Please try to keep comments focused on how the article can be improved. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@GreenIn2010 -- you got it. Scary how some (I won't mention any usernames) are indifferent to or supportive of this threat to the U.S. constitution and the freedom of all dissidents. Very Orwellian. Quis separabit? 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Re "I'm quite surprised at how biased this intro is allowed to be -- Antifa is presented entirely uncritically in the intro". Is it usual for Wikipedia articles to be critical of the subject of the article in the intro?BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa quote

The Rose City Antifa quote in the lede ("People in our group come from across the left sector. we have people who are anarchists, we have people who are socialists, we even have people who are liberals or social democrats") contradicts the first section of the article, which seems to say that Antifa is anarchist and exclusively anarchist. Looking at the three references attached to that claim in the first sentence, we have The Independent, which talks about Antifa and anarchists in the same breath but not necessarily as the same thing; the San Francisco Chronicle, which does make an explicit connection between Antifa and anarchists, but only in passing; and CNN, which describes Antifa as an anarchist group in the title, but is mostly a republication of the via interview with Rose City Antifa members which includes the quote describing Antifa as not just anarchists. I think we should probably remove "anarchist" from the first sentence, but I'd like to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree, although, from my readings and observations I am sure there are some anarchists that attach themselves in support of Antifa, when they group together as an active entity they are not at all anarchistic. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari -- you got it. Quis separabit? 14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A source at one point used for their beliefs in the article says "The social causes of Antifa (short for anti-fascist or Anti-Fascist action) are easily identifiable as left-leaning.

Most members oppose all forms of racism and sexism, and strongly oppose what they see as the nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies that Mr Trump has enacted.

However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy."[1].

Doug Weller talk 20:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm afraid I'm finding your comment somewhat cryptic. Could you clarify the relevance of that quotation to my question? Best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Apologies. First, I didn't make it clear it was a quote, then I didn't reply directly. I agree it should be removed. The quote is part of what we should be looking at on writing about the politics of people in the movement. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, and thanks to Somedifferentstuff for making the relevant change (and for their other helpful edits to the article). I agree that it would be good to use that quote or something similar in the lede, and to suggest that anti-fascism means specifically being opposed to racism, sexism, nationalism and anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment – to say "The salient feature of Antifa is to oppose fascism by direct action" is all well and good, but fascism is not necessarily a single thing and we ought to flesh out what Antifa folks mean by it. I also note that anarchism, communism and socialism are now mentioned on equal terms in the lede, but the article is in Category:Anarchism in the United States but not Category:Communism in the United States or Category:Socialism in the United States. Should it be added to the latter two, or removed from the former? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Spoofing

Apparently there's some disagreement over whether Antifa spoofing should be included in this article. @Saturnalia0: here would be the place to discuss. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems sufficiently relevant to me. What is the nature of the disagreement? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have withdrawn his dissagreement with this edit. Interestingly enough, he seems to have lost interest in pushing his agenda through Wikipedia. Gabriel syme (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Snopes has a story about a fake poster claiming Antifa wants to murder white children (it's also anti-semitic). I see Pamela Geller was pushing it.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Organisation categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last night I removed this article from Category:Anti-fascist organizations and Category:Anarchist organizations in the United States; AlexEng subsequently reverted those edits. Alex and I differ on the question of whether Antifa ought to be considered an organisation – for my part, I think that while it's true that Antifa is an organisation in the sense of "an entity comprising multiple people ... that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment" (i.e. as the term is defined in our article), this is not necessarily the most common sense of the term. I think the word "organisation" more often suggests such an entity that is formally constituted, not necessarily with a leadership or membership but usually with a decision-making structure of some sort. Antifa, we learn from this article, "has no formal organization", and may be "an organizing strategy, not a group of people", and so is not an organisation but a political movement. Before reverting though I'd like to gauge the consensus on this question. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. The categories Anti-fascism in the United States and Anarchism in the United States cover this without using the incorrect description of "organisation(s)" so the organisation categories are redundant as well as incorrect. I will remove them. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I also got rid of the one describing a date of "establishment" as clearly this is not anything that is established and can not have a date put on it in that way.

One other thing I would like to get rid of is the claim "Preceded by: Anti-Racist Action". The Anti-Racist Action article says that this was succeeded by Torch Antifa Network, although that does not have its own article and redirects here. There is no mention of this (I assume) organisation in the article here so I don't see the "preceded by" as valid. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. This article in Buzzfeed[3] is interesting. Despite the fact it uses randomly words such as organisations, groups and chapters to describe various groups (sometimes calling something a group and an organisation), it makes it clear that it's a movement " antifa barely qualify as a group, and lack any sort of central command. Under that veneer of coherence, however, antifa remains more chaos than movement, and not just because its adherents tend to resist authority on principle. It is divided by geography, ideology, and history, less focused and coherent than the other great (and sometimes also chaotic) movement of the recent left, Black Lives Matter." It describes various groups, some of which aren't actually Antifa but support them in various ways, and says that they don't always use Black bloc tactics. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this rationale. Antifa US is absolutely an organization by the standards set aside in the article for "organization." An entity does not require a centralized bureaucracy in order to be considered an organization. In fact, one of the examples given in organization is "resistance movements." Moreover, Antifaschistische Aktion is listed in that category as well. I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning for claiming that it's not an organization. Labeling it as such clearly adds value to the categories discussed, as it is a relevant member. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

While I somewhat agree with your reasoning, I note that Alt Right is not in the analogous cats. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not an organization by any stretch of the imagination. I fully support category removal. TheValeyard (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard -- any other personal opinions you care to disseminate while you have the chance? Quis separabit? 14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So a movement does not to have any organisation or to be coherently organised to be an "organisation"? I'm sorry, but either I have misunderstood the argument or it is literally nonsense bordering on the oxymoronic. Please don't take that personally. It is perfectly possible that I am misunderstanding the point. Please just take it as an indication that you should probably try to explain it again much more clearly.

Antifaschistische Aktion, as I understand it is/was an organisation for at least part of its history. Note the official proclamation of its founding in 1932. Note that post-1945 it had committees and other things that are clear hallmarks of an organisation (or maybe a group of organisations). In its post-1980s incarnations it sounds less like an organisation and somewhat more like the American movement we are discussing here but prior to that there clearly was an organisation of that name and it is possible that it persisted to some extent beyond that. It is clearly not wholly analogous to the subject here.

I don't believe that there ever has been an organisation in the USA called Antifa (or that if there has it is not the same as the subject of this article) but I accept that there have been groups which can legitimately be called organisations* , some of them with "antifa" in the their names, who are parts of this overall movement but this article is not about those. It is about the movement as a whole and there is no single organisation here that can justify those categories. Those categories might be perfectly OK on the articles about those groups which are organisations but not here.

As I have said above, I believe that the categories Anti-fascism in the United States and Anarchism in the United States convey pretty much the same meaning as the categories you wish to add, minus the concept of an organisation. As such, I think this is sufficient. I do not understand why you want to use rather complicated and unclear arguments to try bend this subject into the penumbra of the organisation categories. I just don't see any need for it.

* - I am not going the be obtuse and insist that nothing Anarchist can be called an organisation although it does seem a rather unanarchic concept. It reminds me of an old Private Eye cartoon in which the chairman of an anarchist meeting bangs his gavel and calls "Disorder! Disorder gentlemen please!". ;-)

--DanielRigal (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@AlexEng: As I sort of suggested in my post above, I think the disagreement here boils down the difference between the definition of organisation in the organization article, and a different understanding which I think is the more common understanding of the term. The definition in the Organizational theory article is roughly what I have in mind: "Organizations are defined as social units of people that are structured and managed to meet a need, or to pursue collective goals." The important part there is structured and managed – there has to be some structure that can be easily apprehended, and some management (whether by a leader or collectively). Neither of these definitions is wrong, but I think that when the lay reader sees the term "organisation" in a category, the definition that occurs to them is closer to the latter than the former. (It's not especially clear in the organization article, but I read the mention of resistance movements as referring to movements like the French Resistance, which had a cell structure and an informal leadership, rather than movements like Antifa which have neither.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Organization is a terrible article and I think I see some copyvio. In any case, I don't see how a social movement can be called an "entity", and the examples given in that article are "an institution or an association". Doug Weller talk 08:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've seen worse articles but the possible copyvio is worrying. Maybe somebody is plagiarising us rather than the other way round but it definitely needs looking at. I'll put a note on the Talk page there.

I think that the organisation article is a bit of a red herring here anyway. Certainly there is no harm in using it as one possible source in our attempts to clarify what does and does not qualify as an organisation but it isn't the single golden standard we must use. Even if it was a better article, it wouldn't be the sole point of reference here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see a relevant comment I made here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that this has wandered off topic without answering the initial question about the categories. I don't think that we should get wound up by, frankly, silly attempts to reacronym Antifa or to lure us into general discussion that violates NOTFORUM. (And, yes, I probably should not have put my little Anarchist joke in. I was just trying to lighten the tone a little.) Much as I disagree with AlexEng, he has a right to have his proposed categories discussed properly without us losing the plot half way through. So, about these categories...? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, about the categories. My belief remains that Antifa, though loosely organized and decentralized, constitutes an organization. Moreover, I think there is more to gain from including it in the disputed categories than by removing it. Therefore, in the interest of improving the project, I think we should go the route of inclusion. Continuing to argue semantics over whether it fits the definition of an organization or not feels like a waste of effort for all of us. What we should be asking is if inclusion in a category is a net positive or net negative. Does it clutter up those categories needlessly? Or does it help readers navigate to related pages? Would a reader searching for information on anarchist / anti-fascist organizations feel that Antifa US is out of place in that category? I think you know my answers to those questions, but if I've failed to convince you, then I won't obstruct consensus any longer; let the removal stand if that's the case. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not just semantics, in fact it isn't even semantics. There are a few sources, mainly right wing sources we wouldn't use, that call for it be be labelled a terrorist organisation, but those seem to be about the only ones that use the word. Other more reliable sources call it a movement. An article in the New York Times says "Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization;"[4] Social movements aren't organisations. Our article Antifa movement doesn't use the word except where referring to specific organisations. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me be clear. It is just semantics. It's not an NPOV issue; "terrorist" isn't implied in "organization." Whether Antifa US is, strictly speaking, an organization or a movement is immaterial: I have no desire to refer to Antifa US as an organization in the article body. However, I think that its inclusion in the categories under dispute is appropriate and a net positive to those categories. The fact that we've delved into deep definitions of the word "organization" and organizational theory itself feels like punctilious overkill for something this benign. Can I simply ask what it is about this categorization that is so objectionable? AlexEng^(TALK) 08:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Note: I'm explicitly stating here that I've not rescinded my commitment to stand by consensus as in my previous comment above.

This is just to agree with the clear consensus that the article should be removed from the "organization" categories for the obvious reason already noted that antifa is not an organisation. I think it is more than semantics because there is a popular misconception that antifa is an organisation, and when ordinary readers come to Wikipedia to find out what antifa is, which they're obviously doing in large numbers, then it is imperative we are super careful about not feeding misconceptions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the organisation categories would be fine on any articles about specific, organised Antifa groups but not on this article. Speaking of which, I note that we do not even have a list of these groups here. I think it would make sense to have such a list. It would both help to dispel the misconception that Antifa is an organisation in itself and also provide links to a set of articles which people interested in this article are very likely to also be interested in. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Digression

---

@DanielRigal -- "I am not going the be obtuse and insist that nothing Anarchist can be called an organisation although it does seem a rather unanarchic concept." -- perhaps the reason for your confused thinking is that Anti-First Amendment ("Antifa") is not as anarchist as you seem to think or as it may attempt to project. It is clearly political (witness its attacks in Boston and its threats in Portland, Oregon on groups that had nothing to do with racist, neo-Nazis, fascists, or any other boogeyman the group trots out) but rather has set partisan goals (including, IMO, its assault on the First Amendment and, at least rhetorically, on the police), and likely receives funding from somewhere to be able to carry out its activities, although I acknowledge its overhead is low, and it may not need that much cash to get by. Quis separabit? 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if my little joke was confusing. My point was simply that an Anarchist group can be an organisation but that Antifa is not a group and hence can not be an organisation. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, so this edit [5] has established your point of view. So, can we all go home now, and you will stop POV-pushing in the article itself? Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial -- No. I am not a child to be bought into silence with some toffees. I am trying to remove what I see as OR and weaselry from this article, and I am sure I am not alone. Do not denigrate my edits as "POV-pushing" because that is a lie. As a U.S. citizen, I may be passionate about an existential threat to the First Amendment but I still have enough of my wits about me to edit. Why don't you reply to my comments below at "Biased narratives posing as reliably-sourced factual text" rather than answering for @DanielRigal as though you were his factotum? Quis separabit? 14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If you insist on referring to the subject of a WP article, on the talk page about that article, using an r/The_Donald/ faux-name then yeah, you are POV-pushing, existential threat or no. Concerning your new section, I will wade in after others have done so - I am not a factotum (and don't reply on anyone else's behalf), but I do prefer to see the lay of the swamp before entering. Newimpartial (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If the "faux name" you are referring to is "Anti-First Amendment", I don't think it matters since I am using that name on this talk page not in the article itself. So, stop looking for trivial reasons to avoid the grist of the matter. Quis separabit? 14:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but the "grist of the matter" here is your POV-pushing, of which your chosen neologism serves as an elegant indicator. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the "elegant" but I am not POV-pushing. I was boldly trying to remove text which I consider to be non-neutral, weaselly, POV, and synthetic. And, as per BRD, we are now in the third phase, after bold and revert, which, I know you know, is "discuss". As far as " Concerning your new section, I will wade in after others have done so", no one has done so, why not jump in the swamp and get things moving. Quis separabit? 15:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the phase is called "discuss", not "signal one's POV through wordplay and caricature". Though I must admit, I was quite pleased with "Unite the white" when I came up with it all on my own. :p Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I also agree. This article in Buzzfeed[6] is interesting. Despite the fact it uses randomly words such as organisations, groups and chapters to describe various groups (sometimes calling something a group and an organisation), it makes it clear that it's a movement " antifa barely qualify as a group, and lack any sort of central command. Under that veneer of coherence, however, antifa remains more chaos than movement, and not just because its adherents tend to resist authority on principle. It is divided by geography, ideology, and history, less focused and coherent than the other great (and sometimes also chaotic) movement of the recent left, Black Lives Matter." It describes various groups, some of which aren't actually Antifa but support them in various ways, and says that they don't always use Black bloc tactics. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller -- that is nonsense. Anti-First Amendment is clearly established, in communication via social media and well-synchronized, with at least sufficient funding to carry on its activities. I believe it has been categorized as a domestic terrorist group by the DOJ but I will need to get a reliable reflink for that last part. Quis separabit? 13:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that as it hasn't happened and I don't believe the DOJ classifies groups, not that this is a group. Movements certainly communicate through social media, but that doesn't make them an organisation. "Funding to carry on its activities"? You think they travel around in limos and get their black bloc gear tailor made? Doug Weller talk 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller -- I acknowledge its overhead is low but everything comes down to money and it requires funds to operate like anything else. I don't know why the AG/DOJ would not have the authority or interest in labeling Anti-First Amendment a domestic terrorist group, which is what it is. No one is going to wait for the SPLC to do so. Quis separabit? 14:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Civil liberties issues I believe. And the last left-wing terrorist group I can think of was the Weathermen. If Antifa starts bombing building, that will qualify as terrorism. I'm not sure that the SPLC labels any groups as terrorist groups, although they do discuss terrorist activities. But their focus is on groups that hate or terrorise ethnic minorities, etc. I'm sure you don't think that racists and anti-semites fall into those categories. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"But their focus is on groups that hate or terrorise ethnic minorities, etc. I'm sure you don't think that racists and anti-semites fall into those categories." -- Who are the minorities? In many parts of the United States, whites [Caucasians as some say] are in the minority. Obviously Republicans and conservatives are in the minority at Berkeley and in fact in almost all of academia, and Silicon Valley, and in Hollywood. Minority grouping is usually not fixed and unchanging; on the contrary, it is often quite dynamic and can be seen in increments. Maybe you should reconsider your position. Quis separabit? 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Are Republicans and conservatives an ethnic minority? If that is your claim, I would love to see the reliable sourcing behind that. :) Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, they are a political minority, at least in the milieux I mentioned above (academia, Silicon Valley, Hollywood). Actually, they are a minority, numerically, among many "ethnic" groups (blacks and Latinos, most notably). Are ethnic minorities the only minorities worthy of protection? What about LGBTQ+ -- not an ethnic group, per se -- against whose "enemies" the SPLC has taken a very hard-line indeed. Quis separabit? 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the difference there is that Republicans chose to be Republicans, while all the others had no choice, they were born that way. That's a really big difference. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Gabriel syme -- I assume you are unaware of how offensive and obnoxious and ignorant the comment you just made was. So people are to be persecuted and have their rights taken away because of their political beliefs, and we are not talking only about certain radicals who represent only the extremist fringe but members of a party extant since the 19th-century, and other dissidents from the current PC orthodoxy who are persecuted at schools, especially college and university campuses across the nation. And yes, even more extreme ideologies and their speech, even "hate speech", are protected by the First Amendment, but not any criminal conduct in which they elect to participate, something Anti First-Amendmenters and their enablers refuse to acknowledge. As far as "while all the others had no choice, they were born that way. That's a really big difference", that does not include the LGBTQ+ers, whose non-binary and non-normative and gender-fluid identities are remarkably elastic. They cannot be included with the others, although they have more clout than any other group -- special interest or otherwise. Quis separabit? 01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, I'm not sure what was rude or obnoxious about my reply. Those gender fluid identities didn't choose to be born gender fluid. That was genetics. The fact that hate speech is protected by law here in the US is deplorable but true, make note that most other developed nations have laws against it. Also note that in the US, your political affiliation is not protected from discrimination by the federal government. That being said, reading through your comments on this page again, I have to say that I'm going to bow out at this point and cease engaging with you. It's just not productive for the project, your interactions here are often quite disruptive and borderline uncivil. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, given how real the violence against LGBTQ+ people is, I don't see the need for square quotes for "enemies". I had only been in Alabama for a few years when this happened. I don't know what "line" the SPLC took against his two killers, and I doubt that the word "line" would even be appropriate here. But that's all by the by, maybe. I assume you know that transgenders are the new target for many ... well, use whatever word you like. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies -- It's sad that you [seem to] think I am a gay basher. I actually live an alternate lifestyle, albeit one not much given much attention. Let's just say Janeane Garofalo is a fellow traveller down the same road, albeit I am pretty sure her experiences are different than mine. Didn't wanna go there but ... whatever. Gay bashings still occur (and not only in hick or Southern red states) -- as do knockout games against whites, anti-Semitic assaults, sexual assaults, and lies about same, and many other injustices -- but the fact is that the LGBTQ+ community has gone from being the marginalized and discriminated group that I remember from my youth to an incredibly politically powerful international community which can summon some of the most powerful individuals, oligarchs, and corporations to its will (Comcast, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Apple, Facebook, etc ... and let's not even mention social media, mainstream media, academia, NFL, ESPN, Hollywood, Broadway, and Wall Street) to threaten economic nuclear winter against states (Georgia, North Carolina) which have social policies with which they disagree, or have the SPLC (net worth = $300 million +) lay legal siege, bringing devastating legal costs and fees, thus usually forcing a favorable settlement.

HIV/AIDS receives more funding and attention than any other disease and it is no longer the death sentence it once was, unlike, say pancreatic cancer.

As Lord Acton put it, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". If you think Antifa is some kind of socially responsible version of Hell's Angels without wheels, dedicated to protecting the "underdog" (although as David Frum pointed out in an essay regarding Garry Trudeau and the latter's post-Charlie Gebdo comments or lack thereof, discerning who is the underdog is often not as simple as it may seem), then you are sadly mistaken. Whatever Antifa's intentions are, rest assured (unless you're a member and maybe not even then), you have no idea what lies beneath the tip of that iceberg. Quis separabit? 01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where all this came from. I'm not going to address the right-wing rhetoric and the misrepresentation of lots of things, including the power of "the gays"; this is not a forum, and it's not the "enemies" of the gays that are being oppressed. DYK that the SPLC leadership is under constant police protection because their lives are still threatened? I merely pointed out that putting scare quotes around "enemies" is just really silly. It's like white people crying "racism" when someone proposes renaming the Robert E. Lee high school. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it's safe to say you folks are even discussing Antifa anymore. This has gone past the point of a mere digression, and arguably does not belong on the article talk page. In general, I'm against deletion, even for off-topic conversation threads, but let's try to stay on topic, please. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller "In 2012, as many as 18 Antifas from Bloomington, Indiana, the University of Indiana's college town, busted into a family restaurant in Tinley Park, Illinois, a southern suburb of Chicago, because they heard a meeting of a tiny organization called the Illinois European Heritage Association. Unprovoked, the men smashed up the restaurant and attacked diners and employees, including those with absolutely no connection to the European Heritage Association lunch with clubs, crowbars, and batons. Only five of the assailants were ever caught and charged. Not one snitched on his fellow Antifas, and all served several years in prison. They are still regarded as heroes in the Antifa community, known as the Tinley Park Five". Quis separabit? 13:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing you got that from Breitbart. There were no "Antifas" then. They were members of Anti-Racist Action (ARA) and the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (HARM). Contemporary sources say the victims were members of the Heritage Association, not that the attacks, which were indeed very violent, were indiscriminate.[7][8] The Torch Network grew is to some extent a successor as it was formed by at least one of them.[9] But the movement is defined by Torch, even though someone from Torch (I think, maybe not} tried to take over this article at one point. But seriously, this is off-topic, please don't use this page as a forum. There's no need to discuss this further. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Biased narratives posing as reliably-sourced factual text

In addition to == Amazing how biased the intro is == with which I agree, this diff should more clearly illustrate how biased text and syntheses have become part of the article's structure. They must be removed even if that means the deck of cards comes tumbling down. Quis separabit? 13:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• a) "They focus more on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideology directly than on encouraging pro-left policy." -- THIS IS CLEARLY A SYNTHETIC AND BIASED ANALYSIS. Antifa violence in Boston and its threats against Republicans in Portland, Oregon, had NOTHING to do with far-right and white supremacist ideology, and everything to do with, respectively, its assault on the First Amendment, and with its de facto partisan politics. Quis separabit? 13:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• b) "The salient feature of Antifa is to oppose fascism by direct action." -- this also is in blatant violation of POV, weaselry because it takes for granted that whomever or whatever Antifa claims is fascism, an entirely subjective term under these circumstances, is, in fact, fascism or neo-fascism. Talk about not throwing stones at glass houses. Again, as above, "Antifa attacks in Antifa violence in Boston and its threats against Republicans in Portland, Oregon, had NOTHING to do with far-right and white supremacist ideology," And partisan-minded editors attempting to navigate this ideologically inflamed topic who cede to one of the main belligerents the right to define and describe its opponents or enemies have deviated from the principles upon which Wikipedia was founded. Quis separabit? 14:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with almost everything you've said (both here and above), but I do share your discomfort with the sentence "The salient feature of Antifa is to oppose fascism by direct action" as I agree that "fascism" is a potentially ambiguous category. A post of mine above (#Rose City Antifa quote, 00:26, 11 September 2017), and Doug Weller's post above that, might suggest an alternative, specifically the quote "Most members oppose all forms of racism and sexism, and strongly oppose what they see as the nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies that Mr Trump has enacted." Using something like that to explain more precisely what Antifa mean by "fascism" might be useful. What do you think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts @DanielRigal @Drmies @Doug Weller : Sorry, I just got back. In re "Most members oppose all forms of racism and sexism, and [strongly -- this adverb is questionable] oppose what they see as the nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies that Mr Trump has enacted", NO, that is NOT acceptable at all for reasons which will become clear in the next few sentences. Rather, how about, "Most members oppose what they view as racism and sexism, and oppose what they see as nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies they believe President Trump has tried to enact." Quis separabit? 01:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The quote beginning "Most members oppose" and including "Mr Trump" is a direct quotation from this BBC article. Apologies for not making that clear. We obviously can't use it verbatim except as an attributed quote, in which case we would obviously keep "Mr Trump". I share Bobfrombrockley's scepticism (see below) toward "what they view as" etc., which in this case would seem to be a misrepresentation of the source – the BBC article says "all forms of racism and sexism", not "what they see as forms of racism and sexism". See my comment below (with the same timestamp as this one) on the kind of thing I think we ought to use. (I'm also completely mystified by your use of HTML comments in the above – is there some reason why you don't want those parts of your post to be visible to people reading the page?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good, although it's pretty clear that 'fascism' no longer means what it meant in the 40s. As for Portland, there are two issues. One is that one of the articles states that the emails weren't identified as coming from Antifa. The other is that it wasn't Republicans that were being targetted, it was the "Known members of neo-nazi and anti immigrant hate groups" and people like Allen Wesley Pucket who is a Trump supporter and Portland street preacher known for his violence.[10] These groups were hijacking a non-political event. But this is an aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to see that it was possible to struggle towards a bit of an agreement on some of the wording here despite an unpromising start. I think that maybe this shows a good approach. Rather than try to reshape the whole article, maybe it is better if people say what they want to do with specific parts and why. The why is as important at the what because other people might want to agree with the reason improvement is needed but have alternative suggestions for a solution. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I am also glad to see consensus emerging despite disagreement, but I am not convinced by the "Most members oppose what they view as racism and sexism" type description. It is not opposition to sexism or to anti-Muslim policies that are the defining features of antifa movements; opposition (including direct action) to what they call fascism is the defining feature. Of course, "fascism" is a blurry, contested term, but this is the central thing. I'm also unconvinced about the mention of President Trump. There are mainstream media articles which don't seem able to distinguish between demonstrations against the president and demonstrations against the far right, or between antifa and black bloc, but we should be a bit more careful in this. And finally I am unconvinced about too much use of phrases like "what they see as". Although I understand why we might want to use them, it can make articles pretty impossible to write: there is no universal consensus about what terms like racism, sexism, nationalism, fascism, etc mean, so all uses of them are effectively "what they see as". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what I had in mind was something like "Members oppose fascism, which most understand to encompass racism, sexism, nationalism and anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment." That way we make clear that fascism is what's being opposed, as well as giving an idea of what "fascism" means in this context. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree and appreciate the lines which you are exploring for improving the article. 'which most understand to encompass..' gets to the heart of it. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I also appreciate the general lines you're taking, and I definitely prefer this wording to earlier versions, but I still disagree with what you're saying most understand it to encompass. I've taken a look at the three most prominent and representative Antifa groups' websites' "About" pages. NYC Antifa: Since 2010, NYC Antifa has been dedicated to research on, and action against, fascist cultural and political organizing in New York City.[11] Rose City Antifa: We oppose fascist organizing in physical, cultural, and political spaces through direct action, education, and solidarity.[12] The TORCH network: The Torch Network is a network of Militant antifascists across (but not limited to) the united states. We are born out of, and pay our respects to, the Anti-Racist Action Network. We are dedicated to confronting fascism and other element of oppression. We believe in direct action.[13] So, clearly, the distinctive feature is opposing fascism, including by direct action, and not President Trump or other general left-wing stuff. As noted above (by Doug?), on two of the sites there is then a discussion of  what they mean by "fascism", here and here. Those descriptions are a long way off from "encompassing racism, sexism, nationalism and anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment". Instead, they foreground ultra-nationalism, militarism, glorification of leaders, basically all the stuff that scholars tend to highlight when they define fascism (see Definitions of fascism). If we feel the need to say what it is seen to encompass, can't we paraphrase these pages? Also (sorry to go on) but the source for the sexism/racism quote is the BBC,[14] which I'll quote again in full, but with added emphasis: Most members oppose all forms of racism and sexism, and strongly oppose what they see as the nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies that Mr Trump has enacted. However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy. I take that to mean the individual members are generally lefty, but as antifa their priority is fighting the far right, i.e. the second sentence is the salient and defining feature, not the first. Does that make sense? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with a lot of this. The problem really is that drawing extensively on groups' claims about themselves, rather than on independent reliable sources, seems to run counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:OR and probably other policies and guidelines. Perhaps something like "Members oppose fascism, which most understand as encompassing <ultra-nationalism, militarism, etc. as above>, as well as <racism, sexism, etc. per the BBC ref>"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to smooth the lead out a little, as it was very repetitive and lumpy, but I have not touched the sentence under discussion here. However, I am very happy with this Arms & Hearts suggestion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why

The cited source is obviously an opinion piece, hence /lifestyle being in the URL. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's actually not the way sourcing works - you can't reason from the URL to it being an "opinion" piece. It isn't an editorial.

Reverted pending discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion relates to this revert I think? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_%28United_States%29&type=revision&diff=800592186&oldid=800591466 I agree with Newimpartial. Article is an "Everything you need to know" piece, not an opinion piece, in a reputable UK newspaper, which will have fact-checked it.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Folks, I pulled that ref directly from the lead in Milo Yiannopoulos. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is opinion, the header alone shows it is opinion, restore it again and ANI is the next fucking stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources for this, and it's been discussed at talk:Milo Yiannopoulos a brain-frying number of times as well. Do we really need to citekill this? Grayfell (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can find some which are not opinion, more power to ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial and Bobfrombrockley that the article is not really an opinion piece, but disagree that the Evening Standard is a particularly reputable paper – on political matters it's a small step above the red tops, but quite a long way below the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Times etc. I think the best solution is here is simply to find another, better source associating Yiannopoulos with the alt-right: for example, BBC (1, 2), Daily Beast, New Yorker, Forward, and no doubt many more. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's three more sources in my latest rv. Can we stop talking as if this is controversial at this point? AlexEng^(TALK) 20:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

And all are opinion, post your next try here, and quit with violating BLP, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

None of them are opinion pieces. Is it possible you're struggling to understand what opinion piece means? The Newsweek article even states: "Below Newsweek profiles them." This is a piece written on behalf of Newsweek. It is subject to editorial control and is not solely the opinion of the author. It is not an op-ed. Unless you're proposing that every piece with an author (read: every piece) in a major news source is an opinion piece, you don't have a leg to stand on. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Arms & Hearts that there are better sources than the Standard, though it's fair way above the red tops. Of AlexEng's 3 sources, the weakest is perhaps the NRO one, but the Newsweek one in particuar is absolutely not a opinion piece at all, and there are literally thousands of reliable sources saying the same thing (NY Daily News: "controversial alt-right leader"; Daily Mail: "Alt-right poster boy"; BBC: "alt-right writer and provocateur"; news.com.au: "Alt-right star"; etc etc etc). Let's put this conversation to bed now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This Breitbart link (PRESS template)

E.M.Gregory, I love you like a brother, and I'm proud to call you "comrade" in our ongoing struggle, but Breitbart is not a news organization, and the article is not a valid piece of investigative journalism. In other words, there is nothing "routine" about it, and in effect what you're doing is advertising the disruptive efforts of a banned editor who can't let go of Wikipedia (and is now probably getting ready for the next exposé, starring yours truly, haha). Seriously, if you want to make this stick, go by RSN, and then start an RfC on this talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I brought the question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Did you see the recent history? Someone is mad cause I didn't invite them to my birthday--and I didn't even throw a party! Drmies (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Flags again

I am a bit unsure about this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=next&oldid=800768378 Isn't this original research? Is there a source saying the black flag on the antifa logo is specifically anarchist and the red flag is the red flag in the Red flag (politics) article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If anybody can find a good reference to support it then it would be OK but without a reference it falls in-between original research and just over-describing what the picture shows and should be removed. There is also a similar mention in the caption of another image lower down where the flags are the other way round. We should handle both cases consistently. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)