Talk:Antifa (United States)

Issues (June, 2023)

Political Position

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

Extremist wing

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

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Arms & Hearts

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

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

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

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

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

@Arms & Hearts

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

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

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

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

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

@Arms & Hearts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Simonm223

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Btw, is Reuteurs reliable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Dimadick

Is the Public Broadcasting Service reliable?

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

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

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

@Dimadick

Do you think these sources are okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

The source says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over-reliance on Klein as source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last sentence of the included quote:

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

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

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

The CREST Research, p. 34:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CREST Research, p. 34:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little mention of actions against mainstream conservatives

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

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

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

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

brain damage inducing assaults

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tautology

Saying "it is nonviolent insofar as it does not use violence" is a nonsensical tautology. Red Slapper (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)