Talk:Antifa (United States)

RfC: antifa and terrorism

Which of the following is preferable treatment of this Politico source with respect to terrorism?

• Option A (status quo): By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism.
• Option B: DHS and FBI intelligence assessments indicated monitoring of antifa protesters before the 2016 elections. By 2017, DHS had formally classified antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence".
• Option C: Exclude both of the above.
• Option D: Per Politico, by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.
• Option E: ???

R2 (bleep) 17:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Option C The statement by Politico has not been verified by any outside source, it's also something of a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim considering the number of people killed by antifascist action in the US since the beginning of the Trump presidency. As such, it has no WP:DUE weight. Furthermore, it is a WP:COATRACK statement to create the erroneous idea that antifascist activity is widely regarded as analogous to terrorism. Simply put, the Politico statement is a perfect example of why WP:NOTNEWS is important to the project - journalistic sources may occasionally be useful, but they often come with biases toward the sensational over the factual. This appears to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B or D Politico is considering a reliable source and the claims are not "extraordinary". Strong opposition to C. Galestar (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B We follow the WP:RSs like Politico, and do not WP:CENSOR just because a Wikipedian thinks that 0 people have been killed by antifascist action in the US since the beginning of a presidency. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that what I "think" is wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is specifically about content considered to be "objectionable or offensive‍". I don't think anybody has objected to the inclusion of these claims on anything approaching those grounds, and I don't think you really believe that anyone has. The policy is expressly not about material that runs counter to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or is believed to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option D I say mention the terrorism allegation, but attribute it to Politico per WP:REDFLAG. I have some issue stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice given the silence of other reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) --Despite having drafted Option D (rather poorly, I adimt), I have been swayed by many of the arguments here that given some combination of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, the best course is to keep this claim out. Therefore Option C. Apologies for both my flightiness and poor drafting. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid, would you care to draft some language, add it as a new Option D, and create a new Option E as ??? R2 (bleep) 19:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, I thought I'd run it by you here first, but I would want something like,

Per Politico, by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.

I think it's important to note the Politico report, but we also have to say that it's kind of murky. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option C Per WP:REDFLAG, we should not make include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." This story has mostly been picked up in the "echo chamber" of unreliable websites and no one else appears to have seen these secret documents. At most it could only be mentioned with in text attribution saying it was a claim made in Politico not an established fact. TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The story was picked up and cited approvingly by Newsweek, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and The Hill. Hardly an echo chamber of unreliable websites. R2 (bleep) 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I said mostly. It haven't seen the story reported in cable or network news (except Fox) or American quality newspapers. That seems to me that they put little credit in the story or think it is unimportant, both of which are reasons to exclude it. TFD (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option D Attribution might be a better alternative that Option B. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B This is reliably sourced factual content. It's highly significant, and the story was picked up by other reliable sources such as Newsweek, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and The Hill. Option B reflects the source; Options A and D do not. I would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant when it published that antifa's activities were "formally designated" as domestic terrorism. Alas they didn't; but that doesn't mean we should exclude this important information, or add unsourced commentary. R2 (bleep) 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As was explained to you above, the Politico source specifically says that The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public. I'm baffled that you could think that your preferred version is backed by that source while omitting that key aspect, or that you could muse about how you "would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant" while leaving out the one key clarification that the source you're trying to use provides. Without that clarification, you are misusing the source, meaning that B is not a workable option, fullstop - even if you think the source is worth including, you must summarize all of it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per Simonm and TFD. Alternatively, if anything is to be included it should be Option D. That way readers are aware of the full context behind the statement.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option D Except that I'd drop the final sentence unless that final sentence can be sourced. I think attribution is warranted here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like that last sentence either (and I wrote it!), but it feels wrong to leave the "classification" out there as if it were a well-understood and known thing. I'm still mulling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Without additional good sources, I favour Option C or Option A. Options B and D are both absolutely unacceptable based on a single source which is quite likely to be mistaken or mispeaking. We have nothing from the DHS to corroborate the vague claims made by the single source. This is hearsay at best. If a DHS classification list did exist then we can be absolutely certain that other sources would have covered it too. The fact that there is only one source for this claim very strongly suggests that is mistaken. Option B simply gives credence to the unreliable claim and is unacceptable. Option D is its weird, nervous cousin. It makes the claim and then partially walks it back with a caveat that is unsourced editorialising. This is weaselly. Both options B and D are also worded incorrectly by saying "Antifa's activities" which suggests an organisation with agency. Antifa is not an organisation. In short options B and D are both dumpster fires and would need to be reworded even if we had sufficient sources to support what they are trying to say. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, I am now leaning more towards C than A. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option B or D Seems to be the most reasonable description. I do not think D is necessary but would be okay with it as a compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• OPTION A - nothing new has occurred to shift the long-standing text on the 2017 tidbit. I’m thinking it should have been attributed to Politico back when as that seems the source, but the option D goes into an unacceptable too much ‘unclear what that means’ and meanwhile keeping it the same seems OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option D: Its only one sources claim.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B (invited by the bot) if you can find a second source for that, otherwise A or D. BTW you have a structural problem with this RFC as currently arranged. Roughly speaking the "include" sentiment is divided between three options (A,B,D),and the exclude sentiment not divided and all in C. A fix would be combine results from A,B & D into a "include at least a little bit" sentiment.

Agreed re:structural issue. Galestar (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option C - What we have is an issue where an "anonymous DHS employee" provided Politico with documents they claimed classified "antifa" as a terrorist organization. DHS has refused to comment publicly, and there has been no further corroboration of the story. I don't doubt the Politico reporter was shown documents by someone in DHS, but whether those documents were legitimate or provided out-of-context is very unclear. Reliable sources can make mistakes or be fed misinformation, so without further corroboration, I don't think it's due weight to include this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C, or, failing that, A. Strong oppose to B and D; both are both completely unacceptable - they misrepresent the source by giving the impression that the DHS publicly made that designation, which numerous sources (including the Politico article itself) specifically say it did not. Even with proper wording, it would be WP:UNDUE - this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim with very little coverage relative to what you'd expect if it was worth including, and at this point it's clear that the story went nowhere and doesn't really say anything meaningful about the topic; dredging up, essentially, a two-year-old article that failed to gain traction doesn't make sense. But the wording proposed in both B and D completely misrepresents the source in a way that makes them flatly unusable as written. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option D or B - Option D, preferably without the last sentence, unless it can be sourced. Mcrt007 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose B as it states something as fact that cannot be verified and as has been pointed out above suggests that it was a public statement rather than something coming from anonymous sources. Strongly oppose D for the reasons given by DanielRigal and Aquillion and of course the last sentence isn't sourced. Strongly opposed A because it's wrong. The FBI and DHS did not report anything. Anonymous figures within those organisation told, not reported, Politico various things. Which leaves me Support C unless someone comes up with reliable sources other than Politico. If WP:UNDUE applies anywhere, it applies here. Note that I am not supporting terrorism. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per Doug Weller et al. Sources really don't back up the Politico story, and the whole things smells rotten to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C as above. Just don't see the sourcing for such a label. O3000 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per Doug Weller and others. We need context from reliable sources before passing this on, and we shouldn't be intentionally including confusing details just because we can find a flimsy source. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C - A single anonymously-sourced claim reported in a single source doesn't appear to merit any weight here, particularly given the inflammatory context of the word "terrorist." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C - per Doug Weller.--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C - From the news, it is clear that Antifa does have a tendency towards violence, and if the DHS equates "violence" with "terrorism", the source may even be telling the truth. The problem is that most people don't equate "violence" with "terrorism." To most people, "terrorism" denotes random attacks, with murderous intent, on disfavored groups of people, such as 9/11, truck bombings, the Mazatlan or Hasan Nidal shootings, etc. That's quite different from Antifa's preferred form of violence, which appears to be relatively low-level violence, such as thrown objects or nonfatal beatings, against individuals it doesn't like. It's not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend it is.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Terrorism is defined slightly differently by various major institutions in the US. The Department of State defines it (approximately) as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f). The Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political." More US definitions: here. Mcrt007 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• The term used is "domestic terrorism," which as defined much more narrowly by the U.S. government, and would not include this incident. TFD (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option C - per a gross lack of addtional, stronger sourcing failing WP:V for an exceptional claim. The fact that it was all reported as an internal discussion with no further clarifications means policies are against its inclusion. Goverment agency internal discussions usually can generate all kinds of wild shit out of sheer ineptitude alone, we're not going to list them until an official statement is made. Option B and D are completely unacceptable for we're going to be responsible for another citogenesis incident. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 04:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I had not heard the term citogenesis before but I was aware that this is a thing that can happen. I am pretty sure that I have seen deliberate attempts to trigger it on this article and several others. It is good to have a name for it. In a post-truth world, editing Wikipedia can feel like a step towards editing reality itself. We need to take a tough line on this in order to discourage a pipeline that runs along the lines of: Unsupported assertion from an anonymous source -> Credulous journalist -> One RS source -> Wikipedia -> Other RS sources via Wikipedia -> Perceived truth. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option C - per User:Doug Weller.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C cytogenesis concerns appear to be very real... Not currently convinced by any of the arguments for inclusion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per Doug Weller's reasoning. Strong oppose to A, B, and D, none of which accurately reflect the source. An accurate sentence would begin, "Anonymous sources told Politico that..." and of course any sentence that begins like that and ends with an accusation of terrorism would be UNDUE. – Levivich 17:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option D without the last sentence: This information has been reported by several reliable sources and is clearly relevant. The claim that this information is somehow exceptional is wrong; on the contrary this classification isn't much of a novelty compared to how this movement has long been classified elsewhere. Antifa, as the term is understood in Europe where it originated, is a loose movement traditionally affiliated with "anti-imperialist" communism ("imperialist" meaning the U.S./NATO/the western world); as such it was seen as a threat to national security in countries like the Federal Republic of Germany. The "Antifa" movement has long been classified as "extremist" and "violent" in German government reports, and is monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the agency tasked with matters of domestic extremism and terrorism, as openly stated on their website and in their public reports on extremism. This is the main definition of Antifa/"anti-fascism" published by the federal office:

Das Aktionsfeld „Antifaschismus“ ist seit Jahren ein zentrales Element der politischen Arbeit von Linksextremisten, insbesondere aus dem gewaltorientierten Spektrum. Die Aktivitäten von Linksextremisten in diesem Aktionsfeld zielen aber nur vordergründig auf die Bekämpfung rechtsextremistischer Bestrebungen. Im eigentlichen Fokus steht der Kampf gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung, die als „kapitalistisches System“ diffamiert wird, und deren angeblich immanente „faschistische“ Wurzeln beseitigt werden sollen. [The field of "anti-fascism" has for years been a central element of the political activity of far-left extremists, especially violent ones. Far-left extremists within this tradition only superficially claim to fight far-right activities. In reality the focus is the struggle against liberal democracy, which is smeared as a "capitalist system" with "fascist" roots.] ("Aktionsfeld „Antifaschismus“", published by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution)

In order to understand what the term has come to mean, especially in Europe, one has to remember that for decades, the Soviet Union daily used the word "fascism" to describe the western world and "anti-fascism" to describe the Soviet struggle against the western world (the official name of the Berlin Wall being one of countless examples: "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart"); as a result "anti-fascism" and "Antifa" took on a specific meaning, unrelated to historical fascism (even social democrats were for years smeared as "fascists" by the Soviets and their supporters).

The decades-long established official view of the German government on "Antifa" really isn't very much different from what is now reported to be the American government's view on this movement. This is particularly significant since the German government is often regarded as the antithesis to Trump these days. (As most people know, I'm not at all a supporter of Donald Trump, but we should evaluate the relevance of this piece of information based on its merits rather than an automatic rejection of everything the Trump administration does.) --Tataral (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• With all due respect, is American Antifa really the same thing? Are they just adopting a common moniker? I am not sure (though I am far from an expert) that we can really rely on prior or geographically disparate experience here. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that the majority of Americans involved in loose "Antifa" groups in the U.S. have a full understanding of the history of the term/movement in Europe and all its connotations, but on the other hand they have adopted the name and symbols and professed goals of this historical movement from Europe. Regardless, it's noteworthy if the U.S. government considers them to be "domestic terrorists". My main point above was that this isn't very exceptional when the German government has called the similarly named movement in Germany "extremists" and "violent", and monitored them in that context, for decades. --Tataral (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow -your arguments on this rfc are by far the most insightful. Thank you, Tataral! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Option D - per verifiable reports in RS, such as The Independent, and Politico ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose option C and support the last sentence of option D. The rest of it should be mentioned, but worded in a way that appropriatly expresses the uncertainty. I'm somewhat indifferent to the precise wording. Benjamin (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C per reasoning by Simonm223. If one or two additional RS, that were not simply précis' of the original Politico article, could be presented then it could be revisited. Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option C Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option D per multiple WP:RS Loganmac (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There's only one independent WP:RS - other sources are citing the Politico article and don't constitute independent sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option B There is a source. Lets not over think this. We have seen numerous cases in which ANTIFA organize to create mayhem and terrorise their political opponents. They frequently talk about using violence against people who hold other ideologies Jeff1948a (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• It's an inappropriate use of WP:NOTCENSORED to argue against the application of WP:FRINGE. The idea that a loose ideological grouping which have killed no people in political violence is considered terrorists by the state without any such indication from the state is the very definition of a WP:FRINGE statement, and the fact that it showed up in Politico should be making people doubt the reliability of Politico, rather than lending credence to this fringe nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Simonm223, there may be an angle to this that you're missing. The fact that a group of people has been labeled as terrorists by the government doesn't mean they are terrorists. This is especially true in this administration, which lacks credibility across the board. I think this story is comparable to other instances in which the federal government has targeted non-terrorist groups as terrorists, for example here. The fact that the Trump administration is targeting left-wing groups is plausible, even likely, and highly significant. It's consistent with Trump's "both sides" rhetoric. And the fact that they would publicly deny it is totally unsurprising to me. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't believe the terrorism claims warrant any coverage on Wikipedia. They're the patently false delusions of the far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does, see WP:RGW and WP:NPOV. I don't care who you love or hate, but this page is not for defending terrorists. wumbolo ^^^ 19:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You've lost me Wumbolo, but the purpose of my comment above is to try to bring us toward a consensus, and I don't know if your response helps in that respect. I don't think anyone here is loving or hating or defending terrorists. R2 (bleep) 19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm also lost, but about the comment about a group of people being labeled as terrorists. R2 I agree with you about credibility, but where were they labelled as terrorists. Wumbolo's post seems an attack on editors who disagree with him. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when asking for reliable sources gets you labeled a friend of terrorists. So which, laugh or cry? Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug, according to the Politico source, Antifa's activities were labeled as domestic terrorism. In my view this is somewhat akin other left-wing groups that the feds have added to terrorist watch lists in the past, like Greenpeace or PETA. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo I'd remind you of WP:NOTFORUM your belief in imaginary leftist terrorists is irrelevant to whether this is a violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone actually described a terrorist act or even planned terrorist act about whomever Antifa is supposed to be. Otherwise, I go with Option E. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but don't believe there's any evidence antifa has ever engaged in any sort of terrorism. But that doesn't seem to be a basis for ignoring this significant development, which, in my view, reflects more on the federal government than it does on antifa. R2 (bleep) 22:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Objectcive3000, but we also have Politico, which might not be a top-tier RS, but I'd say is B+, making a significant claim. I think it definitely merits inclusion, but also needs context to make sure it doesn't veer into WP:UNDUE. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I look askance at declarations from this gov't. I suggest we wait a tad and see what comes of this. My own opinion, which is irrelevant, is that antifa is a disconnected bunch of drunken, pissed off assholes with nothing better to do. But, I was wrong when I missed the fun in 1789 at the Bastille. O3000 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't breaking news. 2017. FWIW these weren't "declarations" by the government. This was investigative reporting using multiple sources and documents. R2 (bleep) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)*

• Your version still carries the implication that they have been publicly designated as domestic terrorism, when the source specifically says otherwise. I'm baffled that you can continue to make that mistake despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you. I don't think the source passes WP:DUE at all, but your consistent insistence on misreading it in a way that makes it seem more dramatic and important than it actually is only undermines your arguments for inclusion, since it seems like an implicit acknowledgement that once the The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public bit is included in the summary (as it would have to be, in any version we put in the article), the whole thing becomes a nothingburger not worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dumuzid I don't know what is meant by "formally designating" something as domestic terrorism, but I suspect it has something to do with this. There was a DHS office that tracked domestic terrorists, and according to the reporting there might still be one. R2 (bleep) 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, and I also suspect that maybe the journalist phrased it in a way that the source might not have; all that said, it's still just...terribly unclear! So it goes. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Do we have anything other than an unconfirmed story almost two years old, not mentioned in any of the major mainstream news outlets and with zero followup? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This was exactly the point I was about to make. The "concerns" highlighted in the Politico article amounted to precisely nothing. There was no sign of widespread coverage at the time, and none since. More likely is that it was useful for the Trump administration to portray Antifa in an unfavorable light at the time, statements were made by government officials to that effect, and Politico and a couple of other Beltway media organs lazily reported them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And what are these acts of domestic terrorism they are supposed to have carried out? The Weather Underground article says the FBI considered them a terrorist group, then outlines various terrorist actions they carried out such as bombing the Capitol, the Pentagon and various other U.S. government installations. I haven't seen any coverage of antifa carrying out these sorts of attacks. On would expect that Politico's article would at least explain the reasons for the label, if in fact their story is accurate. TFD (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well you see, someone who might or might not have been a member of an antifascist group threw a milkshake at a racist blogger, and that's exactly the same as what the Weather Underground got up to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a plain violation of BLP to call Ngo a racist blogger without providing RS to that effect. Also, they didn't just throw a milkshake at him; they sucker-punched him in the head, repeatedly kicked him. Then they threw something that looks like milshakes on him. He had to go to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a brain hemorrhage. Relatedly, here is a video of Antifa smashing private property and terrorizing people: [1]. There are, of course, many other examples of this sort of behavior. It's very surprising that people are acting like we've never seen this sort of thing from Antifa. Obviously both 'antifa' and 'terror' are going to be disputed words. But we have RS reporting something about this dispute, and with attribution it seems clearly to be due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why have you posted a video from an anti-Trump demonstration in January 2017 (see DisruptJ20) in a discussion about an entirely unrelated anti-fascist demonstration in June 2019? Neither the video nor the description anywhere mentions "Antifa". Are you confused or are you actively trying to mislead people? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The video was relevant to the question whether Antifa has committed acts of terror, which was also under discussion. I figured some would deny that the black clad "protestors" in the video were Antifa. The matter is disputed. In my opinion, the existence of this dispute is part of why the Politco report is worthy of incusion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean finding examples of academics talking about Quillette pushing a bias in articles on race is a trivial task. Quillette is a racist blog. Ngo writes for a racist blog with articles under his byline including this one and this one. Basically quack quack. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say he writes for a racist blog; you said he's a racist. That's a violation of BLP. An opinion piece in Arcdigital is not RS for such a claim. Quillette is not a blog. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia describes Quillette as an online magazine, not a blog, but I can't find any description for "arcdigital" which seems to be an obscure (Medium hosted) blog with only 1500 followers. Nicholas Grossman, the author of the article you linked to, seems to be an academic, in the so-called Political Sciences field but he has virtually zero citations and peer-reviewed research. He laments the Quillette article pushes "bad Social Science" - that's quite likely, especially since the entire Social Science field is full of junk research and bad statistics which affect (though to a lesser degree) even so-called "top-studies" like those peer-reviewed and published in the highest impact "science magazines" (Nature & Science) where less than 1% of "researchers" active in the field get to publish. The argument of "pushing a bias in an article" can easily be used against any publication which chooses to publish this kind of research, statistically week or, even worse, invalidated by future experiments (even for Science magazine) if the qualification criteria is just pointing to an anecdote (e.g.: an article presenting what could be junk statistical findings). Mcrt007 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: This is not a "dispute", it's a clear-cut case of someone drawing connections that are not only original research but also straightforwardly false. You're either not possessed of sufficient grasp of the factual issues to provide anything of worth to this discussion, or you're not attempting to provide anything of worth, but rather to soapbox and distract from the question at hand. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It. Is. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think this is one we're going to reach any sort of agreement on. Though I hate invoking it (because I think it very much overused), this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I'd like to suggest we agree to disagree here and get back to what we're doing with the article. Feel free to ignore me, however. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. TFD (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply the actions carried out by antifa are not politically motivated? Also yes calling Andy Ngo racist is of course a BLP vio and should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• TFD - the most commonly used definition in the US is that of the Department of State, e.g.: (approximately) "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (per Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f). More US definitions: here. Mcrt007 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's about international terrorism. Domestic terrorism is defined as: to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."[2] Attempts to intimidate a minority population are not considered terrorism, but hate crimes. Attempts to intimidate a political group, such as neo-nazis, do not come under either category. PackMecEng, no, why do you ask? TFD (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Because above you mention Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. which I took as you implying it was not to change government policy or the like. Is that incorrect? Apologies if I am mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, let's remember WP:NOTAFORUM - this is largely irrelevant to the question at hand which centers on WP:DUE when dealing with a statement made by one publication and never verified in another independent source. Frankly US law could call tuna sandwiches terrorism and it wouldn't be relevant to whether Politico is due mention. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa Creating and Spreading Hoaxes?

This should be mentioned in the article, seeing as you have a section titled "Hoaxes." 2601:49:1:5316:C8D4:4023:EA9F:4615 (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you summarize it, and state what exactly you'd like added to the article? Benjamin (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have another source? O3000 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We'd certainly need better sources than the The American Spectator. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. And the source says "spoof" rather than hoax. "Journalist Andy Ngo Staged Attack by Antifa at Portland Protest" and "Andy Ngo hires Proud Boys to pose as Antifa and attack him at Portland Rally" are headlines one would never see in the American Spectator, even if they were true. A hoax would have attributed them to a mainstream publication. The intention is humor. TFD (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The Intention is not humor, as you can see in the article if you read it. Saying that you would need "better sources than The American Spectator" says nothing about the quality you're looking for or why it should be dismissed. Seeing as you have quotes from twitter as sourced, this should qualify. In particular it mentions that Antifa is trying to spread misinformation and "Fake News" on the topic of Andy Ngo. "In a Twitter thread posted on Monday, evolutionary biologist Heather E. Heying shared screenshots of doctored American Spectator and Reason headlines she had found circulating the Twitterverse. The articles (comparison below) had been doctored to claim that the attack was a false flag orchestrated by Ngo: the altered headlines say he hired members of the Proud Boys to assault him in a manner reminiscent of Jussie Smollet’s staged assault in January." - I fail to see how this is any different from the #PunchWhiteWomen "spoof" played up by people "trolling Antifa." It appears that you're being selectively biased against this source because it shows antifa perpetrating the identical tactics that the people against them are employing.2601:49:1:5316:983F:6EDB:2E5F:BBBA (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It's simply not notable outside the sphere of the American Spectator; whatever quality we assign to that publication, I would want to see other RSes cover this before we make a big deal out of a story that boils down to "there's fake stuff on the internet." If it gets covered elsewhere I would certainly reassess. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP's claim is clearly nonsense - we have to follow our policies, in this case WP:UNDUE - one mention, particularly in a source with no indication that it passes our criteria for reliability, is not enough for an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References

First off Dumuzid, no one is saying this story is a big deal as it would only need to be a single sentence mentioning the activity within the "Hoaxes" section, and secondly, I fail to see how this being "just within the realm of the American Spectator" keeps it from being relevant as you have a Salon article in reference to the #PunchWhiteWomen. Secondly you have Vox, which is far less respectable than the American Spectator, referenced multiple times. As far as I'm concerned, this article does meet the criteria for reliability as it is not self-published, does not have questionable sources as their basis for the article, and has a long publishing history which should stand for itself as evidence of their clout. Unless of course you have proof for their lack of reliability, they must be credited.2601:49:1:5316:C474:454D:FBA9:8821 (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Two thoughts occur. First, reasonable minds can differ! I think it undue, but you obviously don't, and that's okay. You may well reach a consensus with which I disagree. But I disagree that "they must be credited" in the absence of "proof for their lack of reliability." Insofar as "credited" here means the information must be included, I don't think so. It's entirely possible to have information in a reliable source that is nevertheless WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, a source isn't reliable until it's not; rather, sources must be shown to have several factors, including a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if the American Spectator were shown to have that here (and I honestly don't know one way or the other), it would not be enough, for me, to merit inclusion in the article. Again, I am often wrong! So, by all means, persuade away and may the marketplace of ideas do its thing. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Leaderless

@Arms & Hearts:, I looked at the sources and couldn't find "leaderless" as per your text change[3]. Of course there are some "leaders" in some individual groups. It's just that there isn't any centralized organization and separate groups may not even talk to one another. Seems that the current text is a closer fit to sources. O3000 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The Vox article by Sean Illing says: "Antifa is not a monolithic organization, nor does it have anything like a hierarchical leadership structure." Though the word isn't used, the second part of this sentence is synonymous with "leaderless." Nonetheless, we could more closely mimic the language used in the source. How would you feel about changing "a leaderless movement comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals" to something like "a movement without a leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That looks OK.The two forms aren't quite synonymous. O3000 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

Change: The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] To: The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing, militant, autonomous[7] groups in the United States who claim to be antifascist.[11] JustNoting179 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources; the current wording is supported the sources cited in the article, whereas your proposed wording is not. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt, a guideline which warns against using language (like "claim to be") which implies that a point is inaccurate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the sources listed that supposedly support that assertion:

• [4] Source only says that Ryan Lenz of SPLC makes this claim.
• [5] Literally titled Antifa: Guardians against fascism or lawless thrill-seekers? and only says that their own members claim they are antifacist.
• [6]Small local news. Claims that they are antifascist are coming from members of the movement themselves. Note that this article also says and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security classified their activities as “domestic terrorism.”. You can't use it for this but then refuse to use it for the terrorist claim.
• [7] Maybe the only source that states as fact that they are anti-facist, however it's a yet another small local news outlet.
• [8] Again local news outlet. Again only stating that that's what they say about themselves.

So that argument isn't very convincing, in fact the opposite is true. The current text is not well supported by the sources and the proposed text is. Galestar (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It may be convincing to you personally, but that doesn't change consensus. Since there is no consensus for this edit, this request has been closed. This discussion isn't closed, just the edit-request. It should not be re-opened until consensus has changed. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not about me. It's about if the current text is verifiable and supported by the sources given, which it isn't. Galestar (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll note that I didn't claim that the citations included in the passage in question support the claim; rather that "the current wording is supported the sources cited in the article" (emphasis added). Per MOS:LEADCITE there's some leeway as to whether claims in the lede that are also made, and for which sources are cited, in the body of the article require sources be cited in the lede. That being said, that guideline does also suggest sources be cited in the lede for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". So, for the record, sources currently cited in the article that explicitly equate antifa with anti-fascism include KIRO 7, Kansas City Star, CNN, the New York Times, Wired, Wired again, and AOL. That's seven out of the first fifteen sources cited in the article. If you want to add any of these to the lede that would not be inappropriate, though adding all might be excessive (especially as there are no doubt many more—I didn't look at the other 92 sources cited). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You can debate this if you wish. But, it's highly unlikely that you will be able to change consensus. I don't know what they're for -- but it's well documented that they are anti-fascist. O3000 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Poorly Structured "Ideology and Activities" section

The section "Ideology and Activities" is very long and could be better formed. Most saliently, the sentence "By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism" is embedded in a very long and circuitous set of paragraphs about very different subjects. I suggest each of these (the terrorism accusations, the mutual aid, &c.) be migrated to their own subsections. It would be much easier to navigate at a glance as a result. What do you all think? SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

agreed. it definitely needs better structure. maybe something like the Proud Boys page, where each notable incident has its own subsection. Mbsyl (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

IPA Transcription

Antifa can be pronounced with either prepenultimate or penultimate stress, all four possible variants should be expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SapientiaBrittaniae (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@SapientiaBrittaniae: I don't really understand what you're proposing (probably largely because I don't really understand IPA). What are the four possible variants? Don't the two pronunciations currently given in the article indicate that the word "can be pronounced with either prepenultimate or penultimate stress"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: In General American English, the four possible variants should be as follows: /'æntifə/ /æn'tifə/ /'æntifɑ/ /æn'tifɑ/. Further, in RP English they can be mutated into /'antifə/ or /an'tifə/ SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Willem Van Spronsen

I imagine editors other than ValentinesDay88 have opinions on whether information about Willem Van Spronsen's attack on a detention centre in Tacoma, Washington belongs in this article. While the article cited in their addition doesn't draw any connection between Van Spronsen and antifa, other reliable sources do, including Tom Cleary in Heavy, who describes him as "affiliated with the Puget Sound Anarchists and local antifa groups" and quotes him as saying, in his "manifesto," "I am antifa". I think a sentence in the article cited to this source would probably be appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's been pointed out in a few (non-RS) places I follow that while Van Spronsen was not the first person to die in one of these concentration camps, he is the first person to die trying to liberate one. I'd say his connection to antifa activism is notable and I'm certain a RS can be found. Furthermore, while I am generally very opposed to WP:NOT WP:CRUFT lists, I'd suggest his activities are significant enough in this instance to warrant mention. That said, I think it's critical that Wikipedia express this action in a neutral way. While some editors may be inclined to vilify him and while others (including myself) may hold his actions as meritorious, Wikipedia should do neither. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to add a partition to this webpage to discuss this, but something wasn't working and it wouldn't publish. In his manifesto he says that he is a member of Antifa so I thought that it applied. I am sorry if I was not good in my edit and this happened near my town so I wanted to add it. I will try to be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValentinesDay88 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: When I talked about the need for neutrality it was precisely the sort of inclusion you just made that I was referring to. Please avoid loaded language such as "attacked" and, prior to any public investigation, avoid making unambiguous statements of fact in Wikipedia voice. All Wikipedia knows for certain is that Van Spronsen is dead in an ICE facility. He was reported to have damaged structures within it. Whether property damage constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and thus subject to WP:NPOV at this time there's no evidence suggesting he intended harm to any of the human beings in the facility. Finally, I deleted the Epoch Times because they're a garbage source. You have already provided better. Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ETA: please see basically any discussion on this page for why Wikipedia does not call anyone, living or dead, a "member of Antifa." Furthermore, if I recall correctly, BLP protection applies to the recently deceased, especially in cases where WP:BLP1E applies. As such, we have to be particularly sensitive in our handling of this incident. I do think it's notable and warrants inclusion, but there are structural limits to how Wikipedia should include it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

IE: We should be particularly cautious in how we describe the deceased, such as calling them a member of this or that group. As it is the event, not the individual, which is notable and the event only is notable in that it draws a parallel between antifascist action and the public perception that the ICE concentration camps are part of a shift in US border policy toward fascist ones. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I only restored the text by VD88 and added sources to it. By all means, feel free to rephrase it. Additionally, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Epoch Times; see WP:RSP. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, you didn't need to include a source from a publication with a long history of fabrication, propaganda and shoddy reporting. You had better sources. So I removed it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I am a little unsure of this just because the major tie I see to Antifa is a Facebook post from a Seattle group, but it is entirely possible I am missing something. I see him frequently described as "antifascist," but that, to me, is not the same as being associated with Antifa, unless we are ready to call General Patton and his Seventh Army "Antifa." So, I guess I'll leave my qualms at that, and let consensus fall where it may. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

From the Heavy link: Van Spronsen wrote, "I am antifa,..."Terrorist96 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The man who committed the attack said that he was in Antifa, that is why I originally put it but I am not doing edits on this article anymore that's just what I read. ValentinesDay88 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw the "I am Antifa" quote, but is that a 'tie' to Antifa? I would say that is 'self-proclaimed' or the like. When I write my manifesto (before making the criminally moronic Wikipedia posts that get me thrown off the internet), I may say "I am a member of the Lancashire County Cricket Club...." It would be a mistake to say I had "ties" to the club. Obviously the nebulous nature of Antifa makes this tricky, but I still think this is one we need to somehow indicate was basically this guy's say-so. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa isn't a club one can be a member of; it's largely an ideological position (that fascists should be confronted directly, that for a variety of reasons, law enforcement is poorly equipped to handle fascists) and as such, it's reasonable to state somebody adheres to antifa principles based on self-identification. My understanding via my non-RS sources is that many antifascist groups are saying, "he was one of ours," IE: that his actions were an act of antifascism to be praised. Remember as an ideology rather than a group there is no member list. Nobody is a member of antifa. So claims of camraderie aren't claims that he was working with this or that group but rather that he was a comrade. However, what I've heard from contacts in antifascist groups through the grapevine is not what Wikipedia should publish. I'd be very open to an edit clarifying that his antifascist connection was self-identified if no specific groups have come forward and said, "he was working with us." Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but I think the phrasing "ties to" belies your point; it certainly implies to me something concrete beyond an ideological affiliation. I'm not saying we should pretend he had nothing to do with Antifa, rather, I think we should just be a bit more careful in how we paraphrase the sources. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• None of this matters. What we need are better sources; not all antifascist groups are antifa, and since he's recently dead this guy still falls under WP:BLP - even with the more cautious wording in the latest version (which avoids using the word 'antifa' in that paragraph), including him here still contains an obvious implication. To include him we need a WP:BLP-quality source specifically stating in as many words that he was associated with antifa; antifa is anti-fascist, but not all anti-fascist groups are antifa. Two of the three sources previously in the article don't mention antifa at all and therefore aren't usable. The Heavy source does include one quote, Van Spronsen wrote, “I am antifa, I stand with comrades around the world who act from the love of life in every permutation. Comrades who understand that freedom means real freedom for all”, but I do not feel that's sufficient on its own until / unless we have at least one source discussing the connection in the article voice. (I'm not saying we keep it off the page forever - given that quote, it should be easy to find a source actually connecting him to Antifa if it checks out and is relevant - but I feel we have to wait until / unless such a clear source appears. Filing this under antifa activism based on a single quote feels too much like trying to connect the dots ourselves right now, which is WP:SYNTH.) Or, in other words, if this is notable antifa activism, there will be a source saying so in its article voice soon enough. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about much of this, but I think the final sentence gets at an important point, which is that if information about this event does belong in the article it surely doesn't belong in a section called "activism": even if we have good enough sources connecting Van Spronsen to antifa (which we may or may not), we certainly don't have sources describing what he did as "antifa activism". This probably connects to the issue raised above about the article's structure. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Count me in the "two minds" crowd as well, but I'm glad Aquillion was bolder than I am. I believe "when in doubt, leave it out." I also believe all Wikipedia maxims should rhyme. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the first lethal victim and martyr of this movement is pretty notable to at least be included in a sentence, he self-describes as Antifa in his manifesto, a manifesto linked to and mentioned in several WP:RS, the problem of No true Scotsman is hard to circumvent here, but he has been referred as Antifa in a few sources, see [9] [10] [11] [12]

I suggest something to the effects of "On July 13, 2019, a 69-years old man identified as Willem Van Spronsen was shot and killed by police after opening fire and throwing incendiary devices on a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. In his manifesto, he self-described as antifa." feel free to suggest changes Loganmac (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe. "On July, 13 2019, a member of Antifa, Willem Van Spronse..." should not be accepted, ValentinesDay88. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with the proposed wording. At this point I'd lean towards not including it at all, just because I'd like to see the connection drawn a little more explicitly in the reliable sources (though it's awfully close). That being said, it's only a lean and I won't be turning over any furniture if it's included in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This article also uses the words "attacked" and "Antifa" so shouldn't we include this? I'm not understanding why we are avoiding this. -Valentine — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValentinesDay88 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like they're waiting for sources like Washington Post, New York Times, etc. to explicitly mention it, in which case, I wouldn't hold your breath.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are those the only webpages that are allowed to be used? -Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I found this webpage on the Washington Post (it's for Washington DC not Washington State) and this on the New York Times they says the same things about the attack. Is that what they want? -Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, because neither of those mentions "antifa", which is predictable as per my last link.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

We need an article about antifa that mentions it. In comparison, a book about the serial killer Ted Bundy mentions that he was a delegate to the Republican National Convention. But mainstream sources about the Republican Party rarely mention this. That's because while it is important to his story, it's not important to the Republican Party. I notice this article does not even mention the Puget Sound Anarchists, with which Van Spronsen was apparently "affiliated." TFD (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The difference between Ted Bundy being a serial killer not being mentioned on the Republican page vs Spronsen being antifa not being mentioned here is that Bundy didn't commit his acts as a result of his Republican affiliation; Spronsen did, as per his manifesto. And we have enough sources to add it. Here's a new one. In sum, we have buzzfeednews.com, heavy.com, independent.co.uk, theepochtimes.com, foxnews.com, and several other right-wing sources all explicitly saying "antifa" and other sources such as seattletimes.com mentioning "anti-fascist". Still not enough?Terrorist96 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces has it right. How is this important to Antifa? This has yet to be demonstrated, and frankly I don't think it can be unless there's some sort of successful attempt to show him as a martyr for the movement. Where I disagree with TFD is that I don't think one article would be enough. Of course, maybe if he gets his own article it could mention what he said. Anyone can say that they support a movement without anyone else in the movement even knowing them. Terrorist96, Newsbuster is of no interest here and commments such as yours are neither helpful nor collegial. If you have problems with the sources they don't like, take them to WP:RSN, not here. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know what I think about inclusion here, as there are convincing arguments on both sides. Clearly his behaviour is exceptional within the wider movement, which practices a diversity of tactics with this at a very far end of the spectrum, so we need to avoid suggesting his actions were exemplary of antifa. But at the same time, it may still be noteworthy. We should feel OK to take it slow not rush, as we not a newspaper, and wait to see what sources say. And whatever the consensus, we need to avoid the formulation proposed that describe him as “in” or “a member of” antifa or which capitalise antifa as “Antifa”, as (as established numerous times on this talk page but perhaps new to people coming here because of this incident) antifa is not a homogenous organisation and does not have members. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source on leftist political movements. Full bloody stop. I generally support inclusion of Van Spronsen for reasons noted above but, if the consensus is that it's WP:TOOSOON to identify his activity as antifa activity within the bounds of Wikipedia, I'm not going to edit-war it back in. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors white washing left-wing terrorism are a disgrace to this website. Shame on you. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Conglomeration

There has been some back and forth in the edits in the first sentence of the lede recently between “is a conglomeration of” and “comprises”.[13] I really don’t like and don’t see any advantage in “conglomeration” which is (a) an inelegant, unnecessary word, (b) rather vague in meaning, and (c) ascribes more cohesion to the amorphous, leaderless movement than is accurate. Can we go with the simpler, clearer, more accurate “comprises”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean, anytime somebody uses comprises correctly they're already half-way to support from me. So while I've previously supported the conglomeration wording against other suggestions, I'd definitely support the new "comprises" wording, which is more elegant and accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)