Talk:Antifa (United States)

Antifa far-left?

@Arms & Hearts: can you point me to the relevant discussion about Anfita being far-left (or not)? Seems the consensus you suggest is at odds with the relevant category tree. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 1#Far left is neither accurate nor the same as anarchist, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 2#Left vs far left, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 4#far left movement, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 5#Left Wing / Right Wing and, most recently, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 6#Far-left, one more time. There may be other discussions I've missed. Consensus of course isn't immutable—the point isn't that this is set in stone forever, but rather that further discussion would be needed in order to change the status quo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

based on how RS cover the topic I would say it is far left, and seems to have members who identify with left leaning policies (although the loose organization would be hard to attribute it to anything). But left can have a multitude of meanings so its not like that means much tbh Bgrus22 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Unlike far-right ideologues, most of us on the far left would rather not be mistaken for centrists. Antifascism is a broad coalition, and it does certainly include a lot of people who are anarchists and communists (IE: far left) but it also includes plenty of moderate leftist democratic socialists and social democrats. TL;DR: while far-left captures part of who makes up the modern antifascist movement, it doesn't capture the breadth of the movement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that it's a broad coalition, much to broad for a simplistic level and certainly for "far-left" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Far left usually implies wanting to overthrow the state and indeed having a political ideology. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean every person has an ideology inasfar as every person has beliefs about how the world should be in some way, shape or form. But yeah, the far-left encompasses specific ideologies. Generally Anarchism, Socialism, Communism, Syndicalism and associated variants are considered far-left ideologies. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

One would hope that there are people not on the far-left who are anti-fascist. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: one would also hope everyone supports democracy, the people, and republics... but how many people support the DPRK? A name means nothing, as we have seen, also in the United States (which this page focuses on) the antifa movement references a very specific movement that has through its members supported specific ideological positions generally considered to be within the American Far-Left. If not please show me an RS showing people saying that the movement is center left (if not center within the left). Bgrus22 (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: your comment about the DPRK is not at all helpful. I'm sure you know what Objective3000 means. Our article on far-left politics says "The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism". Now while I'm sure there are supporters who adhere to some of these ideologies, there's no way that we can claim that they all do. I don't think anyone here is trying to add some "center left" lable and I have no idea what that would mean. Doug Weller talk 07:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In short - just because you oppose the far right doesn't make you the far left. Meanwhile it is well established that the American political scale is broken, with literal statements made by Republicans to conflate any position that isn't theirs with communism and the far left (even with policies that historically where their own under Reagan for instance). There will always be people accusing Antifa of being "far left" because it suits an ideological argument. Koncorde (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: youre right that the scale is broken and a lot of the labels are just done for rhetorical purposes. But Doug, I think you know full well equating the United States Antifa movement with just a broad coalition of people opposed to fascism is factually incorrect. The lack of an organization means you cant have any central ideology be directly attributable... instead we can only go off of RS if I am to understand wiki guides, and the RS coverage tends to focus on Antifa either as using their own internal definition of fascism (which is hard enough to define since its such an opportunistic thing with no clear cut ideology) to oppose dissenting views or ratings booster which is whether their use of violence is justifiable or not. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: I haven't made that equation, you've misunderstand me. Yes, we need reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgruss22: it's not entirely accurate to say that Fascism has no clear cut ideology. It has a permeable ideology, so the boundaries are left deliberately vague. But if you have an aesthetics-obsessed right-authoritarian movement with a cult of the hero, a charismatic leader and a tendency toward corporate syndicalism, the edge details don't obscure the clear ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Fascism cuts across all stripes. Even if it was left wing fascism, then Antifa would oppose it - and that is somewhat integral to the concept of Antifa (US right wing popular media will try to position Antifa to the left, but they would position Bush Jr to the left and / or part of the swamp if suited the narrative). Antifa is about opposing the concept of populist fascistic policies, the supporters of such policies and their demagogues. There is no ideological limit to opposing fascism. Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean you're entirely wrong, but OK. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you believe is wrong to help clarify. Koncorde (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Your definition of fascism, and assertion that left wing fascism is something that can exist, is just plain wrong. It's also not in line with the principle scholarship on the matter. As such, all assertions you make that stem from that definition of fascism are also entirely incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

...to clarify, by "left wing fascism" I am referring to the idea that people or organisations that are recognised as traditionally left wing (such as a workers Union, or the Labour Party of the UK) may have individuals, actions or policies that are fascistic; such as dictatorial control resulting in the suppression of dissent and all those many other fine features we would associate with fascist governments. There is nothing about Antifa that would preclude it from opposing dictatorial control, or even policies perceived as being on the slippery slope from any stripe of the political spectrum (contrary to the suggestion that they would only oppose it coming from the Far Right). Koncorde (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Benjamin M.L Peters: Please bring your edits/concerns here to discuss the use of "far". Also, please note the 1 revert per 24 hours restriction on this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is categorized under Category:Anarchism in the United States, which is a sub-cat of Category:Far-left politics in the United States. The categorization delineates Antifa in the US as far-left. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it's in both of those categories, parent and child. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Category was created 2013, assigned 2017 when this article was created, warred over, I doubt anyone has actually ever checked what are parent and child cats too well. For instance Category:Anti-fascism isn't associated with any of them, or this article. Koncorde (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde:, this article is indeed categorized as Category:Anti-fascism in the United States, which rolls up to Category:Anti-fascism two levels up. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Doh; I was looking at an old revision. Koncorde (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Anarchism in the United States doesn't only contain articles that are exclusively about anarchism (e.g. it contains 1999 Seattle WTO protests, Industrial Workers of the World and Occupy Wall Street, all of which saw involvement by anarchists but also by people of other political orientations), so to include this article in that category is not to describe antifa as straightforwardly or primarily anarchist. I've removed Category:Far-left politics in the United States as I don't think it's supported by the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, it's good that you removed the category, since it's a parent category of two others categories here on this article, Category:Anarchism in the United States and Category:Communism in the United States. But note that our category tree here defines "Anarchism in the United States" and "Communism in the United States" as elements of "Far-left politics in the United States". The lead of the article states than antifa is "militant" and that it includes "anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrats." Can we agree that anarchists, socialists and communists are far-left? What portion of antifa do those factions comprise? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jweiss11 -- we're sort of verging perilously close to WP:SYNTH territory. Do we have sources referring to antifa as "far left?" That would be the simplest thing. I looked again very briefly, but didn't find much. I, for one, would find that much more persuasive. But perhaps others differ! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

USA Today refers to antifa as far-left here. The Anti-Defamation League says "Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks.". Mother Jones refers to antifa as far-left here. LA Times does here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing that I run into as well: lots of caveats and unclearness (as is endemic to the topic). For instance, the phrase "far-left antifa group(s)" from USA Today seems to imply (maybe?) that "far left" is a subset of "antifa." Likewise, the ADL source is qualified by its temporal clause. Mother Jones mentions the far left in the headline, but define antifa as "a diffuse group of leftists and anarchists," which seems to me that again, far left is a subset. Finally, the LA times mentions an "...assault on an antifa member that became a rallying cry for the city’s far-left." Here maybe antifa is a subset of far left? I'll put my cards on the table--"far left" feels sort of right in my gut, as it were, but I have a hard time articulating the argument, and I find the sources maddeningly vague. That, again, is probably just the nature of the beast. As it stands here, I'm not terribly opposed to the "far left" descriptor, but I also am not convinced. I'm not helping am I? My apologies! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jweiss11, perhaps it would help to point out that this is about the political views of the people who participate in antifa actions. For lack of a better term: it's members. Antifa is not a political party, it does not have a program and the political views within antifa vary wildly. As the ADL source you cited acknowledge, antifa people often, but not exclusively have backgrounds that are commonly described as far-left. Personally, I think that the terms far-left and far-right are too reductive to usefully describe a political position, and should be avoided whenever possible. Vexations (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, I'm aware of the amorphousness nature of antifa. While there are always exceptions, isn't fair to say that antifa participants largely identify with far-left politics, i.e. ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, and anti-capitalism? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There is also the problem that the term far left only has meaning once context is known. American conservatives refer to moderate Democrats as far left, while Soviet Communists referred to Trotskyists as far left. TFD (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's really hard to argue that Communists are far left compared to the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and Maoist parties around, including in the US. They control, democratically, whole states in India and are respectable parties in other countries working through the democratic process. Anarchists usually are but not always. Anti-capitalism is far too broad a term to call everyone who is against capitalism far-left. The line I always draw is do they want to overthrow the government through violence. If they do, they are far left. Antifa sources are certainly mostly on the left and I'm sure some are far left. Note that we never should consider headlines to be accurate or reflect the article they are drawing attention to, they are rarely written by the author of the article. Having said that I think Mother Jones is right on the money about them being a diffused (they say group but I think they mean the supporters, not an organised group) of leftists and anarchists. I'll also add that what the real far left groups may be doing (deliberately but not publicly) is infiltrating to use Antifa actions for their own ends. That's been there classical behavior for decades. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Calls to define Antifa as a terrorist organization

Calls have been made to define Antifa as a terrorist organization. A section discussing this needs to be added to the article in order to maintain NPOV. See e.g. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/455025-trump-considering-labeling-antifa-a-terrorist-organization and https://www.salon.com/2019/07/23/ted-cruz-ignoring-surge-of-far-right-violence-introduces-bill-labeling-antifa-a-terrorist-group/ for example. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know bout a whole section, but a passage somewhere perhaps. Certainly, reasonable to discuss inclusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad-nauseam and the decision was it was undue. See here [1] Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Also here [2]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And here [3] Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This was a story for a couple of days. That's a hard no from me. Reasonable minds can differ. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And [4][5][6]. So Jweiss11 insisting we bring up this tired discussion yet again is very close to disruptive editing. And I suggest you don't try to revive this dead horse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, your shutting down a reasonable point of discussion (per Dumuzid) is disruptive. You're projecting your bad behavior onto others. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely how many times must we discuss the same trivial non-issue? And, again, for the second time today, please mind WP:NPA Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How many times are you going to attack other editors and then yell "WP:NPA" when they respond? Are you here to build an encyclopedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If I may offer a thought, I think you are both right. We all know that consensus can change, but we also know it is unhelpful and unpleasant to bludgeon a talk page with repeated requests. Since the onus is on those proposing inclusion to show that there is consensus, I suggest we leave this open briefly to see if there's a reasonable chance thereof. If it doesn't appear so after a short time (a few hours, to my mind), then we hat it. That would be my approach, at least--but I am often wrong. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's quite evident that I am. I'm just short on patience for people whose repeated attempts to insert a POV such that antifascists are about to be designated terrorists interferes with making forward progress on article improvement. That said, I would be amenable to Dumuzid's compromise proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Come on folks, we were doing pretty well remaining civil. I was actually rather impressed with everybody so far. Please make an effort. How about we reconsider the inclusion of the non-binding resolution once something actually changes? For example, when it is adopted. Until then, it's old news, (it's merely requesting that the Senate gives its opinion on something it cannot legislate on) and we agree not to try to overturn existing consensus. Here's the status of the resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs I'm going on vacation, please be kind to each other. Vexations (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate has passed 167 simple resolutions this year, so even if this one were to be adopted (which seems unlikely) I don't think it would need to be mentioned in this article. It could perhaps be discussed in Cruz's article and/or Cassidy's, but it doesn't strike me as a significant event in the history of antifa. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A brief quote from the source, "But the Republican senators' resolution is little more than a political stunt." If we start including all of those (political stunts) in wikipedia, or even spending time arguing about them we shall do little else. And there actually is real work to do. That is a NO. Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that it does not seem to be a significant event and I thank User:Vexations for showing us the current status, ie that it was referred to committee two months ago. Even if it was passed, it's mainly soundbytes. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the response section should mention attempts by the U.S. Right to create a false equivalency between antifa and the far right. But rather than saying "on Sept. 3, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz said "blah blah blah,"" it should summarize what people like him are doing, why they are doing it and why experts see it as disingenuous. TFD (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all true. But, unless it's heavily documented, we're not the source of "truth". Mind you, I agree that would be a good addition if adequately sourced. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bongino undue

I would not consider an ex-cop who got a job ranting on Fox to be someone whose opinion on the etymology of 20th century neologisms we need to mention. Pursuant to that significant question of WP:DUE including the WP:FRINGE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues that underpin it, I've removed his statement. His opinions on antifascism may be due on his own page, but not here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. While I agree that Bongino's comments are insignificant, there's an argument to be made that Kellyanne Conway's comments, made while employed by the Trump administration, are more worthy of a mention, and that "anti first amendment" is a fairly common false etymology which we can mention and debunk using reliable sources while staying true to WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE (which doesn't say never to mention fringe theories, but to contextualise them and not ascribe them undue weight). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

What I removed was not contextualized. If we can create something that contextualizes those fringe sources as being a common false etymology that'd be a different matter. But the statement sitting there on its own... no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Willem van Spronsen attack on ICE detention center

I'm disappointed that the Antifa article does not include a paragraph about Willem Van Spronsen's attack on an ICE detention facility in Tacoma. Van Spronsen identified himself, "I am Antifa," in his written manifesto. Seattle Antifascist Action described Van Spronsen a "good friend and comrade" who "took a stand against the fascist detention center in Tacoma" and "became a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism. ... He was kind and deeply loved by many communities; we cannot let his death go unanswered," the group wrote in a Facebook post. "... [T]oday we stand strong in our support for yet another martyr in the struggle against fascism. May his death serve as a call to protest and direct action." This man was Antifa. He self-identified as Antifa. Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/19/ice-detention-center-attacker-killed-by-police-was-an-avowed-anarchist-authorities-say/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-man-killed-at-ice-detention-center-manifesto

I'm sure that a neutral, factual paragraph about Van Spronsen can, and should, be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.76.99 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and there was no consensus to include such a paragraph: see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 9#Willem Van Spronsen. Consensus can change, but the starting point of that process would probably be for you to respond to the arguments made in that discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Frankly there does not appear to have been any WP:LASTING impact to Van Spronsen's attempt at Propaganda of the deed. Certainly there has been no lasting impact to antifascism as an ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there is WP:LASTING impact. The attack is still cited weekly in national media: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Van+Spronsen%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS739US740&sxsrf=ACYBGNST2e0IWneEyMEIs0WzkVmds6Tg8A:1569594762597&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA9I-SnPHkAhWDtlkKHQFsCUMQ_AUIEigB&biw=853&bih=870 MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

MaximumIdeas, perhaps you could explain what the lasting impact is. Following the example used in WP:LASTING, is there legislation that was introduced as direct result from the event, or some other significant change? Vexations (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

MaximumIdeas, when I run the query (and use the full name "Willem van Spronsen" to filter out artilcles in the Dutch Reformatorisch Dagblad about unrelated topics, I do get a few hits, but they're all the same article by Michelle Malkin and one blog post by Alexander Hall for MRC TechWatch. I know google gives different results to different users, so perhaps you can be a bit more specif and clearly point out the sources you found that you think are indicative of lasting impact. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur that including this is critical. Without it, the article suffers serious POV issues and is whitewashing Antifa. MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

POV doesn't mean that articles should include what you think is important to the topic, but what the body of reliable sources do. And before complaining bias in reliable sources, that's the policy we have to follow. TFD (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also you make a mistake in assuming that we are excluding Van Spronsen's actions on the basis that we want to "white wash" antifascism. I find nothing morally wrong with what he did, but I also don't find what he did to have been all that significant. And that's the thing. Van Spronsen seems to have hoped to inspire other antifascists into what is effectively revolutionary activity through his deed. And on that front he failed completely. His action had no significant impact on the tactics, targets or level of escalation modern antifascists take part in. Furthermore, after the initial flurry of "a crime wot happened" articles died off, he didn't even manage to make any significant impact on the media landscape. It's not a PR effort to keep his actions off. Rather it's simply that what he did was sadly irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't get close to WP:10YT. Reliable sources aren't even mentioning it now. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Consider revising colloquial term

"we go where they [right-wingers] go. That hate sp"

"right-wingers" is colloquial; "wingers" is not a word. "right-leaning gatherings" or similar may be preferable.

65.255.181.151 (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)