Talk:Antifa (United States)

Lead

How should the lead characterise Antifa, in Wikipedia's voice?

1. Militancy
   1. Omit militant
   2. Often characterized as militant or some variant thereof
   3. Militant, without qualification
2. Political position
   1. Leftist (or predominantly left-wing)
   2. Left-wing
   3. Far-left
   4. Often described as far-left
   5. Omit political lean

Sources in Discussion, below. Guy (help!) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 2.5 was added 19:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC) per request below

Opinions

• 1.2 and 2.2 per discussions above. The status quo ante was left-wing militant, but I find that militant requires a degree of cherry-picking. Guy (help!) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5), although 1.2. and 2.2 would also be reasonable. In addition, a comment. I think the actual problem in the lead is not exact wording, but this phrase: "Activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against people whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right". The lead suppose to be a summary of content on the page. Does the page say a lot about their "physical violence"? I do not see it at all. "Property damage"? Looks like one occasion, unless I am missing something. "Harassment"? Perhaps, one or two incidents, but I am not sure. More up to the point, this is an accusation of crime. What convictions of the members of the Antifa do we have described on this page? I do not see a single conviction on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 and 2.3-ANTIFA's militancy is well documented. Antifa members have forcibly attempted to prevent conservative speaking engagements and other activities from taking place. They have engaged in repeated altercations with police and right-wing protesters. Many of its members openly identify as communist, which is enough to qualify the group as being far-left. Display name 99 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 and 2.3 Per sources (see my comment in discussion section, as well as PacMecEng's sources below). Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both (1.1, 2.5) The term militant is ambiguous and could refer to anything from someone who has strong enough views to argue on facebook to someone willing to murder for their cause. Also, the term left wing describes ideology, but antifa has only one objective, to confront fascism, which is not a specifically left-wing position. Nor is there any ideological conformity within antifa. It would problem be better merely to say that most antifa are left-wing. It's a single issue group, even if that issue has more resonance on the left. TFD (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both - TFD reflects my views. I am not clear at all what militant means in this context - what activist group isn't militant? And I have no idea why we are discussing the political position of a movement - is anti-facism or anti-white supremacism a political position? It's its supporters who may have, probably do have, political positions, mainly left-of-center. Having members who are communists doesn't make the movement far-left, and although some people may not understand this, there are people who identify as communists who aren't far left. A poll carried out by the conservative Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that "36% of millennials polled say that they approve of communism, which is up significantly from 28% in 2018." 70% said they would vote socialist.[1] Are they all far-left, trying to overthrow the government? Doug Weller talk 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Alternative - I have no issue with either militant or left-wing being used with proper context, but the current layout is badly written. With a small amount of editing it would be easily resolved to better represent both the historic position, and recent broadening appeal / overlap with general protests / opposition to alt-right and far right. The lede is currently a bit of a laundry list rather than particularly well structured. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Koncorde, Feel free. I am just trying to get us all out of the circular discussion. Guy (help!) 21:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5). Both "militant" and all the variants on "(far-)left" fail to refer to anything specific or unambiguous enough to be a useful in the lede. As far as "militant": I don't object to the term being used in the body of the article with a greater degree of context, but decontextualised in the lede it's essentially a hyperbolic empty signifier and fails to reflect the nuanced picture we would ideally portray. "Far-left" is even worse: as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself, and as I've shown, it very rarely appears in serious scholarly appraisals of antifa by credentialed experts. "(Predominantly) left" is not as bad, but still misleading insofar as it fails to acknowledge the significant political differences within antifa. If we're looking to sum up antifa's politics, "anti-fascist" is accurate, unambiguous, and clearly supported by the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 & 2.3 That is how most sources old and new refer to them.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] There is an argument that this these terms are recentism, the issue with that is these terms have been used for years to describe them by these RS. Modern usage is just confirming and refining past usage. Though I could see a case being made for 1.2 and 2.4, which I would accept as alternatives. Basically anything less is just a form of white washing. PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not all of the sources you cite say what you say they say. For example, ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary" and mentions "its militant followers' provocations", which is not the same as calling it "militant". CNN says "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left", which is not the same as calling it "far left", and says "Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across", i.e. some not all. PBS says "far-left-leaning movements" and doesn't use the word "militant". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources are for support of militant and others for far-left. Noting that some say well it can very does not distract from the majority view that they are described as predominantly far-left. For example you cite the CNN "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left" when it is often far left that means mostly far left. Again because a minority are not far-left that does not mean the majority cannot be described as such. That kind of argument is not based on policy, RS, or logic for that matter. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, please see my analysis of sources below at Sources for why they are inappropriate for the first sentence. I have added this at Ideology. By all means, feel free to add more there and sources that [o]ften characterize [antifa] as militant or some variant thereof but the lead should simply state Antifa is an anti-fascist which is the only thing all sources seem to agree on. You also did not reply to any objections this SPECIFICO's comment. Again, the main thing of antifa is anti-fascism and we already write about the ideologies of antifa activists in the lead; in other words, many individuals may well hold far-left views but that does not make antifa far-left and it is contradicted by a significant amount of sources that do not use it or use something else like left-wing which is not the same thing as far-left (which seems to be used more often in American news outlets), hence we should write given facts.--Davide King (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Here, The New York Times says The Trump administration blamed what it called the radical left, naming antifa, a contraction of the word "anti-fascist" that has come to be associated with a diffuse movement of left-wing protesters who engage in more aggressive techniques like vandalism. So which is which? The only agreement among sources is anti-fascist which is exactly what we should report in the very first sentence.--Davide King (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice how it says left-wing protesters? In other words, individuals within antifa are described as generally holding left-wing to far-left views, but that does not make antifa itself as left-wing, certainly not far-left, for their purpose is anti-fascism, not a specific ideology.--Davide King (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The difference between antifa and the broader, wider anti-fascist movement is not that antifa is militant; it is that antifa aim to achieve their objectives through the use of direct action rather than through policy reform.--Davide King (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, that was something I noted too when I actually read them, so accusing those who are for neither of white washing when one cannot even check given sources to support one's argument is not very good-faith like, although I assume good faith and believe it was a simple mistake. I did an analysis of all those sources. Please, let me know if I missed something or if I wrote anything wrong.--Davide King (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1.3 & 2.3 PackMecEng's sources are persuasive. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5), per Arms & Hearts, Doug Weller and The Four Deuces' rationale. Just to clarify, in before I get falsely attacked for the fourth time of being an anarchist or antifa apologist, or for the second time of whitewashing (despite in the end being right to add this, at least per My very best wishes), I am not opposed to have militancy in the lead as it is now. I am also not opposed to add the political positions in the main body, perhaps in Ideology or as a subsection titled Political position in which we write something along these lines News sources have variously described antifa as anti-fascist, far-left, leftist, left-wing, militant, militant left-wing and radical left and whatever other political position, or none political position, while at the same time nothing sources such as this saying [as their name indicates], Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and that terms like far-left very rarely appears in serious scholarly appraisals of antifa by credentialed experts and that "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself which is why it would not be used in the lead.

To clarify, that was more of a paraphrasing; I am not advocating us to use literally this wording, just along those lines. The lead should summarises key facts and the only fact that seems to be a given, notwithstanding several IPs arguing that antifa are the real fascists (which seems to be more of an euphemism for authoritarian than for the real thing) without providing any source, is anti-fascist. Finally, I am especially opposed to far-left being in the lead for the reasons I am going to expose below.

It is contradicted by subscribing to a range of left-wing [which is correct or right per above point] ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism.[27][34] A majority of adherents are anarchists, communists and other socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries,[40] although some social democrats and other leftists adhere to the antifa movement.[40] The Anti-Defamation League states that "[m]ost 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".[22] and Antifa describes a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often [not always] the far left. (the latter is wrongly used to support the far-left claim).

Besides, I agree that "Far-left" is even worse: as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself and that [m]ore than half of these are sourced to Trump himself which was exactly my point for why I boldly removed that in the first place and which is why I believe sources given to support the far-left claim do not actually support it, certainly not being in the lead, much less the very first sentence and even before anti-fascist, which is the only thing we, all who agree with the consensus of fascism being far-right, may agree on.--Davide King (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue I have with that argument is that it is basically saying well a few RS say some people that identify as Antifa are only left not far-left. So even with the examples you list giving something would 2.1, 2.2, or 2.4 be more appropriate than no information at all? that is of course ignoring most modern sources describing the vast majority as far-left. Also if you are not opposed to militancy in the lead why vote to remove it? Wouldn't 1.2 or 1.3 be a better fit for what you are arguing for? PackMecEng (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not get it. I am opposed to militant, whether far-left or left-wing (i.e. a militant, far-left, anti-fascist or a militant, left-wing, anti-fascist), because decontextualised in the lede [is] essentially a hyperbolic empty signifier and fails to reflect the nuanced picture we would ideally portray (as argued by Arms & Hearts). I am not opposed to us writing protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy as it is currently done or discuss it further in the main body as proposed by other users. Many of the sources used to purposely show that antifa is far-left do not actually say why is far-left and seem to have jumped on far-left due the ongoing the protests, of which there is not even agreement on what part did antifa play, if any, rather than on factual basis; and thus academic sources would be far more preferable. Either way, I do not see why we have to say far-left, anti-fascist or left-wing, anti-fascist as the very first sentence. As argued by Doug Weller, it is individuals who have a political position and this is reported in the lead; the only political position of the movement and which all sources actually agree on is anti-fascist. The fact that far-left is clearly contradicted in the main body and that the lead needs to be a summary of it does not seem to concern you; if there are clearly individuals who are not far-left, it makes no sense to use far-left like that and the only alternative that would not contradict the main body would be left-wing as both the far-left and the centre-left are left-wing; this may be further complicated if there is also a decent portion of libertarians, which may not fit on the political spectrum; and mainstream liberals, which may well be more centrist than left-wing as argued by JzG here, so clearly far-left is inadeguate as the very first sentence without any context.--Davide King (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add another option for your version of militancy? Also the lead is for broad strokes, what the majority of Antifa is. Yes there are some that use only left wing, but that does not invalidate that most sources use far-left. The other political positions besides anti-fascist are anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few so we cannot just say anti-fascist and hope the reader understands. Where have libertarians been mentioned as members? Finally with Guy's post you mention, it also starts with Just because we don't say "Antifa are a bunch of radical far-left terrorists" doesn't mean we're trying to pretend they are something they are not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Militancy and militant are two different words and we are specifically discussing militant and whether it should be in the first sentence of the lead, are we not? What you do not seem to realise, or maybe is just my impression for your reply, is that anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few are not antifa's political positions; they are individual antifa activists' political positions. Considering the history of the wider socialist movement, how would you think could they all co-exist, if antifa is really promoting anarchism, communism, and Marxism as you seem to imply (apologies if I misunderstood you)?

The only political position of antifa is anti-fascism, which is why you see socialists of all stripes coming together and agreeing on one thing. Antifa activists' political positions may well be those of anarchism, communism, and Marxism but they are not antifa's political positions; the main thing antifa promotes and engages is anti-fascism. This is supported by the academic sources we use and by the BBC's comment that Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and the weight of sources should not simply be based on quantity but by their quality too. Academic and experts of the movement should be prioritised over news sources. Why all sources listed to support far-left are news? Is there really no academic source supporting far-left?

In this specific and controversial case, I do not think the mention of far-left in those news outlets means much, if they do not actually explain what they mean by it and why; they seem to use far-left the way it is often used, i.e. to refer to something more left than a given party; and yet, every time there is no agreement on what is the party that is compared to (the Democrats? The DSA?). Just because they use far-left in an article that mentions antifa, it does not mean it has enough weight to be used to support the claim; we should look at articles that specifically discuss antifa and its political position. Do we list the Democrats' political position as left-wing just because a certain amount of news outlets, in articles not even discussing the political party and its political position, use the word left-wing as a quick way to get to the point? I have read so many news outlets that have referred to centre-left and centre-right parties as left-wing or right-wing (like the centre does not exist), respectively; those are not useful to describe a party's political position. I believe this also what SPECIFICO was arguing when writing [t]hese labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers which is a pretty good summary of what I meant but which I probably did not explained very well.

Most of those sources you listed talk more about what is going those days with protests, of which antifa may or may not even been involved; and Trump and others' comments. Merely a quick mention of far-left simply is not enough; you would need sources that specifically discuss antifa and its political position, not merely those that mention antifa and use the far-left qualifier which tell us nothing about it as you wish it would. I am sure other users could just find a significant enough number sources that merely mention antifa but use the left-wing qualifier instead. By all means, add sources that specifically discuss antifa (like What is antifa? as is done for What Is Antifa, the Movement Trump Wants to Declare a Terror Group? which is fine, not Trump Lays Blame For Clashes On 'Radical-Left Anarchists', As Trump vows crackdown on 'antifa,' growth of right-wing extremism frustrates Europeans, Barr threatens to bust 'far-left extremist groups' in Floyd unrest, or What we do and don't know about the extremists taking part in riots across the US) and its political position (i.e. the article is only about antifa and its political position, not Floyd protests, Trump's comments, or other) and that use far-left. Finally, I agree that far-left may be appropriate if it were a centrally-managed organization or institution but not for antifa, which is neither.--Davide King (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG did mention [r]eports suggest that it includes libertarians, mainstream liberals, anarchists and more and I do not understand what you meant by reporting that statement.--Davide King (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

All the sources I gave support militant and far-left. I gave almost a dozen of them and could produce more if you would like. So on the one hand we have your personal feeling on what you think Antifa is, which btw is contrary to this very article, and on the other we have tons and tons of RS supporting what I said. I have to say, policy wise, you do not have a convincing argument. Which unfortunately is the case with most of the omit votes, a lot of personal feelings and fairly short on RS or policy backing up those assertions. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, they do not, for all but The New York Times are simply passive mentions in articles that are about antifa's role in protests and Trump and others' comments about antifa in accusing them of turning the protests into violence and labelling them as terrorists. So it has nothing to do with personal feelings; your sources do not seem to actually support your stronger implications.--Davide King (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Omit both - First off, the lead is incorrect to claim antifa "is a predominantly ... an anti-fascist political activist movement in the United State." The RS along side that sentence do not support that verbiage. The RS are merely discussing the anti-fascists in America but do not claim it is a movement "predominately" in the USA. For example, one RS writes, "antifa gained new prominence in the United States after the white supremacist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, in August 2017" but that RS does not claim that Antifa is predominately in USA.

Second, being "anti-fascist" is not left-winged or right-winged. RS in the lead, ADL [14] writes, "though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks."

So, that makes me think there needs to be a subheading for "Antifa Pre-2016 election" and another subheading for "Antifa Post-2016 election." Washington Post writes, "Antifa veterans [pre-2016 election] are wary of newcomers raring for a fight, however. "A lot of people are coming into antifa because of the thrill of violence, and that's not what we're about," said Mike Isaacson, an anarchist PhD student and adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Anti-fascists are community oriented, and we do make the effort to keep everyone as safe as possible." I think that what makes Antifa so difficult to write about is because it is not an official organization that has it's own platform to outline it's ideology, "Interviews with a dozen antifa activists show they come from a variety of backgrounds and are only loosely affiliated." [15] BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Omit both These labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers. Labels such as these might be appropriate for a centrally-managed organization or institution, but Antifa is no such thing, and the use of such labels suggest a level of organization and unified mission that is not documented by the sources. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 & 2.2/2.3 This article is about the loose network Antifa that has certain defining charasteristics. Militancy, and left-wing to far-left membership are among those characteristics (per the sources collected by PackMecEng above). This article is not about general opposition to fascism (anti-fascism) that does not have those characteristics. This network is influenced by the German Antifaschistische Aktion that was established in 1932. The emblem used in this article is a direct copy of the German 1930s Antifa - what the red and the black flags symbolize is obvious. If these defining charasteristics are removed and you're arguing that they're only defined by "being anti-fascist", then this article is meaningless and could just as well be a redirect to anti-fascism. But reliable sources do offer us those charasteristics. --Pudeo (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both There is clearly bias in the way this Rfc is framed. Smith0124 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit any militancy and left-wing would be fine. "Militancy" implies cohesive organization, which does not apply to something that isn't actually an organization. The general left-leaning politics of various antifa-related groups is undeniable however. ValarianB (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @ValarianB: Militancy is widely used by RS. Also I have yet to see one saying militancy implies cohesive organization? So drew you to those conclusions? PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1.2 & 2.5: 1.2 because not all of the tactics are militant; for example data gathering is not. 2.5 because it's not a defining characteristic, and is best discussed in the body where the movement's lean can be put in proper context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5) because too heterogeneous to be so simply characterised. "often described as" terminology (1.2, 2.4) acceptable. Far left (2.3) completey unacceptable as not NPOV and goes against many sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Omit both The lead does a reasonable enough job of summarising antifa and their activities, as well as them being a broad-based movement with people of many different backgrounds including but definitely not limited to far-left. Deliberately ignoring the many references to the contrary to describe antifa as "far-left" in Wikipedia's voice is a proposal unlikely to gain consensus, and it is a waste of time to constantly debate it. FDW777 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both use of the terms is so ill-defined that they have become meaningless. They both are used disparagingly in the media, but fail to elucidate. We are doing our readers a disservice by using the term. If it can be said that antifa is in favor of something (doubtful) then just say what that is. If they are opposed to something, other than the equally poorly defined fascism, just say what that is. Are they insurrectionary anarchists, do they support illegalism? Do they, like the Red Army Faction (that we call far-left militant), use bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and bank robberies? Then just say that. Don't lump everything together in a way that explains nothing.Vexations (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The status quo ante was left-wing militant.

1. Militancy
   1. Omit militant
   2. Often characterized as militant or some variant thereof
   3. Militant, without qualification
2. Political position
   1. Leftist - e.g. Andy Ngo in the WSJ
   2. Left-wing - e.g. Reuters
   3. Far-left - e.g. Bill Barr, NPR, NYT, WaPo, Politico, and CNN.
   4. Often described as far-left - e.g. ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism." [16]

In response to this, given sources also do not seem to support the against people whom they identify as wording; could you please verify this? Because to me it does not seem to support that and indeed it may appear as they are not really engaging fascist, racist, or on the far-right as though antifa attacks anyone who disagree with them. Only the ADL source may be used to support that qualifier wording, when it says what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups; yet the same source spoke of right-wing extremists being the object of antifa's harassment (the topic of our phrase), not alleged right-wing extremists; and also references several actions by antifa and clearly describe events as being held by right-wing extremists and white supremacists without any qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand your comment correctly, but... Considering most notable events, such as Unite the Right rally, yes, the right-wing guys were undoubtely extremists who did committed the Charlottesville car attack. They did kill someone during the rally, using the classic terrorist tactics of Vehicle-ramming attack. The "counter-protesters" including members of Antifa? Not at all. That was just a demonstration [[17]. That is what I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I was saying that there is no need for us to state against people whom they identify as because, as you noted, [c]onsidering most notable events, such as Unite the Right rally, yes, the right-wing guys were undoubtely extremists and sources did not dispute antifa's identification of them as such, they said they were held by right-wing extremists and white superemacists without any qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. If these sources are considered authoritative for how we use "left"/"militant" labels, we need to drop any scare-quoting wording about them "identifying" their targets as far right. EDitors arguing these sources justify "far left" and "militant" from these specific sources are not being consistent if they insisst on the "identify as" qualifer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes re "single conviction": It's not in our article, but in September 2019, 32-year-old David Campbell pleaded guilty to two counts of felony assault for his role in a 2018 Antifa protest in New York City. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail and is at this writing still incarcerated. I agree that we haven't adequately documented Antifa's physical violence, property damage, and harassment. More work needs to be done. The sources are out there. Editors merely have to incorporate them into the body of our article. NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can also see this. So whatever RS on the subject say. However, do they openly proclaim the revolutionary terror as one of their tactics? If so, that need to be stated, with refs. If no, such cases can be regarded as crimes by individual members of the movement, which need to be included if notable and reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NedFausa, we would need a better source than the New York Post for that.--Davide King (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. You are of course welcome to dispute that source when I use it later today in adding the incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions, and then we can open a new, separate discussion on this talk page and await consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is striking that only unreliable sources (Daily Mail and NYPost) calls this protestor "antifa".[18] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are some previous discussions about it. I hope it is helpful.--Davide King (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, as one could expect, the current text is a result of previous discussions and consensus. If it does not include something, this is probably for a good reason. Hence the lead must summarize the current version of the page. It does not. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

To be sure, past consensus (or lack thereof) is helpful in considering present contributions. However, consensus changes over time, as subsequent events unfold and opinions mature. If no one else does so, I will add the Ngo incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions. We can then open a new, separate discussion and seek fresh consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Is it possible to add None for political position? Or simply Anti-fascist (which could be worded as militant anti-fascist or simply anti-fascist in relation to the militant wording and depending on whether to include it or not)? For instance, one source, despite writing of left-wing militants, also notes However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and we may choose Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism as the statement regarding its political position in the lead. This may be enough and does not imply the whole movement or every single individual is left-wing or far-left. However, this would be more of a compromise in case there is going to be no consensus for other positions; and I do not exclude us using left-wing, far-left, or other positions.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @JzG: It would be useful if you'd respond to this and either add "none" as option 2.5, or explain why you'd rather not do so, before this discussion progresses much further. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Arms & Hearts, added Guy (help!) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be noted that 'far-left' is not primarily Bill Barr's characterization; I also find it in these sources in a two minute google search:

NPR: The president has said that members of the loosely defined far-left group Antifa...

NYT: ...President Trump said on Sunday that the United States would designate antifa, the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, a terrorist organization.

WaPo: The day that President Trump declared he would label the far-left “antifa” movement a domestic terrorist organization last week

Politico: Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups...

CNN: Antifa describes a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, so add them. Guy (help!) 19:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

More than half of these are sourced to Trump himself. And the last one is ambiguous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG and Shinealittlelight, did you guys review these sources? I assume Shine did since they’re quoting parts of the article beyond the headline. But none of these, without the exception of the Politico one, are appropriate. And three of them are WP:PRIMARY. All three excerpts are quoting President Trump. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed them. I do not understand why you say that they are primary sources. These are news reports about Antifa, and they characterize Antifa as "far-left" (or "often [lean toward] the far-left" in CNN) in their own voice. Perhaps you will claim that NPR, NYT, and WaPo mean to attribute this characterization to Trump. But it's not reasonable to read the sources in this way. For one thing, Trump didn't call them "far-left". Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Shinealittlelight and Symmachus Auxiliarus, see my analysis and review below.--Davide King (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Contrary to what Arms & Hearts and Davide King say above, it is not plausible that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, and NPR are all engaged in the same tabloid sensationalism by using the term "far-left" to describe Antifa. These are paradigms of RS, and we should therefore follow their lead. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Except, now that I have actually read them, only The New York Times is good as it is about antifa and the headlines are actually accurate of what they are talking about and their main topic; only The New York Times's main topic is antifa and can be used to support the far-left claim. All the others are literally reporting on the protests and Trump and Barr and others' comments, as their headlines imply; so I find it absurd you even believe those sources, outside The New York Times, can be used to support the far-left claim. Forbes talks of radical left. If this was the best you could find, I am sorry to write I am disappointed.--Davide King (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

According to what policy is a characterization of Antifa RS only if it reflects the content of the headline? I have no idea where that comes from. Headlines are typically not RS, as they are written from a promotional perspective. To repeat: all of these sources are paradigm RS and call Antifa "far-left" in their own voice, as the closer for this RfC can confirm by looking at the sources themselves. Note well again that Trump did not call them "far-left" in his remarks; that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is a strawman and a mockery of what I actually wrote. Do you not realise that the main topic of all but The New York Times are the protests and Trump and others' comment? Yes, that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others but in articles that talks more about protests and report more about Trump and others' comments than they talk of antifa and its political position, with far-left being nothing more than a passive mention. We can just as easily find sources that use left-wing or another qualifier in articles that merely mention antifa. Antifa needs to be the main topic of the article; we cannot simply use an article that mentions antifa in one passage and use far-left (this is for every other qualifier, whether far-left or left-wing).--Davide King (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a few sources that use left-wing rather than far-left. Besides Reuters, The Independent and The Week use left-wing rather than far-left; and only The Week is appropriate because, like The New York Times, the main topic is antifa and actually talks about antifa, what it is and its political positions, while The Independent is exactly like the other sources supposed to support the far-left claims, i.e. they report more on the protests and Trump and others' comments. Yet CBS News does not mention neither, it only talks of antifa as a collection of loosely connected groups that organize against fascism.--Davide King (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. Good to have agreement on that. As for the rest, I don't understand what WP policy you're appealing to. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A similar issue came up in discussions about far right groups. Per extraordinary claims we decided that such claims required academic sources, since news media are reliable for reporting news but their journalists are not necessarily experts in political science with published academic papers. Barry Goldwater for example was routinely referred to as far right or a right-wing extremist in mainstream media, but not in academic writing. That's because he was to the right of the mainstream Republican Party of the time but not in a global spectrum that runs from revolutionary anarchists on the far left to fascists on the far right. The important thing is that these terms only have meaning when context is understood. Otherwise they confuse readers. TFD (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we do not agree. You wrote [t]hese are news reports about Antifa but they are not; they are only marginally about antifa and far-left is nothing but a passive mention. They are news report about what is happening right now with the protests and the comments of Trump and others about antifa and the terrorists label. Seriously, compare The New York Times to all others. There are only three paragraphs about the current events and Trump, then all the other paragraphs are about antifa and this is a source that can actually be used to support the far-left claim because it is specifically about antifa and what it is, not a marginal or passive mention in reports that are more concerned about the protests and other people comments. If we ought to put those qualifier, I agree with The Four Deuces that they should be academic, not any source found on Google after typing "antifa" "far-left" because I am sorry but that is what you seem to have done; you have not actually read the sources, you simply saw they mentioned far-left and jumped on it. If you have actually read them all, I do not see how you cannot see that all but The New York Times are spending much more paragraphs reporting on what is happening than antifa and what it is as outlined by The New York Times. Finally, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analysing is that it is mainly American news outlets that use far-left while internationally either left-wing is used (The Independent and The Week) or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on far-left merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use far-left because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--Davide King (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, unless you want to take back what you said before, we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. The rest of what you say here doesn't have any clear relationship to WP policy as far as I can tell. I can't imagine that these sources, when they all agree on Antifa being far-left, are not reliable for that characterization. We need to follow RS here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean unless [I] want to take back what [I] said before? You did not reply back to my main poiint which is that those linked articles, besides The New York Times, are only marginally about antifa and a passive far-left mention is not enough to support us writing Antifa is far-left as the very first sentence. In the main body? Sure. If I was reverted for this because antifa was not the main topic, then I do not see how we can support Antifa is far-left as our very first sentence when all but The New York Times report more on the protests and comments of others than about antifa or what it is. We would need What is antifa articles that specifically say far-left rather than any article in reliable news that may give only a passive mention and talk more about something else than antifa. Even then, I do not see why we should use news sources for this claim in the lead rather than academics or experts like Bray who do not say far-left (again, in the main body where we can give the appropriate context? Sure. As the very first phrase, when all but one given sources talk more about the protests? No). Nor any of those who support a mention in the lead have replied to objections such as SPECIFICO and others raised. Here, The New York Times makes no mention of far-left and only call protesters left-wing which support the argument that antifa is anti-fascist and that it is its activists that have political positions, ranging from the left to the far-left (majority) to the centre-left and other (minority). The BBC and CBS do not use far-left, only anti-fascist; and the BBC talks of its members being left-wing.--Davide King (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I replied to your point. We agree that Antifa has been called "far-left" in a broad range of central RS. You have then made an argument about "passive mentions" that does not refer to any WP policy. I am unmoved by this, and I encourage you to relate what you have to say to WP policy in the future. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Davide King do you mean "passing mention"? If so, Shinealittlelight the WP policy here is WP:DUE. Jusst because an RS says something doesn't mean it should be in our article. If the weight of RS coverage of antifa use this language, then it would be appropriate to include; if it is passing mentions in RS coverage of other topics, then it has no place. Even the examples you cite urge caution because they add caveats: "lean toward the left", "loosely defined far-left", etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bobfrombrockley, yes, that was exactly what I meant; thanks! I do not think that passing mentions of far-left in articles that cover more the protests or other things should be used in support of Antifa is a far-left, for the articles should be explicitly about antifa and its political positions like The New York Times. Also, please do not act like there is not a significative amount of sources that do not use far-left or any qualifier; and even when they do add a qualifier, there are caveats as pointed out by Bobfrombrockley. Again, I pointed out an article by the same New York Times and others that do not use far-left or other explicit qualifiers, something which you have yet to address. Therefore, your claim that Antifa has been called "far-left" in a broad range of central RS is misleading, for of the sources you gave, all but The New York Times are passing mentions; and I believe that since you keep mentioning Wikipedia policies, I guess WP:DUE applies. Just because far-left has been used as passing mentions in articles that report more on the protests, it does not mean they are due for support Antifa is a far-left as the very first phrase; nor does this negate all the significant other sources that either do not use it or use another qualifier, which is why the only qualifier we should use and which is supported by all sources is anti-fascist.--Davide King (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks. Well, in that case, my reply is: the claim that Antifa is "far-left" is not a minority viewpoint, as it is a view that has been published by central, prominent RS, including NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others. The policy WP:DUE is meant to keep us from over-emphasizing minority viewpoints, so it does not apply here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment before your reply and there was edit conflict, but I do not think this answer the question for why we should use articles that have far-left as a passing mention (it is usually just mentioned once) and that report more about the ongoing protests, Trump, Barr and others' comments, labelling antifa a terrorist organisation and so on.--Davide King (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand your position and there's no need to keep repeating yourself. You think that although this term "far left" was used by NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others in their own voices, and therefore it passed all of their professional editorial and fact checking processes, nevertheless it's a minority view that is UNDUE in the lead of our article, and your evidence for this is that these are "passing mentions". I find this implasuible. These central and prominent news outlets do not all assert something in their own voice that is a minority view, "passingly" or otherwise. I have nothing else to say to you on this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you do not. For once, I never claimed or wrote that it is a minority view. Please, show me articles from those that are specifically about antifa (they are usually titled What is antifa or something like that). For one, it has already been noted that the CNN wording is ambiguous. Finally, reply to this for why most of given sources are ambiguous and can be used in the main body (some of which I already included) but not support a far-left claim (not clearly verified by the weight of sources or not well-defined) in the lead sentence, even before anti-fascist, much less the very first sentence.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

For example, here Politico says Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups that espouse anarchist views and argue that the social change they seek requires radical measures such as violence and this does not support Antifa is a far-left but it may support Antifa is an anti-fascist movement in the United States comprising a diverse array of far-left autonomous groups which is not exactly the same thing.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You referred to WP:DUE which relates to over-emphasis of minority viewpoints (I recommend that you have a look at it). That's why I interpreted you that way. If that's not the policy you want to appeal to, then you're right, I don't understand how your argument relates to WP policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is very simple actually. We cannot use articles that give a passing mention for far-left; if we want to use those sources to describe antifa's political position, we need the articles to be about antifa's political position (again, they are usually titled What is antifa; we need to find them and compare them), not any article that have a passing mention of antifa as far-left. I gave you the example of Politico, whose wording does not support the claim of antifa being far-left, just that its groups are, which is a different thing.--Davide King (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Here, Politico is like The New York Times which has one article that say far-left and another which just say anti-fascist, so which is which? There is not even agreement between the same source on whether antifa is far-left or not, which is one more reason we should simply say anti-fascist.--Davide King (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh, what WP policy are you appealing to again? Lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not appealing to any Wikipedia policy in particular (I guess due, original research and synthesis may suffice because the sources do not support your implications and talk more about protests than antifa), I just think they do not support your implications and are contradicted by other articles from the same reliable sources. You did not reply to any objection raised by me and other users. Why should we use those sources when it is just an article passive mentioning far-left when of the same news outlet (The New York Times and Politico in this case) I just found two articles that support simply anti-fascist? I am tired of this discussion as you do not reply to any objections and just keep saying RS, even when I have shown you how they contradict each other or do not support your proposed implications. I hope Bobfrombrockley can continue this discussion because he may explain my points more clearly since you keep asking questions without actually responding to any objections that have been raised by those who support omitting both. I think I have been pretty clear.--Davide King (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not appealing to any Wikipedia policy in particular. Thanks for clarifying that. If there are sources that characterize Antifa in additional ways to 'far-left' then we should include those characterizations as well. The things you're pointing at (e.g. their being called 'antifascist' in some sources) do not contradict their characterization as far-left. According to sources, they're far-left and antifascist. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How the same news outlets simply using anti-fascist does not contradict far-left? They either are far-left or they are not. If they are overwhelmingly far-left as you seem to imply and suggest, why two different articles from The New York Times and Politico only say anti-fascist and make no mention of far-left? Anti-fascist does not imply far-left, I am sure on this we can agree on. Also it is according to some sources that they are far-left and anti-fascist; according to others, they are left-wing and anti-fascist; according to other still, they are militant left-wing anti-fascist; yet according to some more, they are militant anti-fascist. Notice how the only thing in common is anti-fascist?--Davide King (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Lots of reliable sources call them all these things: left wing, far left, militant, and anti-fascist. So sources say Antifa is all of these things. The most specific description with lots of reliable sourcing is far left, anti-fascist, and militant. Should we include all three of these descriptions? Well, the current RfC only asks about 'far left' and 'militant'. But yeah, I think we should include all three, based on the massive amount of sourcing for each description. This description is not undue given the sources, and it isn't contradictory. This isn't hard. Let's stop, ok? Nobody is going to read all this, and we're not going to agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There may be reliable sources that call them all these things but not all at once, so it is indeed original research and synthesis, if you want a policy guideline. The only agreement between sources is anti-fascist and left-wing is not the same as far-left so while left-wing includes the far-left, it also includes the centre-left, so all sources that simply say left-wing should not be considered as supporting far-left; that is indeed original research. But I agree, let us agree to disagree.--Davide King (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not original research or synthesis. When RS1 says A, and RS2 says B, it is not synthesis or OR for us to say: both A and B. I am not taking sources that say "left wing" as support for "far left". I'm only taking (lots) of sources that say "far left" as support for "far left". And sources that say "left wing" do not contradict the sources that say "far left", obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I found a survey of Antifa. I'm starting a list and invite others to add to it. It does have some concerns about antifa that are related to, yet clearly different from, the disputed passages in the lead. I'm interested in seeing other surveys prior to forming an opinion. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Overview of Antifa by the Anti-Defamation League [19].

In light of my belief that the sources used to support the far-left do not actually support that or cannot be used because they report more on protests and other people comments, including the terrorists label, than they talk about antifa and what it is (as is done in The New York Times and a few others which are the only sources that are appropriate, so certainly ot the supposed dozens of sources that merely passive mention far-left), let us make an actual analyses of those supposed sources, shall we? When I wrote that all but The New York Times are simply passive mentions in articles that are about antifa's role in protests and Trump and others' comments about antifa in accusing them of turning the protests into violence and labelling them as terrorists I was referring only about the sources that appear here. Let me analyse all those given sources here.

1. The New York Times. It is fine because the passive mention is about the protests and Trump while all the other paragraphs are about antifa and what it is.
2. Fact Check. The main topic is the possible designation of antifa as terrorists and I had great difficulty in find far-left which is only mentioned once! Something closer to that only appears when it is reporting Barr's comment that it appears the violence is planned, organized and driven by anarchic and left-extremist groups, far-left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics (then it is not even antifa, if they are only using Antifa-like tactics; it does not say it was planned, organized and driven by [Antifa]) and right after this he is reported as saying the truth is nobody really knows while the other mention is Trump spouting antifa and other radical left-wing groups and the Radical Left which is not even saying it was antifa; Trump is saying the violence is caused by the Radical Left and other radical left-wing groups; and he merely mentions antifa alongside them. Yet the very first sentence actually reads As some nationwide protests have turned violent, President Donald Trump pointed to the anti-fascist movement antifa so is it simply an anti-fascist movement antifa or an umbrella term for far-left militant anti-fascism groups? By the way, we do not use the umbrella term terminology, so if we are to use to support this source for the far-left claim, then we would also have to use umbrella term, otherwise it is original research or synthesis and cherry picking if we use it for the far-left claim but not for the other which contradicts the current wording (there was even a discussion about it).
3. The Washington Post. Again, the main topic is not really antifa and again far-left is another passive mention (I could find only one far-left mention), without explaining what it means and with no What is antifa explanation as is done for The New York Times.
4. USA Today. Again, the main topic is not really antifa but rather the Portland protests. In other words, this is a source that by all means we can use to report for the Portland protests; we cannot use it for the far-left claim in the lead; and here is the BBC using left-wing and I am sure I could find other sources on the Portland protests that are ambiguous about the political position or do not use far-left.
5. Los Angeles Times. Exactly the same thing as for USA Today.
6. The Washington Post. Same thing for The New York Times. This is actually about What is antifa and it is fine. Academic sources would still be preferable and this may not be enough. It also quotes Bray at large, yet as far as I am aware Bray does not use far-left.
7. Politico. And we go back to the main topic being the protests and Barr's comments rather than What is antifa. It is also not sure whether Politico believes they are far-left or if it is merely reporting how Barr described them (again, far-left is a passive mention and is not something discussing at large). Either way, the main topic is something else rather than What is antifa which is a single passive mention (Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups that espouse anarchist views and argue that the social change they seek requires radical measures such as violence).
8. The Washinton Post. Ditto, the main topic is Trump's designation of antifa as a terrorist organization, not What is antifa; and far-left is not even mentioned! So I was right when above I wrote that Bray does not actually say far-left. This can actually be used to support the claim that [the] right-wing [has] attempt[ed] to blame everything on antifa and it is actually written by the expert Bray. (I could find no single mention of far-left, other than quoting Barr's comments)
9. ABC News. Finally another source that is actually about What is antifa. Yet, it reads [w]hile antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism which we and experts describe as left-wing ideologies so I do not see how this can be used to support the far-left label. Again, it quotes Bray, who does not actually say far-left. (see reported quote)
10. CNN. This is fine, but it actually says The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often [not always] the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform so how does this brief mention support the far-left claim? It seems to be that it is described as often [not always] [leaning toward] the far left merely because [it] do[es] not conform with the Democratic Party platform; in other words, it is far-left (the source does not actually say this) merely because it is to the left of the Democratic Party, apparently assuming that the Democratic Party is left-wing rather than big tent centrist.
11. Haaretz. It is fine as it is about What is antifa, but I could not even found a far-left mention; it seems to support the militant claim but it may as well used to support the current wording of digital activism and miltancy when it says In this context, antifa activists view their actions as the only means of defense against a demonstrable threat from fascist activists. Militancy becomes a move designed to match the violence of far-right activists with a counter-veiling force. I noted after Charlottesville the danger of drawing an equivalency between the violence of the far-right and militancy of antifa activists, and it rings true today. (no mention of far-left)
12. PBS. It is about What is antifa but the same argument I made for Fact Check applies here as it uses umbrella term so we cannot use this to support far-left without also using umbrella term, otherwise it is original research or synthesis which is what I was reverted for here.

In other words, all those sources may well be used to report on what is happening; they cannot be used to support the claim that antifa is far-left, certainly not as the very first word in the lead after Antifa is. Finally, as I wrote above in Discussion, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analising is that it is mainly American news outlets that use far-left while internationally either left-wing is used (The Independent and The Week) or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on far-left merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use far-left because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--Davide King (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo incident and Tacoma detention centre attack

@NedFausa: See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7#I decided to remove the whole Portland section and move it here, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 13#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 14#Ngo Attack is Due. What's changed since those previous discussions resulted in no consensus to mention this incident in the article? And, separately, see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 9#Willem Van Spronsen and Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Willem van Spronsen attack on ICE detention center; same question applies. (Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS covers both.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: You've yet to respond to to this question as it pertains to the Tacoma incident. Feel free to create a new section to do so if you prefer. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the point? I can't keep up with your determined deletions of reliably sourced content, and other editors have shown they couldn't care less. I leave it to you. I'll continue adding, you'll continue deleting. That's the way Wikipedia works. NedFausa (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Austin arrests

I think the sentence about the people recently arrested in Austin under #Response from law enforcement and government officials needs to be removed. Not only is it poorly sourced to local news articles (apparently the arrests didn't even receive any attention in the state-level media) which fail to indicate any significance within the history of antifa, it's also clearly contrary to WP:BLPCRIME, because it concerns low-profile figures who haven't been convicted of a crime. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

While some sources say they were antifa, others say they belonged to an antifa-like organization. in fact they live streamed their actions on a facebook page belonging to "Defend Our Hoodz", which fights gentrification. So it is extremely unlikely they have any links to antifa. The only significance is that conspiracy theorists are seeing antifa everywhere although there is no evidence any of them were present at any of the demonstrations. The specter of antifa is haunting America. TFD (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I revised the disputed content to address WP:BLPCRIME concerns. NedFausa (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't substantially address any of the concerns raised above. WP:BLPCRIME strongly suggests we avoid discussing low-profile individuals in relation to crimes for which they haven't been convicted; it doesn't suggest throwing in an "allegedly" to soften such claims. It's also still not clear that these events have been the subject of any attention in reliable sources published outside a ten-mile radius (or thereabouts) of where they occurred. From which we can conclude that these events do not constitute a significant event within the history of antifa, nor does mentioning them aid in understanding the topic. This can, of course, be re-evaluated if the arrests result in a conviction. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I revised the disputed content to include a reliable source published outside a ten-mile radius of Austin. As reported by CBS DFW, Texas Department of Public Safety director Col. Steve McCraw, a statewide law enforcement official, spoke at Dallas City Hall, which is 192 miles from the Capital Plaza Target store in Austin. NedFausa (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You are taking the expression 10 mile radius too literally. One would expect a Dallas-Fort Worth station to report what is happening at the state capital. But the story has received no attention outside Texas and little attention inside. That's probably because the claim that the people arrested had any ties to antifa is dubious at best. TFD (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

According to an article in the Epoch Times, the DA claims that the three are known members of a group formerly called the Austin Red Guards. It's questionable the group, if it still exists, is part of antifa as it is best known for attacking left-wing groups. TFD (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Laura Ingraham

Does the sentence on Laura Ingraham's 2017 call for antifa to be identified as a terrorist organisation need to be in the Political commentators and members of Congress section? It seems to me that, while it might have been newsworthy three years ago, it's now more or less standard fare for a Fox News commentator. We're not going to list every commentator who supports such a move, so I think we ought to remove that sentence and rename the section accordingly (Ingraham is the only non-politician mentioned). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If anything, the fact that she ade the comment three years ago when n others were doing so, makes it more worthy of being in the article, not less. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. On the other hand, the source cited doesn't seem to treat it as that remarkable, and notes that a petition calling for antifa to be designated a terrorist group (mentioned under Trump administration) had already received 300,000 signatures by the time Ingraham made her remarks, so she wasn't exactly ahead of the curve. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources note that Ingraham's call was significant, e.g. in influencing Trump and others in this call, then we should include it. For us to claim it was significant without such reliable sources would be original research. If it was not significant in this way its inclusion is arbitary and against due weight policy. So, we should either find a source showing her call was noteworthy, or we should delete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

POV paragraph on Andy Ngo

This revert [20] restores a POV version of the paragraph about the attack on Andy Ngo. The restored material goes on at length about what Ngo had done. But the things Ngo had done were not justifications for a physical attack. Additionally, the revert calls the previous version a "POV edit", even though it was sourced more evenly than the version it had reverted too. Note in particular that prior to the revert, a source with a left-wing POV (Rolling Stone) was balanced by a source with a libertarian POV 9Reason Magazine). See WP:RSP. The revert removes this balance in the sourcing. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that the those may not have been justifications for a physical attack, I believe they are worth mentioning to give a better context (Vox clearly states In the dominant narrative, pushed by the conservative and mainstream media alike, the attack on Ngo is evidence of a serious left-wing violence problem in America. [...] Ngo is not an innocent victim but a far-right sympathizer who has doxxed antifa members in the past, potentially facilitating their harassment, and provokes them so that he can broadcast the result. The outpouring of sympathy for Ngo, in this account, is actually evidence that the mainstream media is falling for Ngo's grift — funneling money to his Patreon and legitimizing a right-wing smear campaign against a group that's working to protect people from the threat of violence from groups like the Proud Boys. and are not original research or synthesis as it may have been this. Furthermore, we use alt-right, far-right, white supremacist or other qualifier when discussing those engaged by antifa which is what I believe should be done for Carlson too. For example, CNN reports They believe Carlson supports and promotes a white nationalist agenda on Fox News, hence why they targeted him, but I digress. I hope Beyond My Ken can reply to your objections as well.--Davide King (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is no consensus for including the Ngo incident (which we are still discussing; you should have waited for a consensus), so you should have been reverted for that (you changed the paragraph from the 2020 lawsuit to the 2019 incident), although I agree you should have been reverted also for removing right-wing "provocateur" [...] [and] "far-right sympathizer" which is also what Andy Ngo reads and has read for a while. Furthermore, that paragraph was about the lawsuit which may be due (unlike the Ngo incident which we are still discussing, there has not been opened any discussion on whether the lawsuit is due or not, so you removed the lawsuit which seems to be supported as due and reinstated the 2019 incident which we are still discussing), but which we ought to keep an eye on the situation – e.g. if the suit is thrown out very quickly it might not be significant enough to include, whereas if it continues to get coverage it probably ought to stay, at least per Arms & Hearts.--Davide King (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, Ngo is a provocateur who views anti fascism as more of a problem than white supremacism or neo-Nazism. Once, he managed to provoke an assault. He uses that to support the pre-existing right-wing narrative of violent leftist extremism, when the evidence shows that the far right is an actual domestic terrorism threat in a way that anti-fascists are not. We're not going to pretend otherwise. Guy (help!) 10:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I am confused by the reference to "Carlson". This is about Andy Ngo. The incident itself has more coverage than the lawsuit. How can the lawsuit be worth including but the incident not? Lastly, descibing Ngo as a "provocateur" is contrary to WP:WikiVoice. Note that neither Reason nor Vox uses that word to describe him. Vox does say he is close to being a "gonzo journalist", for whatever that's worth. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There is recent consensus that Andy Ngo is a troll and provocateur who, on that basis alone, deserved to be brutally beaten by Antifa's goon squad and, again on that basis alone, should not be mentioned anywhere in Antifa (United States). We must adhere to consensus. We must toe the line. Resistance is futile. Lower your standards and surrender your principles. You will be assimilated. NedFausa (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIV WP:AGF WP:NOTFORUM. Strawman arguments are not conducive to consensus. O3000 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Did I touch a nerve? As a dutiful member of the collective, I'm simply pointing out that consensus expressed in an earlier section of this talk page may apply as well to this newer section. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. NedFausa (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Vox does use that term. It says: "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer who has worked with militant right-wing groups; he seems to delight in antagonizing antifa members and broadcasting the results."[21] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I would be comfortable using Vox for BLP labels. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Rest easy! Vox is certified by Wikipedia as "liberal-leaning" and appears in the vaunted green box on Ad Fontes Media, Inc.'s Interactive Media Bias Chart® 5.0, as recommended on this very talk page specifically relating to Andy Ngo by administrator Guy, who advises: "It's not perfect, but there's pretty broad consensus around the sources in the green box at RSN." NedFausa (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I still don't use Vox for controversial facts. I care about reliability and gravitas not political slant, and Vox is tabloidish. Guy (help!) 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is nothing controversial about Andy Ngo's reputation. As you declared on this talk page yesterday, The thing we know with most confidence about Ngo is that he is, bluntly, a troll. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your sarcastic banter in this section is producing more heat than illumination. Please stop. ValarianB (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.18.72 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

ICE attack

Recently Arms & Hearts removed the July 2019 attack on ICE citing per talk; doesn't seem as though anyone's interested in arguing in favour of this being mentioned.[22] I could not find mention of it here on talk though I could certainly of missed it in the mess of the page. It was first added a couple days ago by NedFausa here.

In July 2019, 69-year-old Willem van Spronsen staged a predawn lone-wolf attack on the ICE's Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. After hurling incendiary devices in an attempt to set fire to a commercial-size propane tank at the facility and aiming his homemade unregistered "ghost" AR-15 style rifle at first responders, he was shot dead by police. [23] The Tacoma Police Department said Van Spronsen's possible motives included his association with antifa and was reviewing his manifesto[24] in which he wrote "I am antifa".[25] Calling him a "good friend and comrade", Seattle Antifascist Action proclaimed Van Spronsen "a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism".[26]

Should it stay or go? PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng: I took the liberty of restoring the final reference, which you omitted from the talk quote block. NedFausa (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool beans, thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe the historical significance of this incident is that it represents the only known instance of an individual giving his life for the cause of Antifa USA. In his manifesto, Van Spronsen self-identified as Antifa. Upon his death, he was proclaimed a martyr by his local comrades in Seattle Antifascist Action. This is a dramatic and noteworthy development that belongs in the article space. NedFausa (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing in our article 2019 Tacoma attack that indicates that he was a member of "Seattle Antifascist Action", and his friends described him as "anti-fascist", not as "antifa". I'm an anti-fascist, but I am not antifa. This material is not well-enough connected to the antifa movement to be included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: Thank you pointing out the omission of Willem van Spronsen's declaration "I am antifa" from 2019 Tacoma attack. I have added it to that page. NedFausa (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Since neither you nor I have read the "manifesto", this cannot be added to the article, because the people reporting "antifa" have a interest in characterizing it in that way. I have removed your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with BMK. There is zero evidence that this person had anything to do with antifa. This has been discussed before. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

O3000: On July 19, 2019, The Washington Post reported: A man fatally shot by police Saturday after allegedly throwing "incendiary objects" at an immigration detention center in Washington state was an anarchist who claimed association with antifascists—known as antifa—according to new details released by police. (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we know what the police claimed he claimed. If he claimed association with the Illuminati or Boy Scouts, would we put it in those articles? We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. When someone shows an actual association, we'll include it. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

On July 16, 2019, BuzzFeed News reported: The man who died after being shot by Washington state police Saturday while tossing lit objects at vehicles and buildings outside an immigrant detention center self-identified as an anti-fascist, or "antifa," who was motivated by the recent immigration raids and deportations launched by the federal government. (Emphasis added.) BuzzFeed News also quoted a Facebook post in which Seattle Antifascist Action called the activist "a good friend" who "gave his life to the struggle against fascism." NedFausa (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing. NedFausa (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading other articles, he seems to have been a solo operator, not part of even casually organized anti-fascism, and more of an anarchist than anything else.

There's no whitewashing here. He didn't identify as "antifa" he identified as "anti-fascist". Related, but not the same. The new outlets that called him "antifa" seemed to be relying on police sources, or are making the assuming that every anti-fascist is antifa. Not true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yellow journalism. Is anyone being investigated for this act? Have any authorities indicted anyone? Newspapers report everything. An encyclopedia takes the long term view. O3000 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

O3000: Is anyone being investigated for this act? Say what! Are you suggesting that the Tacoma police officers who shot and killed Van Spronsen after he pointed his AR-15 at them murdered him à la the killing of George Floyd, and should now be investigated and indicted? You guys are too much. NedFausa (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, in some countries, every single time law enforcement kill or injure a civilian - suspect or not - it is investigated. Those countries have a lower rate of police shootings. This could, of course, be a coincidence. In this case it is clearly outrageous that the shooting of a 70-year-old engaged in criminal damage but probably unarmed, shoud be investigated. Oh no, wait: "The four officers involved were placed on paid administrative leave as the investigation continues, the department said."

Was he Antifa? Or Occupy? Or Alcoholics Anonymous? Or a lone wolf angry at privately run concentration camps on US soil? Or some combination of these? Was he radicalised by Facebook? That seems to be supported by the sources: he was actively involkved there, whereas Antifa don't have a central forum. It seems messy to me.

The Floyd protests are a response to excessive, disproportionate use of force. One very common refrain is that police are issued with guns but not trained in de-escalation, and when all you have is a hammer... Guy (help!) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read The Washington Post story I cited, you'd know that The four officers—who had 20 years, 4 years, one year and 9 months of experience on the Tacoma police force, respectively—have been put on paid administrative leave, according to department policy. … An investigation into the incident continued throughout Saturday, police said, and authorities closed roads near the center as they gathered evidence. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, Ned, read back over your comments. I was responding to "Is anyone being investigated for this act?" Say what! Are you suggesting that the Tacoma police officers who shot and killed Van Spronsen after he pointed his AR-15 at them murdered him à la the killing of George Floyd, and should now be investigated and indicted? You guys are too much. As has happened before on this page, your own sources contradict your rhetoric. Yes, the police are being investigated. I this case, given the propane tank, they would likely be cleared, but just imagine if they'd had de-escalation training, eh? How would it have turned out, I wonder? Guy (help!) 14:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You are asking questions to which any intelligent reader would already know the answers. Willem van Spronsen had been involved with Occupy and AA years before he firebombed the ICE facility in Tacoma. In his manifesto explaining his mission on that occasion, he declared "I am antifa." He did not declare "I am Occupy." He did not declare "I am Alcoholics Anonymous." But of course his own words don't matter to Wikipedia editors determined to scrub his historic sacrifice on behalf of Antifa USA from this and any other article in order to minimize Antifa's connection to deadly violence. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

While I think there are good arguments for excluding this on the basis of the tenuous connection to the subject, I think it's also important to ask, even if the connection were indubitable—if Van Spronsen had been wearing an antifa membership card on a lanyard and screamed "viva antifa", and this was reported in reliable sources—whether this event constitutes a significant enough event in the history of antifa in the U.S. to merit a mention in this article. Less than a year on, nobody is talking about this (except us and probably Stormfront). Here are five "what is antifa" explainer pieces published by reliable sources the last ten days or so, none of which see fit to mention the Tacoma attack: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. The purpose of this article is to give a historical overview, not to list every event with which antifa may have been connected; the way we determine what's historically significant enough to be worth mentioning is by determining whether sustained coverage exists. The brief burst of attention this event received is not sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• If this was discussed before, and the consensu was not to include it, the consensus does not seem to have changed. The back-and-forth is therefore extraneous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Was the consensus in favor of not including it, or was there merely no consensus either way? Those are two very different things. And why do you say If this was discussed before. Don't you know? NedFausa (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Buzzfeed and Seatle Times article make a pretty clear connection to Antifa, especially when they quote his own writings saying "I am antifa". Solo operator does not matter for Antifa, they are not a specific organization. Anyone who says they are Antifa, are Antifa. There does not seem to be a vetting process since, you know, they are semi autonomous etc. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, true, but there is some kind of group - a lone wolf attack is exactly that. I have no strong opinion either way here but this is not like incels, where to be one is to be one. Guy (help!) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Granted they do generally employ a mob mentality. What would it take to be considered part of Antifa beyond just saying you are part? The Buzzfeed article does note that a lead organizer with Seattle Antifascist Action seems to of considered him active in it. What is a incels? PackMecEng (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  What is a incels? Oh man, that is a rabbit hole... suffice to say, the term stands for "involuntary celibates." These are folks who believe they have been wrongly denied sex, and incel communities usually devolve into hate speech (primarily against women). Several instances of gun violence and mass shootings have been perpetrated by self proclaimed incels. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah I was just reading up on it too. Well it all sounds terrible, just shockingly terrible. I think I am going to avoid the subject and try and pretend I do not know that they are a thing. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Boogaloos

Why does Wikipedia have a 5000 words breakdown of this right wing group? Yet Antifa is only 500 words and vaguely touches that they're extremely violent and destructive. TonyKasino (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that calls them "extremely violent and destructive"? What I've seen are sources that say that they do not shy away from physical violence if they consider it necessary - hardly the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

TonyKasino, this article is currently about three times the size of boogaloo movement. Guy (help!) 14:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wishful thinking on Barr's part" is now grounds for removal of reliably sourced content

This must be one of those Wikipedia policies they forgot to teach me at the Edit-a-Thon: Wishful thinking on Barr's part. Fascinating. NedFausa (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not an outlet for Trump News. The Trump administration, ever since they've been in office, has repeatedly lied, misrepresented the truth, and presented their opinions and wishful thinking as facts. This means that we cannot take what they say at face value for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Reliable sources may reprt accurately what various Trump Administration people say, but there's are no grounds anymore for including their words in an article until they have been shown to be accurate by a third party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey POV editor BMK, you know the article is under 1RR right? PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, are you talking to me, PoC editor PackMecEng? You must have to the wrong person, because I'm "Dedicated to neutrality editor BMK." And, no, I didn;t know it was under 1RR. Did I break that? Then I'll fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: So now you're expanding the prohibition from Attorney General Barr to the entire Trump Administration, presumably including the president himself. Unless a third party of which you approve shows what U.S. government officials say is accurate—not accurately reported, mind you, but factual according to your preferred source—we may not include that content. If we try, you will revert it, as you did with today's remarks by AG Barr. This just gets better and better. NedFausa (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If the Trump Administration was evaluated as we do news sources to determine if they are reliable or not and can be used in the encyclopediaq, there is no doubt that they'd be cooling their heels with Daily Mail right now. They are most definitely not a reliable source for facts. 02:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Should stay removed: this is an unsubstantiated claim by a gov official and is undue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I had to revert myself because I was 90 minutes insides the 24 hour limit for a second revert, so anyone who feels as I do that it should not be in the article should do the right thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and do so quickly because Attorney General Barr's remarks represent a grave threat to the sanitized version of Antifa (United States) that involved editors now demand. NedFausa (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa and PackMecEng, please stop accusing other editors like that. Remember that bias goes both ways. I do not really have an opinion on this, but I found Beyond My Ken's comments persuasive. They also seem to blame more on anarchic and far left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics rather than antifa which they probably conflate with that. Note how antifa is usually not alone (anarchic and far left extremist groups, Antifa and other similar groups, antifa and other similar extremist groups, as well as actors of a variety of different political persuasions and anarchists like Antifa), basically acting like antifa is some organisation when it is not and conflating antifa and antifa groups with anarchists and anarchist groups.--Davide King (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Who did I accuse of what this time?! PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Did I dream when you called Beyond My Ken POV editor? It was unnecessary.--Davide King (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah kind of, it is our pet name for each other. Been calling each other that for a while. Kind of an in joke, which is why I did the winky face and left a message instead of going to 3RR. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Davide: Thanks for putting in a word for me, but I did not take offense at PME's remark. PackMecEng: Are you familiar with the "FBDB" (Friendly Banter, Don't Block" template? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be used more. PackMecEng (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to including Barr's words (without direct quoting, if that's preferred, and of course without giving the impression that his views are objective fact), for reasons I outlined a few days ago, but I don't see how we can include this statement if the only source is Fox News. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG. … Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source. NedFausa (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, that's an interview on Fox News Channel, which is very different from a story on Fox News. It's like the difference between NBC News and an interview with Maddow on MSNBC. Guy (help!) 14:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, Fox News Channel redirects to Fox News. And Wikipedia specifically mentions Special Report with Bret Baier in stating that FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, it's an interview. Those are primary sources, and Barr is the second least neutral source in America on anything related to Trump, after the president himself.

I can't help feeling you'd get more traction here if you proposed changes on Talk first rather than making slightly WP:POINTy edits and then sniping at everyone who challenges them. 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: There's an ongoing RfC on this matter. But the issue is (in my view) less one of reliability than one of noteworthiness: if Barr's remarks were significant or newsworthy, they'll be covered by other reliable sources, which thus far doesn't seem to be the case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, there is evidence of organisation, by far-right groups (e.g. completely defeating Antifa in Klamath Falls, OR, because Antifa never turned up). But anyone who's ever tried to organise leftists has long ago given up and gone for the less challenging option of herding cats. Guy (help!) 12:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• It's a matter of weight. We cannot present a partisan view without explanation of the degree of its acceptance. The phrasing implies that Barr is correct and his statement generally accepted by experts, which is questionable at best. TFD (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is not a partisan view, but a view by someone who simply has no credibility in anything whatsoever, being accused of gross abuse of power, etc. [32]. Does not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Group added to terrorist list after attack on neo-Nazis.

A Chicago group said to be inspired by a powerful religious figure and considering themselves to be "on a mission from God" has been added to the terrorist list after an attack on a Nazi rally in Illinois left two missing, presumed dead, and a trail of destruction with over a hundred law enforcement vehicles damaged and several state troopers with broken watches. [33] Guy (help!) 12:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what does that have to do with Antifa? And isn’t that a satirical website? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, fake news? I have it on good authority that the British National Party cited this publication in its campaign against Corbyn's "hug a jihadi" policy. And the relevance is obvious: they are anti-fascists. One of the leaders is quoted as saying "I hate Illinois Nazis". Guy (help!) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This section, which is one administrator's idea of a joke and has nothing to do with improving Antifa (United States), should be removed per WP:NOTFORUM. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Remember the 75 year old man shoved by the Buffalo police who lay bleeding from his ear on the ground? The president of the US just suggested he was an antifa provocateur. The point is that we must be careful about labeling acts as associated with antifa. O3000 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The point is that some Wikipedia admins and editors will go to any length—including posting utter nonsense—to distract from attempts by others to improve Antifa (United States) by including well sourced accounts of Antifa involvement in violent events and U.S. government officials' responses to Antifa involvement in those events. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Your continued refusal to WP:AGF is not useful. We do not agree that acceptable documentation of antifa involvement has been reliably sourced or that your proposed additions are improvements under WP policies and guidelines. We are allowed to disagree. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a challenge to assume good faith on the part of editors who, for example, post this: The Trump administration, ever since they've been in office, has repeatedly lied, misrepresented the truth, and presented their opinions and wishful thinking as facts. This means that we cannot take what they say at face value for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Reliable sources may reprt accurately what various Trump Administration people say, but there's are no grounds anymore for including their words in an article until they have been shown to be accurate by a third party. Yup. NedFausa (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

[34] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well... FDW777 (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, you are going to have to work on your inability to assume good faith as your repeated comments about other editors is not an effective means of producing a consensus. WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, you are acting too aggressively in this discussion. I've already warned you against this sort of conduct when you engaged in it in the IPA topic area. Well, the same applies to the AP2 topic area as well. At some point, you are going to exhaust these repeated warnings and will just be sanctioned outright. For the umpteenth time, you need to start doing better by conducting yourself with greater moderation. El_C 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ned, what Beyond My Ken said isn’t inaccurate, and this has been illustrated by two editors citing the conspiracy theory Trump was just peddling today about Martin Gugino. The context of what they said is likewise true; we need reliable third party sourcing when the primary source makes unreliable statements. I’m not sure what exactly your point was in quoting that comment. On a completely unrelated note, I just noticed that a majority of your edits fall under WP:MEATBOT, as they’re clearly automated. But most of the recent ones are just removing the participle “down” from “slowed down”. Why exactly is that necessary? In some cases, it might be introducing variants that differ from sourcing or intended meaning. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I’m not sure why you didn’t just simply reply here, as opposed to putting a notice on your user talk page, but regardless, thank you for the explanation. In response to that though, there is actually a difference, especially depending on the syntax. While “slowed” and “slowed down” are both simple past, “down” is used to show an action has been carried to completion. A better example of this is probably “boiled down” as opposed to just “boiled”. In the past tense, removing this can have the grammatical effect of introducing ambiguity, placing it in a state of indefinite duration. Some of these examples may even be removing a simple perfected state. It’s not a big deal, and I didn’t really know this until I learned Latin, as speaking Latin requires more precision than English. I’m not saying this simply to be pedantic, and I’m not going to check whether there were errors introduced by your changes; just be careful when editing at such a rapid pace. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Eleanor Penny

Information relating to Eleanor Penny was recently moved claiming "not a scholar". I believe this edit should be reverted, with a slight modification to place her after Chomsky which she wasn't originally.

At present the Antifa (United States)#Reactions of others includes her in the first sub-section, stating Eleanor Penny, an author on fascism and the far-right, argues against Chomsky... But the inclusion here makes little sense, since Chomsky's point that she is the counter-point to doesn't appear until the third sub-section. FDW777 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Penny should go immediately after Chomsky. However, I'm dubious about Chomsky being listed among scholars. He is of course an academic, but a linguist - he has no expertise on antifa and is commenting here as an activist/commentator, not in his capacity as a linguist. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with removing both. Chomsky is not an expert in this area & his statements should be removed, which means we no longer need the rebuttal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

She was included in the section /Academics and scholars/ whereas she is not a scholar. As noted above, Chomsky is a scholar, but not an expert (although he has been writing about politics for decades). Remove both. Alcaios (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Eleanor Penny defines herself as a "a writer, journalist, editor, poet, broadcaster and teacher" on here website. Whereas only a few academic, peer-reviewed studies have been done on the American Anfifa movement due to its recent emergence, we should be cautious regarding the sources we use to analyze the movement. It should be also clear that Mark Bray is a scholar AND an activist (he was one of the organizers of Occupy Wall Street). That said, he is a scholar and an expert on the movement, so I see no reason to dismiss his study for his personal viewpoints. On the other side, what Laura Ingraham thinks is totally irrelevant. Please cite a real study about the link between terrorism and the Antifa. Alcaios (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

PS2: the tendency of some contributors to think that the analysis of a scholar and a journalist has the same intrinsic value is detrimental to the health of Wikipedia and epistemology in general (cf. a sub-section in /Reactions of others/). I have been contributing to Wikipedia for one year now, and you can't imagine the number of approximations/simplifications (sometimes blatant errors), that have been spotted in the so-called NEWS:RS (recently in ABC). Alcaios (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Antifa has been declared a terrorist organization. 2600:1006:B027:B625:E8A1:6528:719D:A069 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See the many sections at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 16. FDW777 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

FAQ

I've added the terrorist designation to the FAQ since the relevant sections have been archived from this page. If anyone wants to amend the wording, go ahead. FDW777 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, The FAQ is outright incorrect- there is a mechanism by which the president of the United States could theoretically declare such a group a terrorist organization. Nothing in the law prohibits the president from using the executive order to accomplish this. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

'Diversity' in Antifa

The first sentence of the article states that Antifa is a 'diverse' group which runs counter to all anecdotal evidence. The statement should be removed until it can be sourced. 121.45.171.107 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You’ll find the sources on this talk page and its archives. From editors mentioning dozens of sources saying as much, when others have argued what you’ve suggested. It’s your responsibility to check the archives. It is absolutely not a monolithic nor an organized movement. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be referenced in the article as per WP:VERIFIABILITY, not in the archives of the talk page... I have just done it. Alcaios (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well done, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I sent you a thank you for this, but I hadn’t said so in a comment. In my reply to the OP, I was simply saying that the notion that this runs “counter to all anecdotal evidence” was pretty thoroughly refuted. Thanks for taking the initiative. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

It currently states that ANTIFA uses violence to protest in the United States and up to this point in time, it is not proven that the violence in the United States protests has been initiated by anyone promoting the anti fascism movement. Please delete “use of violence in protests.”. BrentCrawford (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are multiple sources in the article that report a proportionately small amount of violence by antifa activists, along with advocacy of violence by antifa writers. If you have wording changes to better reflect what the sources say, please propose that wording here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of evidence that Antifa members engage in violence routinely. SJMccarthy (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide references as to "routinely". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

My preferred version already has consensus. Please provide any sources that support your alternative facts. SJMccarthy (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a pointer to the consensus discussion where "routinely violent" was decided.

BTW, interesting that you have 5 edits starting yesterday, but you know enough about Wikipedia to refer to "consensus". Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another name? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You know, this may shock you, but people can read Wikipedia rules all on their own. No matter how "interesting" you find it. SJMccarthy (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is a non sequitor, and didn't answer my question -- but I'll transfer it to your talk page, where it's more appropriate.

Oh, and just a reminder: you failed to provide a pointer to that consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Out soon, American Antifa The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism

Sadly not cheap.[35] It hasn't actually been released yet

Some quotes from the author:

"I describe antifa as a decentralized collection of individual activists who mostly use nonviolent methods to achieve their ends. Their goal is to resist the spread of fascism. That word can be an inexact term, but generally antifa activists see fascism as the violent enactment and enforcement of biological and social inequalities between people." + "But the antifa label is most often applied to smaller-scale groups of like-minded people who live in the same community, working to prevent fascists from threatening their targets and from attracting new followers. These groups are rarely militant or violent. Most of them engage in commonly accepted forms of political activism. For instance, anti-fascists often work to find out where fascist groups and people are active in an area, and then share that information with the wider community, bringing that activity to public attention."

"Culture is another part of anti-fascist work, including art and music. By creating T-shirts and stickers with inclusive messages, and hosting concerts, film screening and art shows, anti-fascists work to create an environment of inclusion and equality that doesn’t directly attack fascism but simply exists in opposition to it.'

"There are more militant anti-fascists, too, who mostly engage in non-militant activism but are willing, at times, to use more confrontational tactics. These people are more open to counterprotesting, sabotage and the use of force, which includes acts of violence."[36]

As this is the product of research, it's going to provide a much broader and more nuanced view than we get from the media. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This is propaganda and should not be included. SJMccarthy (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, pure propaganda, straight from that most radical of publishers, Routledge.

(Oh, I'm sorry, you don't get the joke do you?, because you have absolutely no idea who Routledge is or what kind of books they publish, or what their reputation is. You just knee-jerked out a response to something you didn't like.)

And "Stanislav Vysotsky", isn't that a ferriner? And ain't the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater where he teaches that commie symp place where they make all the students read Das Kapital while burning Senator Joe Macartney in effigy? Beyond My Ken (talk)

You should consider reading up on WP:CIVIL before responding like this again. SJMccarthy (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

In the real world, not all communists or anarchists are revolutionaries, certainly not socialists

I was thinking last night about this "far left" debate. One problem of course is that the far right sees even parts of the center as far left (and let's not even get into the bit about Nazis being far left). I see the far left as being the revolutionary left, a pretty easy binary distinction without a big grey area. So let's see who is what.

Communism. Clearly has revolutionary elements, starting with the Russian revolution (where there was no opportunity of course to come to power democratically. In real life today there are of course still revolutionary communists (although I wouldn't count parties such as the Chinese or North Korean parties as actually revolutionary any more). But most of the larger parties are part of the democratic process in their countries, at times taking part in coalition governments. For instance, there are two in India List of political parties in India, at times winning control of one of the Indian states. List of communist parties gives details about communist parties which have or are part of coalition governments. So we can't say that all communists want to overthrow the government - being a communist does not make you a revolutionary. Heck, a poll last year showed that more than a third of millennials in the US approved of communism[37] - these are far left revolutionaries.

Socialism - left-wing, not far-left, part of the democratic process. Also seen favorably by a large number of young people in the US.[38]

Anarchism - as it says, some are revolutionary, some evolutionary.

None of this should be necessary, but sadly it is. The book I describe above and Mark Bray's recent comments about the majority of their activities should be enough to make it clear that Antifa is not simply a collection of far-left revolutionaries mainly resorting to violence. Note that stating the facts does not make me an apologist. That sort of accusation has to stop as it's a violation of discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug: I would have to include ideology as a defining factor in whether a person, organization or movement is far-left or not, as well as their commitment to revolutionary action.

Communism is a difficult one, primarily because there's really not a unitary form of communism. You've got the original Marx-Engels concept, the Lenin-Trotsky revolutionary internationalist version of that, Stalin's "revolution in one country", which was not really revolutionary in any significant aspect, Mao's version, which was revolutionary and then not and then batshit insane and then post-Mao slowly mutated into the barely communist capitalistic authoritarian melange it is now. More, you have the little revolutionary communisms of Ho and Castro and Che and Pol Pot, Eastern European Communism in which ideology played a small part and kowtowing to Moscow played a large part, and then Western European bourgeois communism which seeks to work through the democratic system -- which does not necessarily make them "democratic" (see the example on the other end of the spectrum of Hitler working through the Weimar democratic system to "seize power"). Given all that, it's really impossibly to describe "communism" per se as "far-left", or really as any one thing. Sure, that's where its roots are, and if you want to think of "communism" as meaning "Marxist-Leninism", that's certainly far-left. I suppose "communism's" most enduring characteristic is opposition to capitalism, but, then, look at China today. (I always thought there was a lot of truth in Ned Beatty's speech in Network about how the Russians "get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.") China's defining feature is authoritarianism, not communism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote this before reading Beyond My Ken's response above and I am just linking to what I wrote because I do not want to go off-topic, but I thought this was interesting, including Beyond My Ken's reply. I absolutely agree that pointing this out does not make you or us apologists.--Davide King (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If we use the definition of "far-" or "extreme" found in the German constitution, an extremist party opposes liberal democracy and the constitutional order, while a radical one accepts free elections and the parliament as legitimate structures. I would argue that what makes a politics "extreme" (being far-left, far-right or ultra-liberal), is the amount of ideological concessions you're ready to make to competing ideologies. The far-left wants to destroy liberalism and conservatism (and is hostile to social-democrats, the so-called "social traitors"), as the far-right wants to destroy socialism and liberalism (and is hostile to conservatives, the so-called "cucks"). Alcaios (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Political scientists rarely use the term far left and there is no agreed definition. It's main use is in journalese and polemical writing. i suggest we avoid poorly defined terms in favor of unambiguous phrasing. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Political scientists rarely use the term far left What? haha. I will improve the article far-left in the coming days as I have done for the far-right Alcaios (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

On the far left, Antifa represents a fast-growing crusade designed to confront all forms of fascism... Klein (2019)

...far-left movements in the US such as Antifa were actively engaging in violent actions attacking alt-right demonstrators... Alizadeh et al. (2019)

Through network analyses of far-right and far-left hashtags (ie, #bluehand, #whitegenocide, and #antifa)... Wu (2020)

leading to violent street battles between the alt-right and Antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement... Perliger & Sweeney (2019), quoting (Swenson 2018)

Dr. Hawley said he believed the far-left activists, known as antifa, were welcomed by the white nationalists Fausset & Feuer (2019), quoting political scientist George Hawley.

I can provide additional sources if needed. Best regards, Alcaios (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, 'far-left' is commonly used, both by RS like NYT and WaPo and by academic sources. If Antifa is also described in other ways by other sources, we may want to include those descriptions too. But "far left" is widespread mainstream characterization of Antifa in a wide variety of RS. Here's an academic source that calls Antifa in particular "far-left" (see p. xxv). So yeah, claiming that our sources are wrong is obviously OR. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No, saying that using sources isn't simple isn't OR. I was making two points. One is that we need to stop with some of the aspersions and ridiculous statements being made above. Secondly is that our sources are conflicting, partially because of lack of analysis by a lot of the media. The same newspapers even use differing labels at times for the politics of this amorphous movement. Do you think that you can use that source at Black Lives Matter to call it far-left as p. xxv does? 57% of Americans support it according to a recent poll.[39] Your source is clearly wrong to call it far-left. I find it a bit odd that although the introduction calls both movements far left, the actual discussions of them doesn't mention anything like that. This is a more useful quote from p.17 "While Antifa’s tactics have “elicited substantial support from the mainstream left,” its use of violence makes supporters hesitant to fully embrace their presence at extreme right-wing events (Beinart 2017). Antifa activists contend that “anti-fascists promote acceptance of a diverse, multicultural world [whereas] right-wing extremists reject the diverse reality of modern life” (Jackson 2017). “Hate speech against vulnerable minorities leads to violence against vulnerable minorities” (Beinart 2017). Therefore, Antifa activists contend that they will continue to defend the weak and vulnerable, meet violence with violence, and protect the advancements of modern civilized society that they see threatened by the messages of individuals and groups on the extreme right wing of American politics." Doug Weller talk 17:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the relationship between a political denomination and the amount of support in the US population? I seriously don't understand why you're using this argument. Trump cannot be described as far-right because he is supported by 40% of the US population? Alcaios (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I often read the argument that sometimes scholars provide the political denomination of a person or movement without justification. I agree that it is always better for scholars to fully disclose their methodology. Yet, the irony is that some editors have being doing the same thing with newspapers for years. I would tend to rather trust a scholar that don’t justify an assertion that a journalist that don’t justify an assertion, even if it’s not desirable in any case. Alcaios (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I have cast no aspersions, so if you are replying to me, which you appear to be, please retract that. Second, I did not say that "using sources isn't simple" is an OR statement, so that was a misrepresentation of me. Third, your opinion of whether a Professor of Political Science is wrong really isn't relevant to content. Finally, this is not a forum, and not a place to discuss BLM. But yeah, this expert does identify BLM as far-left. Whether that would be due in the article about BLM would require more work to find out, but it is not relevant here. I do not know what content proposal you are making related to the many quotes you provided from that book. My point--which you apparently haven't denied--is that here we have an academic source that, along with central and respected reliable news organizations like NYT and WaPo, characterize Antifa as far left. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)