Talk:Antifa (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ngo Attack is Due[edit]

Here are fifteen reports, all from major news organizations, of the attack on Andy Ngo, and it really only scratches the surface. In light of the breadth of coverage, together with the fact that the attack is repeatedly mentioned as a motivation for legislation being considered in the US senate, and also as the motivating factor for the recent August 2019 rally, I cannot see how this story can be regarded as undue.

[1] WaPo reports The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore.
[2] NBC News reports that Chaos also broke out during a rally in June, when masked antifa members physically attacked conservative blogger Andy Ngo in an incident shared on social media.
[3] The Independent also reports the attack: A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland. Andy Ngo was surrounded and beaten by protesters wearing black with their faces concealed, while being covered in a milkshake, eggs and spray on Saturday. He was taken to hospital for treatment after posting a video showing bruises and cuts to his face and neck.
[4] The Intercept reports the attack: Andy Ngo was attacked in Portland on June 29 while filming a Patriot Prayer rally heavily outnumbered by antifa. A video shows him being punched, kicked, and hit with coconut milkshakes and silly string by masked individuals.
[5] Buzzfeed News had a reporter with Ngo, who wrote a long piece on what happened.
[6] BBC reports Conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who works for online magazine Quillette, was beaten in an attack that sent him to hospital.
[7] NYT wrote that In Portland this weekend, activists in the trademark black uniforms associated with antifa, as well as anarchists and related movements, struck the journalist Andy Ngo in the face, sending him to the emergency room. Mr. Ngo, who was also pelted with milkshakes, reported the attack in a video live-streamed to his more than 140,000 Twitter followers.
[8] NYT also reports the attack here, stating that it was the reason for the recent rally in Portland: Biggs ... said he had organized the rally in response to the beating of the conservative writer Andy Ngo in the clashes in June. Many have blamed Antifa for the beating, which was captured on video.
[9] Haaretz also reports the attack: Mr. Ngo, who has a reputation for embedding with far-right activists and maligning the left and anti-fascists in particular, was soaked with milkshakes, punched by a masked anti-fascist, and covered in silly string.
[10] The Atlantic (Peter Beinart, opinion) says On June 29, a video appeared showing masked activists wearing black clothing—the garb commonly associated with “antifa,” the self-described anti-fascist movement—assaulting the conservative journalist Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon.
[11] The Guardian reports Widely shared video taken by the Oregonian journalist Jim Ryan appeared to show Ngo being hit by counter-protesters and sprayed with silly string.
[12] AP reports Andy Ngo, a writer and photographer for the conservative website Quillette.com, posted on Twitter that he was attacked by anti-fascists and had his camera gear stolen.
[13] The Hill repeats the AP report: Andy Ngo, a sub-editor and photo journalist at Quillette, a conservative website, said he was attacked by anti-fascist protesters and taken to the hospital for head and facial injuries, according to the Associated Press..
[14] CBS News reports Andy Ngo, who describes himself as an editor at the conservative website Quillette and says he is "hated by antifa," said on his Twitter feed that he was attacked by anti-fascist protesters and had to be taken to the hospital to treat injuries to his face and head. Ngo also said the attackers took his camera equipment.
[15] ABC News reports Andy Ngo, a conservative journalist for the outlet Quillette, said he was among those assaulted at the march.

Of course someone could maintain that the attack wasn't clearly perpetrated by antifa. However, that conflicts with several RS above, including WaPo. Moreover, the sources which say that antifa perpetrated the attack are more than we have for the attribution of the Spencer punch to Antifa, which we currently include in the article. If consensus for inclusion of the Ngo attack emerges, I'd be happy to propose some language. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you struck all of the cites that do not say antifa did this but say things like "garb associated with antifa", or "anti-fascist" instead of antifa, or "counter-protesters" instead of antifa, or "multiple groups" not just antifa, or in other manners do not actually say antifa was behind the attack. Then we can focus on any that actually make a claim. O3000 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
We might want to say that the attack was perpetrated by "apparent antifa supporters" as we do in the Spencer punch story in the current version of the article. If we decide on that langauge, the sources you're asking me to strike would be relevant. So I don't think I should strike them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:WEASEL We document facts, not what looks like it might be a fact. O3000 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
"Apparent antifa supporter" is currently in the article. Are you for removing that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Haven't looked into that incident. But, doesn't sound good. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
As I've said before, I am for removing the Richard Spenser section unless we can find more sources (or perhaps they exist already) directly attributing that to antifa without qualifiers (like "apparent"). I am not opposed to adding a sentence or two on Ngo, but I would caution that we shouldn't use sources that essentially relay hearsay, like the last one where it simply says, in essence, "Ngo said he was attacked." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have tried and failed to find RS ascribing the attack on Spencer to Antifa, though of course I'd welcome help looking for such a source. Typical of the RS on this--which seems to be far less reported on than the Ngo attack--is the USA Today report we currently cite: [1]. This report says Spencer was punched by a masked protester and reports that Spencer claims that it was an Antifa member who punched him. But USA Today never reports in its own voice that it was an Antifa member who punched Spencer. In any case, I will strike the cagey references in my list above if we decide to remove the Spencer story from the current article. But I'm not sure how to tell when we have consensus on removing the Spencer. Galestar and Simonm223 seemed to disagree with removing the Spencer story from the article when I talked to them above. And certainly a case can be made, as I believe Simonm noted, that this Spencer punch brought a lot of attention to Antifa. So to me it's a little unclear where to go from here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's an RS that ties the Spencer punch to Black bloc, and then says " the black bloc is part of the longstanding visual language of international anti-fascism, or antifa." https://www.thenation.com/article/if-you-appreciated-seeing-neo-nazi-richard-spencer-get-punched-thank-the-black-bloc/ I think it would be extremely strange to not have Spencer mentioned in the antifa article. It is a big part of the antifa story. I know this isn't RS, but I think Google Trends shows how interconnected they are: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=richard%20spencer,antifa Also, thanks for putting together all of the links on Ngo, Shinealittlelight. Ngo is clearly another big part of US antifa's story, whether the group who attacked him was antifa or somehow a bunch of people pretending to be antifa. A huge rally just happened and the far right is saying that it was largely because of the latest attack on Ngo. I think it gives the article a look of extreme bias to not include Ngo at all. Mbsyl (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Which brings me back to my post above and the discussion about Antifa vs antifa. If "antifa" means anti-facist, then I am antifa. But I have nothing to do with Antifa. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you think many RS are using 'antifa' in a way that generalizes it as such User:Doug Weller?? From what I have seen, it is used almost exclusively to describe far left extremists who believe in political violence and deplatforming, often dressing in black bloc. I would be curious to see 1 RS that has a story about antifa that isn't about violent extremists, but rather just normal everyday people who don't like fascism. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/what-is-antifa.html this story is all about the question of what is antifa and i see no mention of your lowercase a group. I also don't see them capitalizing antifa when discussing the violent extremistsMbsyl (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to be rude, but I have to say that repeating the same thing about them being far left extremists who believe in political violence is getting boring. I am sure some of them are, and I'd be amazed if most of them weren't. Even the NYTimes article says "the loose affiliation of radical activists". It carefully avoids saying that antifa supporters attacked Ngo.It also says "Many antifa organizers also participate in more peaceful forms of community organizing," My guess, and it can only be a guess until someone manages to research a number of supporters, is that all Antifa supporters believe that violence may be necessary at some point, that many take part in it, but that not everyone does. I think if I'd been around (and in the UK of course) for the Battle of Cable Street I'd have taken part but I doubt I'd take part in any violence but I wouldn't try to stop it. This is straying a bit from original research, which we can discuss here, and forum talk, but First they came .... Doug Weller talk 16:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry that labeling them (in a way that you agree with, and because I'm trying to make a point about the topic at hand) upsets you? I don't see where you addressed my argument regarding antifa vs Antifa and I don't understand where you get this idea that there's an uppercase and lowercase A antifa. Like I said, I see virtually no RS using antifa like that. Mbsyl (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Back to content here. Doug Weller, nobody uses 'antifa' (or 'Antifa') to mean something that encompasses such a large number of people. The central use of the term is for a certain movement. And people can be against fascism without being a part of that specific movement. That's primarily how we use it in our article, and primarily how it is used in RS as far as I can see. We are not able to clearly see that members of the movement committed either the attack on Spencer or the attack on Ngo. And yet, in both cases, those attacks do play a big role in the coverage and attention that Antifa has received, and, in the case of Ngo, a minority of RS (prominently WaPo) have identified the attackers as antifa. Here are the options I see:

Option A: include both attacks, noting that although many have claimed antifa perpetrated the attacks, and the attacks have caused antifa to gain public visibility, the identity of the attackers as antifa remains contested.
Option B: Exclude both on the grounds that in neither case can we be confident that the attacks were antifa.

I'm tentatively in favor of A, but I don't feel too strongly. What I feel strongly about is that we can't keep the Spencer in while excluding the Ngo. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the relevant policy, DUE, with RS. It doesn't matter whether you can find sources, but whether sources about antifa routinely mention this. See for example "As Portland deals with Proud Boys protests, here's what Trump doesn't get about antifa", by Gary LaFree, founding director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) (NBC, Aug 17, 2019). There is no mention of Ngo. The only sources that routinely mention him in articles about antifa are extreme right blogs. TFD (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight listed 15 RS that mention Ngo. You list one that doesn't and conjecture that only right wing blogs routinely mention Ngo. I think the 15 RS links wins this one. Mbsyl (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying that it isn't enough that nearly every major news organization reported about this; we would also have to show that each of those organizations mentions Ngo "routinely" in stories they publish about Antifa. That's an extremely strict criterion that would lead to cutting nearly all the information we have out of the article as undue. So I think you're misinterpreting WP:DUE here, unless you want the article to be cut down to just a short paragraph. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, I just tested by googling "Associated Press antifa". I got two AP stories in my search results on the first page. Both mention Ngo. So I don't agree with your statement that "The only sources that routinely mention him in articles about antifa are extreme right blogs." Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they mention Ngo. They just don't say Antifa was the culprit. And frankly, I'm not going to read 15 entire articles when so many of the quotes you pulled from them clearly do not implicate Antifa, and I don't care what a Google search suggests. We're not going to do your work for you. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
You do not need to read the 15 articles. Many of them do not say that Antifa was clearly the culprit. This is not contested, so I'm not sure why you're making this point. Maybe you've just gotten used to disagreeing with me? We happen to agree in this case. RS generally don't say antifa was the culprit in this attack, though a few RS (WaPo, for example) do say that. The question is then whether option A or B above is best, or a third option I'm not thinking of. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Many of them do not say that Antifa was clearly the culprit. Great, strike them. Otherwise I'm certainly not going to read 15 articles when you've said many of them don't implicate Antifa. O3000 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I've explained that you're not being asked to read 15 articles, and I've explained why I am not striking the ones that do not clearly identify antifa as the culprit. I'm not going to repeat; read again. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I will pay no attention to an article I haven't read. Therefore, I see no reason to include Ngo. I have no opinion on the other attack at this time, and thus the two options are not sufficient. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest idea why you think that humorous. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────── @Shinealittlelight: I think it's time for you to drop the stick on this point. The question of whether the Ngo incident should be mentioned in the article has been discussed in great depth (see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7#I decided to remove the whole Portland section and move it here, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7#Violence against journalists - new section?, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)#Andy Ngo) and there has never been a consensus that it belongs in the article. At this point, it's very unlikely that that will change. This sort of behaviour may be considered disruptive. There are many other areas of this article that could do with improvement, and almost 6 million other articles you can edit instead; I'd recommend you find something else to focus on. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have primarily argued not for including the Ngo attack, but for either removing the Spencer attack or including the Ngo attack. This is a new argument, and some editors have seen merit in the line of reasoning I'm suggesting. Meanwhile, please no non-complimentary commentary on me; if you think I've broken a rule, report me. Otherwise, let's focus on content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Breaking rules, when necessary, is encouraged, but unfortunately certain kinds of behaviour are inimical to getting on with the work of building an encyclopaedia. As far as the "new argument," I'm afraid it's both insubstantial and incoherent: as far as I can see you've suggested that "it looks like promotion to include the Spencer punch and not the Ngo attack", but haven't explained why, or why anyone else ought to care about what things "look like" to you. As such, it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: you're saying that if we have x we must have y, as though there were an intrinsic relation between them, but you haven't explained what that connection is, so it feels like an attempt to distract from the matter at hand. Focusing on the half-sentence in the article about Spencer, where a consensus in favour of removal might well emerge, would be a good example of something that would be a better use of your time than continuing to dwell on Ngo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to politely ask again that you please stop commenting on me. I've laid out an argument here based on coverage in RS. You can't reasonably insist on including "appears to be antifa" for the Spencer case but not for Ngo. That makes no sense. Comparisons can form the basis of a cogent argument in some cases, such as this one, as stated in the policy you cited. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Personally, when I'm wasting my time on a futile endeavour I prefer to be told about it, but if you prefer not to know then that's your prerogative I suppose. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight -- though I agree with your view on the article here, sometimes you have to admit that you're not persuading enough to form consensus. You can certainly try again after some time, as consensus can change. Also, I see nothing untoward in Arms & Hearts' replies to you. There's a big difference between referencing another editor's arguments and commenting on them personally. As ever, reasonable minds can differ. Dumuzid (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that I've not found consensus, but there's WP:NORUSH. There are other editors who haven't weighed in. I see no reason to draw a conclusion on the day I posted this stuff. Give it a little thought, give time for others to see it, etc. And yes, I would prefer not to receive any non-complimentary commentary about me on article talk pages, in line with the instruction of administrators that I respect, who regard all such commentary as personal attacks. I try not to talk about others, and I expect others to try not to talk about me. Anyway, let's give this a minute to develop already. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I would agree with Shineallitlelight on this, this issue should be covered, along with possibly the government and a large swathe of the U.S. seeking to define the movement\group as a terror organization (already done by the DHS). This is a 'prominent controversy' as I mentioned down on the lede section and should be included, the Ngo and Spencer cases being some of the controversial examples to a bigger controversy that could realistically see Antifa marked out as a terror org (this is a realistic threat to the movement\group and is a prominent topic amongst the Right in the U.S.) Bgrus22 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What exactly can be said here beyond "Antifa made news after a journalist for Quillette said he was attacked by antifascist protesters?" I'm not completely averse to any mention here, but there's not a lot to the story. Nblund talk 15:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
That's about all, I think, though we'd probably have to hash out the exact language to be included. It's much like the Spencer punch. The attacks on a par, and should receive the same amount of attention in our article: either no attention or a little attention. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Shinealittlelight, Nblund, Dumuzid, Arms & Hearts, Bgrus22, Objective3000, and The Four Deuces: hope I haven't missed any, has everyone read Andy Ngo#Confrontations with antifascist activists? I confess I hadn't until today. I think that section gives some important context to this discussion. Specifically that we shouldn't mention the attack, if we mention it at all, on its own. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm already involved over at Andy Ngo - and I stand by what I've said before, that this may be due on his article but not here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, Doug Weller, can you elaborate a little? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Ngo getting milkshaked and punched has directly to do with the arrangement he made with far right groups to protect them in the media in exchange for access. As such, his antagonism toward antifascism goes beyond the scope of what is WP:DUE here - that dispute belongs on his page, not here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Doug Weller. Oh, wait, you're not Doug Weller! Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not. But I felt it was pretty obvious what Doug Weller was saying. If they feel the need to weigh in, they are of course welcome to. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Shinealittlelight: I really would like an explanation of your comment - it looks a lot as though you were trying to make a point. I was hoping that others would chime in and give their opinions, and Simonm223 did. I thought it was clear that I meant that to add something here without the context would be simply wrong - when you yank something out of its context it will often be misunderstood. At the moment the most Ngo merits is a see also. Although that would probably be seen by some editors as an invitation to add him to the article. The fact that something can be verified is never enough to merit its inclusion in an article. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
When I asked you what you meant, I wanted to know what you meant. I wasn't trying to make a point. I still don't know what "important context" you were referring to. Did Simonm223 correctly identify what you had in mind? This is not a trick question. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It still doesn't make the incident DUE in this article. We would need to show that it was a major issue in articles about antifa. It's similar to the example I provided about Ted Bundy. His activism in the Republican Party is significant to his story, and mentioned in books and articles about him, it's not mentioned in books and articles about the Republican Party. If future books about antifa give substantial coverage to the incident, then it would be DUE. Also, do we know that Ngo was trying to provoke antifa, or anti-fascists in general? (A lot of demonstrators are not antifa.) TFD (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
TFD, I think that's a reasonable perspective. Do you think the Spencer punch is due by this standard? Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Lede missing controversy[edit]

WP:LEDE says that the lede has to include "any prominent controversies", the current one makes no mention of the controversy surrounding the group being defined as a terror organization or utilizing fascist tactics (both prominent claims among many right-wing political figures). Considering that the controversy does exist, despite the page not covering prominent cases of violence like the recent Portland, Oregon violence and the case of Ngo, (and yes I am aware that wikipedia functions as a thesarus not a news channel, but that does not change the fact that these are relevant cases along with the president's calls to redefine the organization as a terror group) it would make sense to include it in the lede and possibly provide a section on the controversy itself. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bgrus22: what group? It's always a good idea to read or search the talk pages if you're new to an article that is as controversial as this one. Antifa is a social movement, it's not a group. I think all of us who are frequent editors here know about the stuff with 2 Senators and Trump, but just because it's in the news right now doesn't entitle it to be in the lead. The Portland rally is interesting because it lacked any substantial violence and is not a prominent controversy, and Ngo is discussesd above. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The dictionary defines a movement as "a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas." Moreover, the NYT and other RS call Antifa a collection, which the dictionary defines as "a group of things or people." Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: , @Shinealittlelight: I am aware that there is no formal structure to the movement, but that does not change the fact that the DHS classified the movement, or as they describe it an organization, as a terror group. Its also more than just the two senators and the current president, its a common topic amongst right-wing political talking heads, thought leaders, and political leaders meaning it is a prominent controversy for half the country. As for violence at that specific example there are plenty of videos of said violence, the violence in question has been under reported (which means that it cant be cited in wikipedia I know), but there are several records of arrests and violence occurring surrounding these episodes that draw on similar parallels (the well known Berkley protests to stop a scheduled speaker and the lesser known arrest made because of Steven Crowder's undercover operation a few years back as two well known ones). I'm curious how you would defend the argument regarding the classification as a possible terror organization as not being prominent given that the government and administration are focusing on the issue regularly while Antifa supporters regularly defend the organization I see two sides encapsulating a large population within the country arguing over a significant legal status. This is not a small scale issue like the WP:LEDE says should be ignored for NPOV guidelines, but is a prevalent topic and important to the future of this movement/group (however you would like to define it). Bgrus22 (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I was only responding to Doug Weller's claim that Antifa is not a group. As for your proposal, the lead should follow the body. If you want to propose adding some of this to the body, that's the place to start. I would support that. But you're unlikely to have many other supporters among the editors currently working on the article. You could weigh in above about Ngo, which is a controversy that I documented as very widely discussed in RS, but I've been nevertheless unable to gain consensus about adding even a short mention to the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
We can't use dictionary definitions here. And would you really call the Civil Rights Movement a group? A collection can include individuals, right? And I ran into a dictionary definition of archaeology saying it was the study of the past, which is also incorrect, archaeologists have done work on contemporary rubbish dumps. And you can't outlaw or prosecute a movement. You could treat the organised groups legally of course. By the way, I'm pretty sure not half the country is right-wing. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Bgrus22 makes a good point. Whether Antifa is a group is not relevant; WP:LEDE says controversy should be included in articles generally, not just about groups. FYI, it is more than the President and two senators who have called for it. MaximumIdeas (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that what's clear is that Antifa doesn't have formal membership or a hierarchical leadership structure. But if someone wants to call them a loosely affiliated group of people, I think that's a reasonable description, so long as the person agrees that there's no formal membership or hierarchical leadership. I can see your point that it sounds a little funny to say that the Civil Rights movement is a group of people. I think that's because it sounds like that's all they are when someone says that. But I do think it's true that the CRM was a group of people. It certainly was made up of some people who were loosely affiliated with each other. And so it seems that those people made up a loosely affiliated group (what else does it take to make up such a group?). So the reason we don't say "The CRM was a group of people" is that it seems to deflate its significance. But it is true nonetheless. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Bgrus22 and MaximumIdeas, we would need to add these things to the body before we add them to the lead. Start there, by providing appropriate RS and arguing that the information is WP:DUE. This is what I did above for the Ngo case, and I haven't been able to gain consensus so far. But that's how WP works--you have to gain consensus to add to the body, then the lead reflects the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to second Shinealittlelight's advice above, but I'll also give my initial impression (which could certainly change). While I understand the impetus here, we should remember that WP:LEAD specifically tells us not to give "undue attention" when mentioning prominent controversies. I'll agree that it's something of a close call, but for me, this falls under WP:NOTNEWS, at least at this point. The coverage of this (again, for me) has so far been rather spotty rather than sustained. That could certainly change, but for right now I would oppose this inclusion. Of course reasonable minds may differ! Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: Look at the entirety of the portion of you are quoting from WP:LEAD, "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section," since this is an important controversy your argument would not apply. Unless of course you had reason to believe it is not important. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Bgrus22, given the coverage in the reliable sources, I believe it is not important. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: I would agree with you that it is under reported in much of today's media, meaning that by wiki guidelines it is hard to cite, but to say that it isnt a point being discussed and brought up at length within half of the country's political sphere is incorrect. I concede that if its an issue of citation it may not be covered, but if we are able to use less than strictly defined RSs to cover what is a known issue that would definitely improve the overall quality of this page. I do appreciate your argument a lot more than just denying the existence of the issue, and if that is the consensus of this page (that RS are the only ones able to cover the issue at hand) I could agree to that since it is rational enough.... despite WP:IAR saying we should value the quality of a page over the wikipedia rules themselves. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Bgrus22, I'd encourage you to have a look at the policy on verifiability--and I don't mean to sound patronizing. Forgive me if I come off that way. Wikipedia has made a conscious choice to tie itself strictly to what reliable sources say, and for (I think) a very good reason. Can you imagine trying to convince the crew in this comment thread of the underlying truth of anything at all? We would quickly turn in to the worst forum you've ever seen (see also WP:NOTAFORUM!). Instead, by relying on secondary sources, we change the conversation from "X is bad because..." to "The Wall Street Journal says this about X...." We certainly still argue (plenty). But at least this way, we all have outside authorities we can point to. So even things that are widely discussed within the country are "invisible" to Wikipedia until reliable sources report on them. If you have sources you think might be borderline, by all means present them, but be prepared for opinions to differ. If you feel like a more neutral forum is necessary, you can always ask at WP:RSN. In short, by all means, make your arguments and present your evidence, just be prepared to not always prevail. Again, on this one, I disagree with you, but I understand where you're coming from. If you can convince enough people to form a consensus that I'm wrong, I'll happily defer. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: I'm going through the verifiability page like you suggested and see where you are coming from, and I do understand that things can remain invisible on Wikipedia, but I would like some clarification. On the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page it states sources may be biased so long as they are reliable and I would like to know why a writer from the oh so spooky intellectual dark web who is known to properly source his claims and make coherent arguments would not be considered a biased but reliable source? What's more, if you take the context of such a source as being not representing the facts of a case but the fact that a view point exists and is widely held it most definitely is a reliable source in that context. For instance person X may not be entirely accurate about something (since we can not provide an RS better apt to verify the claim), but the fact that person X has made the claim and has a wide following with like minded individuals could demonstrate a widely held belief on a topic. If we were to change the context of an inclusion, to say that some people consider they organization as such that could be proven if we are willing to define a RS based on who reliably portrays the populace being refereed to and would remain within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but it's not the identity of the writers that keeps me from endorsing this, it's the context in which you seem to want to include their thoughts--and again, forgive me if I am wrong. Let's say Ben Shapiro wrote an article (and not an opinion piece, just for this example) for the Wall Street Journal. I don't think anyone here would have a problem calling that a reliable source, since the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, an editorial policy, etc. While Tweets are technically 'published,' per the Wikipedia definition, I don't think anyone's tweets have a good reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Ditto YouTube videos. If you can provide some sources which have that sort of reputation, we can certainly talk. And forgive me, but I am not quite certain what you mean by your last sentence? It sounds like you're saying "we should define reliable sources by who tells the truth," which, again, is not what we do. That's just another way to start a Reddit-style debate. If you want to propose certain sources here, to me, or at the reliable sources noticeboard, then by all means do -- though if you choose to go to the noticeboard, I'd ask that you do a quick archives check to make sure source wasn't discussed in the recent past. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Then what if we utilized the argument that there is a large group of people who share the controversial opinion (as shown in this chat) that Antifa is a terror org (not that they are or even cite specific instances of violence, but that there are people who are thought leaders in the American right who push this controversy which has gained traction). I don't see then why we could not use a source like say Shapiro, since he could reliably demonstrate what right-wingers are arguing (I am not saying to use him to substantiate accusations of violence). This would capture the sentiment that is driving the controversy while not falling into the issue of attributing specific actions to an movement that may be too loosely organized to have actively planned such things. @Dumuzid: In that context do you feel that a normally less than reliable source could be used to accurately describe a notion that is widely held and then be the basis of the 'prominent controversy', "some leaders amongst America's conservative sphere feel the movement is a domestic terror organization and would like it to be defined as such"? The controversy being whether the movement is such an organization (and we could definitely find articles showing a defense for antifa from RS), how attributable actions can be (if we would like to include that since it seems to be a topic that has come up in the talk pages regarding similar issues and since that is a common point of contention irl), and the fact that an, admittedly small, group of politicians are pushing for this legal classification. The prominence could be noted by attributing it to the 'Intellectual dark web' and saying that it is a common point discussed there (also true) which could translate into feelings amongst their supporters. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're still sort of missing the point: Shapiro is not, in and of himself, a 'source' in the traditional Wikipedia sense. He, as a person, does not have editorial or fact-checking policy, because no one does. He becomes a source when he is published in a place that has those features, and a reputation for accuracy. Even then, we still have to determine whether information published in such a way is sufficiently notable and sufficiently due for inclusion. If there are specific articles or the like that you wish to discuss, let's do that. But Shapiro's thoughts are not themselves a source for this article. There may come a time when his thoughts receive coverage in reliable sources--as some facets of the "intellectual dark web" have--and then such things are fair game. But "a lot of people think x" doesn't get you anywhere on Wikipedia until a reliable source prints a story (or academic article, etc.) saying that "a lot of people think x." So, as I say, if there are specific sources or articles, please, bring them up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── sigh Again with the DHS thing, which has been thoroughly discussed and rejected. The only source is the Politico article, and the DHS itself does not verify the claim, nor is there any Federal process for declaring a domestic organization a terrorist group. It's bunk. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

How about the attack on the ICE detention center or general reports of violence like this? Considering the definition of Terrorism on the wikipedia page, "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence, generally against civilians, for political purposes" it would seem to fit with the actions being undertaken by these self-identified members.Bgrus22 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Daily Wire is not going to fly as a source for this, and your own interpretation of how to define terrorism is WP:OR. Antifa is obviously a controversial movement, but the claim that they are a terrorist group is not the "controversy" itself, it's just a talking point used by people who were already predisposed to dislike them. I don't see any evidence that there is actually a serious debate here. Nblund talk 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: I understand that the Daily Wire is not a RS, but what RS is covering the attempted attack on the ICE facility? I can't find much off of a cursory search, but I do know the facts of the case since it has been so heavily cited in right-wing media. As for the definition, that is not original research thats a cited statement made on the wikipedia page for terrorism (please read what I write before you make claims against me). As for the claim that they are a terror group, there are a large number of mainstream talking heads that are taking up that flag both in political and media circles (it just happens that its an under reported issue). Relegating the argument to being a point of view, by claiming its just people who are upset ranting about a movement sounds a lot more like a point of view to me than what I have been saying, which is 'there is a common view amongst right-wing/conservatives in the country that members of the organization perform acts of violence, which could be construed as terror based on the definition, and several people have taken to pushing for the movement\group to be defined as a terror organization in response to the actions of people assumed to be related or who self-identify with the movement.' Bgrus22 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter where you get the definition, the question of applying that definition to a particular group is going to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. We need reliable sources that explicitly support any claims we're making here. If reliable sources aren't covering something, Wikipedia is going to follow suit, regardless of our personal opinions. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or address problems of media bias. Nblund talk 22:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like to point out the existence of WP:IAR and say that if this does make the page itself better at the cost of the rules then I would gladly value the page over said rules. Wikiepedia seems to value quality of article over adherence to Wikipedia's fifth pillar, that it has no firm rules. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I included a member of the 'intellectual dark web' because such a source could be considered reliable depending on the context in how it is used. If you treat someone like Shapiro as a thought leader or public conservative thinker, he becomes a mouth piece that can accurately capture widely held sentiment amongst conservatives in the country. You can then use such a source to cite that people feel that way, ie a controversy of whether or not the group is a terror org, not that they are committing acts of terror. I concede we could not use such a source on actions being done, but by wikipedia's definition of an RS it would seem we could use that same source to show a notion that is prominent in some circles. I don't believe that would be vandalizing the page since it would just show there is controversy surrounding the existence of a group that many see as violent, and we could easily cite a defense for the movement in order to stay neutral. I would actually argue that not highlighting this controversial topic would be akin to pressing a viewpoint via a lie by omission (the lie being that many people feel this group is controversial and amongst that group some section, still a notably large group of people, feel the movement should be called a terror group). Bgrus22 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

@Bgrus22: the Independent misreported the original source, Politico. I really think you should read this article before making comments like that. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Like I said above, if the issue is that there is a lack of RSs covering the topic I would be more than happy to wait and see what may come about (although I would argue that under reporting is occurring and if we want internal consitancy with other pages like that one on terrorism it would make sense to include the controversy as a right-wing complaint against individual actions in the organization if nothing else). I still feel that WP:IAR says it best, that for the improvement of an article we can and should ignore all rules. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bgrus22: - Wikiepedia seems to value quality of article over adherence to Wikipedia's fifth pillar, that it has no firm rules - you're correct and that is how it should be. It doesn't mean we can add original research. The fifth pillar clearly states, do not be reckless. starship.paint (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Ignoring all rules is all well and good, but it only tends to work where there's broad agreement, since there's no way around consensus. So by all means, be bold, but to my mind, there's no Wikipedia substitute for old-fashioned persuasion. Cheers, and happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree. IAR is used when it's unlikely many will disagree that an action is a positive for the project. Consensus rules. O3000 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
As above. IAR is designed when a rule, policy or guideline is holding back progress in order to promote an evaluation of the rule, policy or guideline. This is not progress, but an attempt to find a clause that can be used to circumvent normal consensus. Koncorde (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of IAR is that where a strict adherence to individuals rules would violate the objectives of neutrality, reliability and no synthesis, that we ignore them. It's similar to accounting standards in most countries where individual rules should be ignored if following them would lead to misleading financial statements. But that's not the case here. The only reason to include this information would be to give prominence to criticism ignored in mainstream sources, which is a violation not only of the letter of DUE, but the spirit as well. TFD (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Unless you account for the fact that there are RS in the sense that there are sources that can reliable capture the opinions of many individuals on the issue, even if they are not reliable to relate the facts of an event. Wiki guidelines state that a biased source can be reliable given the context and I think there is something to be said for several thought leaders of the right, who exist outside of mainstream sources, making the same claims. If we look at the context it would make sense to use someone like Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder who capture sentiments among the right when presenting the fact that there is a growing movement of people from the president to conservative thinkers (or whatever term you would use for the intellectual dark web) and show that there does exist a controversy in how this group is seen. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of unimpeachably reliable sources we can cite to make the point that lots of people on the right don't like antifa; we don't have to cite Ben Shapiro to make that point (and we won't). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia, at its best, plays the long game. We're not a political play-by-play sheet. The policy on reliable sources acts as a filter that helps achieve that. If the views you mention are discussed enough for a length of time, they will make it into the reliable sources in a notable way. Though the great and good of this website have changed the wording, I still like to say that on Wikipedia, we're after verifiability, not truth. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't even understand the point of this argument. What has Ben Shapiro to do with this article and why do his opinions matter in an encyclopedia article other than an article directly about him? O3000 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Bgrus22: - it took me less than a minute to find a reliable source (The Hill) [2] stating that President Trump declared Saturday he is considering labeling the militant anti-fascist movement antifa a terrorist organization … The announcement is red meat to the president’s conservative base that has railed against what it sees as a growing liberal threat to its free speech led by antifa. The anti-fascist movement has gained notoriety as supporters donning black costumes have engaged conservative activists in confrontations that have sometimes devolved into violent clashes. Bottom line: green sources at WP:RSP are generally reliable. If your source isn't there, check WP:RSN. We are not going to accept unreliable sources (except probably in articles about themselves as the subject). starship.paint (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Except what defines reliable? Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear that reliability can change based on the context in which one uses a source. For instance I doubt we could use the North Korean central news agency to 'reliably' relate world events in a thesaurus, but that same source could easily demonstrate the DPRK's response or view point accurately. The same source, depending how it is used, can meet the standards for reliability as set out by wikipedia. In the same way, while most reliable sources covering antifa detractors may focus on the president and the two supporting senators who want to classify them as a terror org, we could utilize thought leaders who can reliably demonstrate viewpoints (I am not saying to cite acts committed through these sources, since I can understand the issue with that, but to cite the fact that there is a large population that shares the opinion that these sources are espousing on Antifa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgrus22 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
starship.paint, Trump tweets many misinformed, misleading and contradictory things every day before most of us wake up. If it leads to anything, then we'll mention it. This isn't a North Korean encyclopedia, where every articles needs a commentary from the Dear Leader. TFD (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bgrus22 and The Four Deuces: - I think both of you missed my point. The key part of the quotes above which I wanted to highlight is that the president’s conservative base that has railed against what it sees as a growing liberal threat to its free speech led by antifa. Not the Trump part. Bgrus22 keeps talking about how conservatives feel about antifa, I provided a reliable source, so there's no need for an unreliable source in this scenario. starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
There's already mention of several "conservative" opinions of the group. I don't think that fear antifa will repeal the First Amendment is a major issue for Trump Nation. TFD (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No I think I understand what Starship is saying, and yeah thats preferable but not all those opinions may be captured in RS since by their very nature they are not in legacy media. That being said it is preferable to cite from a more widely accepted source if possible. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Antifa far-left?[edit]

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

See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 1#Far left is neither accurate nor the same as anarchist, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 2#Left vs far left, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 4#far left movement, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 5#Left Wing / Right Wing and, most recently, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 6#Far-left, one more time. There may be other discussions I've missed. Consensus of course isn't immutable—the point isn't that this is set in stone forever, but rather that further discussion would be needed in order to change the status quo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
based on how RS cover the topic I would say it is far left, and seems to have members who identify with left leaning policies (although the loose organization would be hard to attribute it to anything). But left can have a multitude of meanings so its not like that means much tbh Bgrus22 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Unlike far-right ideologues, most of us on the far left would rather not be mistaken for centrists. Antifascism is a broad coalition, and it does certainly include a lot of people who are anarchists and communists (IE: far left) but it also includes plenty of moderate leftist democratic socialists and social democrats. TL;DR: while far-left captures part of who makes up the modern antifascist movement, it doesn't capture the breadth of the movement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that it's a broad coalition, much to broad for a simplistic level and certainly for "far-left" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Far left usually implies wanting to overthrow the state and indeed having a political ideology. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean every person has an ideology inasfar as every person has beliefs about how the world should be in some way, shape or form. But yeah, the far-left encompasses specific ideologies. Generally Anarchism, Socialism, Communism, Syndicalism and associated variants are considered far-left ideologies. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
One would hope that there are people not on the far-left who are anti-fascist. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000: one would also hope everyone supports democracy, the people, and republics... but how many people support the DPRK? A name means nothing, as we have seen, also in the United States (which this page focuses on) the antifa movement references a very specific movement that has through its members supported specific ideological positions generally considered to be within the American Far-Left. If not please show me an RS showing people saying that the movement is center left (if not center within the left). Bgrus22 (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bgrus22: your comment about the DPRK is not at all helpful. I'm sure you know what Objective3000 means. Our article on far-left politics says "The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism". Now while I'm sure there are supporters who adhere to some of these ideologies, there's no way that we can claim that they all do. I don't think anyone here is trying to add some "center left" lable and I have no idea what that would mean. Doug Weller talk 07:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
In short - just because you oppose the far right doesn't make you the far left. Meanwhile it is well established that the American political scale is broken, with literal statements made by Republicans to conflate any position that isn't theirs with communism and the far left (even with policies that historically where their own under Reagan for instance). There will always be people accusing Antifa of being "far left" because it suits an ideological argument. Koncorde (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Koncorde: youre right that the scale is broken and a lot of the labels are just done for rhetorical purposes. But Doug, I think you know full well equating the United States Antifa movement with just a broad coalition of people opposed to fascism is factually incorrect. The lack of an organization means you cant have any central ideology be directly attributable... instead we can only go off of RS if I am to understand wiki guides, and the RS coverage tends to focus on Antifa either as using their own internal definition of fascism (which is hard enough to define since its such an opportunistic thing with no clear cut ideology) to oppose dissenting views or ratings booster which is whether their use of violence is justifiable or not. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bgrus22: I haven't made that equation, you've misunderstand me. Yes, we need reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bgruss22: it's not entirely accurate to say that Fascism has no clear cut ideology. It has a permeable ideology, so the boundaries are left deliberately vague. But if you have an aesthetics-obsessed right-authoritarian movement with a cult of the hero, a charismatic leader and a tendency toward corporate syndicalism, the edge details don't obscure the clear ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Fascism cuts across all stripes. Even if it was left wing fascism, then Antifa would oppose it - and that is somewhat integral to the concept of Antifa (US right wing popular media will try to position Antifa to the left, but they would position Bush Jr to the left and / or part of the swamp if suited the narrative). Antifa is about opposing the concept of populist fascistic policies, the supporters of such policies and their demagogues. There is no ideological limit to opposing fascism. Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

I am not sure what you believe is wrong to help clarify. Koncorde (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Your definition of fascism, and assertion that left wing fascism is something that can exist, is just plain wrong. It's also not in line with the principle scholarship on the matter. As such, all assertions you make that stem from that definition of fascism are also entirely incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
...to clarify, by "left wing fascism" I am referring to the idea that people or organisations that are recognised as traditionally left wing (such as a workers Union, or the Labour Party of the UK) may have individuals, actions or policies that are fascistic; such as dictatorial control resulting in the suppression of dissent and all those many other fine features we would associate with fascist governments. There is nothing about Antifa that would preclude it from opposing dictatorial control, or even policies perceived as being on the slippery slope from any stripe of the political spectrum (contrary to the suggestion that they would only oppose it coming from the Far Right). Koncorde (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

On closer inspection, it's in both of those categories, parent and child. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Category was created 2013, assigned 2017 when this article was created, warred over, I doubt anyone has actually ever checked what are parent and child cats too well. For instance Category:Anti-fascism isn't associated with any of them, or this article. Koncorde (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Koncorde:, this article is indeed categorized as Category:Anti-fascism in the United States, which rolls up to Category:Anti-fascism two levels up. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Doh; I was looking at an old revision. Koncorde (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:Anarchism in the United States doesn't only contain articles that are exclusively about anarchism (e.g. it contains 1999 Seattle WTO protests, Industrial Workers of the World and Occupy Wall Street, all of which saw involvement by anarchists but also by people of other political orientations), so to include this article in that category is not to describe antifa as straightforwardly or primarily anarchist. I've removed Category:Far-left politics in the United States as I don't think it's supported by the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Arms & Hearts, it's good that you removed the category, since it's a parent category of two others categories here on this article, Category:Anarchism in the United States and Category:Communism in the United States. But note that our category tree here defines "Anarchism in the United States" and "Communism in the United States" as elements of "Far-left politics in the United States". The lead of the article states than antifa is "militant" and that it includes "anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrats." Can we agree that anarchists, socialists and communists are far-left? What portion of antifa do those factions comprise? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Jweiss11 -- we're sort of verging perilously close to WP:SYNTH territory. Do we have sources referring to antifa as "far left?" That would be the simplest thing. I looked again very briefly, but didn't find much. I, for one, would find that much more persuasive. But perhaps others differ! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
USA Today refers to antifa as far-left here. The Anti-Defamation League says "Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks.". Mother Jones refers to antifa as far-left here. LA Times does here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
That's the sort of thing that I run into as well: lots of caveats and unclearness (as is endemic to the topic). For instance, the phrase "far-left antifa group(s)" from USA Today seems to imply (maybe?) that "far left" is a subset of "antifa." Likewise, the ADL source is qualified by its temporal clause. Mother Jones mentions the far left in the headline, but define antifa as "a diffuse group of leftists and anarchists," which seems to me that again, far left is a subset. Finally, the LA times mentions an "...assault on an antifa member that became a rallying cry for the city’s far-left." Here maybe antifa is a subset of far left? I'll put my cards on the table--"far left" feels sort of right in my gut, as it were, but I have a hard time articulating the argument, and I find the sources maddeningly vague. That, again, is probably just the nature of the beast. As it stands here, I'm not terribly opposed to the "far left" descriptor, but I also am not convinced. I'm not helping am I? My apologies! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Jweiss11, perhaps it would help to point out that this is about the political views of the people who participate in antifa actions. For lack of a better term: it's members. Antifa is not a political party, it does not have a program and the political views within antifa vary wildly. As the ADL source you cited acknowledge, antifa people often, but not exclusively have backgrounds that are commonly described as far-left. Personally, I think that the terms far-left and far-right are too reductive to usefully describe a political position, and should be avoided whenever possible. Vexations (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Vexations, I'm aware of the amorphousness nature of antifa. While there are always exceptions, isn't fair to say that antifa participants largely identify with far-left politics, i.e. ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, and anti-capitalism? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
There is also the problem that the term far left only has meaning once context is known. American conservatives refer to moderate Democrats as far left, while Soviet Communists referred to Trotskyists as far left. TFD (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It's really hard to argue that Communists are far left compared to the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and Maoist parties around, including in the US. They control, democratically, whole states in India and are respectable parties in other countries working through the democratic process. Anarchists usually are but not always. Anti-capitalism is far too broad a term to call everyone who is against capitalism far-left. The line I always draw is do they want to overthrow the government through violence. If they do, they are far left. Antifa sources are certainly mostly on the left and I'm sure some are far left. Note that we never should consider headlines to be accurate or reflect the article they are drawing attention to, they are rarely written by the author of the article. Having said that I think Mother Jones is right on the money about them being a diffused (they say group but I think they mean the supporters, not an organised group) of leftists and anarchists. I'll also add that what the real far left groups may be doing (deliberately but not publicly) is infiltrating to use Antifa actions for their own ends. That's been there classical behavior for decades. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Calls to define Antifa as a terrorist organization[edit]

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

I don't know bout a whole section, but a passage somewhere perhaps. Certainly, reasonable to discuss inclusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad-nauseam and the decision was it was undue. See here [3] Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Also here [4]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
And here [5] Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Simonm223. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This was a story for a couple of days. That's a hard no from me. Reasonable minds can differ. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And [6][7][8]. So Jweiss11 insisting we bring up this tired discussion yet again is very close to disruptive editing. And I suggest you don't try to revive this dead horse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, your shutting down a reasonable point of discussion (per Dumuzid) is disruptive. You're projecting your bad behavior onto others. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Precisely how many times must we discuss the same trivial non-issue? And, again, for the second time today, please mind WP:NPA Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
How many times are you going to attack other editors and then yell "WP:NPA" when they respond? Are you here to build an encyclopedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
If I may offer a thought, I think you are both right. We all know that consensus can change, but we also know it is unhelpful and unpleasant to bludgeon a talk page with repeated requests. Since the onus is on those proposing inclusion to show that there is consensus, I suggest we leave this open briefly to see if there's a reasonable chance thereof. If it doesn't appear so after a short time (a few hours, to my mind), then we hat it. That would be my approach, at least--but I am often wrong. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think it's quite evident that I am. I'm just short on patience for people whose repeated attempts to insert a POV such that antifascists are about to be designated terrorists interferes with making forward progress on article improvement. That said, I would be amenable to Dumuzid's compromise proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Come on folks, we were doing pretty well remaining civil. I was actually rather impressed with everybody so far. Please make an effort. How about we reconsider the inclusion of the non-binding resolution once something actually changes? For example, when it is adopted. Until then, it's old news, (it's merely requesting that the Senate gives its opinion on something it cannot legislate on) and we agree not to try to overturn existing consensus. Here's the status of the resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs I'm going on vacation, please be kind to each other. Vexations (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. Senate has passed 167 simple resolutions this year, so even if this one were to be adopted (which seems unlikely) I don't think it would need to be mentioned in this article. It could perhaps be discussed in Cruz's article and/or Cassidy's, but it doesn't strike me as a significant event in the history of antifa. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
A brief quote from the source, "But the Republican senators' resolution is little more than a political stunt." If we start including all of those (political stunts) in wikipedia, or even spending time arguing about them we shall do little else. And there actually is real work to do. That is a NO. Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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

I think the response section should mention attempts by the U.S. Right to create a false equivalency between antifa and the far right. But rather than saying "on Sept. 3, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz said "blah blah blah,"" it should summarize what people like him are doing, why they are doing it and why experts see it as disingenuous. TFD (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's all true. But, unless it's heavily documented, we're not the source of "truth". Mind you, I agree that would be a good addition if adequately sourced. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bongino undue[edit]

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