Talk:Antifa (United States)

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

RfC: antifa and terrorism[edit]

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

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

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


  • Option C The statement by Politico has not been verified by any outside source, it's also something of a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim considering the number of people killed by antifascist action in the US since the beginning of the Trump presidency. As such, it has no WP:DUE weight. Furthermore, it is a WP:COATRACK statement to create the erroneous idea that antifascist activity is widely regarded as analogous to terrorism. Simply put, the Politico statement is a perfect example of why WP:NOTNEWS is important to the project - journalistic sources may occasionally be useful, but they often come with biases toward the sensational over the factual. This appears to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B or D Politico is considering a reliable source and the claims are not "extraordinary". Strong opposition to C. Galestar (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B We follow the WP:RSs like Politico, and do not WP:CENSOR just because a Wikipedian thinks that 0 people have been killed by antifascist action in the US since the beginning of a presidency. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that what I "think" is wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:CENSOR is specifically about content considered to be "objectionable or offensive‍". I don't think anybody has objected to the inclusion of these claims on anything approaching those grounds, and I don't think you really believe that anyone has. The policy is expressly not about material that runs counter to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or is believed to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D I say mention the terrorism allegation, but attribute it to Politico per WP:REDFLAG. I have some issue stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice given the silence of other reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) --Despite having drafted Option D (rather poorly, I adimt), I have been swayed by many of the arguments here that given some combination of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, the best course is to keep this claim out. Therefore Option C. Apologies for both my flightiness and poor drafting. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Dumuzid, would you care to draft some language, add it as a new Option D, and create a new Option E as ??? R2 (bleep) 19:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahrtoodeetoo, I thought I'd run it by you here first, but I would want something like,
Per Politico, by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.
I think it's important to note the Politico report, but we also have to say that it's kind of murky. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C Per WP:REDFLAG, we should not make include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." This story has mostly been picked up in the "echo chamber" of unreliable websites and no one else appears to have seen these secret documents. At most it could only be mentioned with in text attribution saying it was a claim made in Politico not an established fact. TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't follow. The story was picked up and cited approvingly by Newsweek, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and The Hill. Hardly an echo chamber of unreliable websites. R2 (bleep) 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I said mostly. It haven't seen the story reported in cable or network news (except Fox) or American quality newspapers. That seems to me that they put little credit in the story or think it is unimportant, both of which are reasons to exclude it. TFD (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D Attribution might be a better alternative that Option B. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B This is reliably sourced factual content. It's highly significant, and the story was picked up by other reliable sources such as Newsweek, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and The Hill. Option B reflects the source; Options A and D do not. I would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant when it published that antifa's activities were "formally designated" as domestic terrorism. Alas they didn't; but that doesn't mean we should exclude this important information, or add unsourced commentary. R2 (bleep) 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • As was explained to you above, the Politico source specifically says that The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public. I'm baffled that you could think that your preferred version is backed by that source while omitting that key aspect, or that you could muse about how you "would have preferred that Politico spelled out what it meant" while leaving out the one key clarification that the source you're trying to use provides. Without that clarification, you are misusing the source, meaning that B is not a workable option, fullstop - even if you think the source is worth including, you must summarize all of it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C per Simonm and TFD. Alternatively, if anything is to be included it should be Option D. That way readers are aware of the full context behind the statement.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D Except that I'd drop the final sentence unless that final sentence can be sourced. I think attribution is warranted here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't like that last sentence either (and I wrote it!), but it feels wrong to leave the "classification" out there as if it were a well-understood and known thing. I'm still mulling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Without additional good sources, I favour Option C or Option A. Options B and D are both absolutely unacceptable based on a single source which is quite likely to be mistaken or mispeaking. We have nothing from the DHS to corroborate the vague claims made by the single source. This is hearsay at best. If a DHS classification list did exist then we can be absolutely certain that other sources would have covered it too. The fact that there is only one source for this claim very strongly suggests that is mistaken. Option B simply gives credence to the unreliable claim and is unacceptable. Option D is its weird, nervous cousin. It makes the claim and then partially walks it back with a caveat that is unsourced editorialising. This is weaselly. Both options B and D are also worded incorrectly by saying "Antifa's activities" which suggests an organisation with agency. Antifa is not an organisation. In short options B and D are both dumpster fires and would need to be reworded even if we had sufficient sources to support what they are trying to say. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to add to the above, I am now leaning more towards C than A. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B or D Seems to be the most reasonable description. I do not think D is necessary but would be okay with it as a compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OPTION A - nothing new has occurred to shift the long-standing text on the 2017 tidbit. I’m thinking it should have been attributed to Politico back when as that seems the source, but the option D goes into an unacceptable too much ‘unclear what that means’ and meanwhile keeping it the same seems OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D: Its only one sources claim.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B (invited by the bot) if you can find a second source for that, otherwise A or D. BTW you have a structural problem with this RFC as currently arranged. Roughly speaking the "include" sentiment is divided between three options (A,B,D),and the exclude sentiment not divided and all in C. A fix would be combine results from A,B & D into a "include at least a little bit" sentiment.
Agreed re:structural issue. Galestar (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C - What we have is an issue where an "anonymous DHS employee" provided Politico with documents they claimed classified "antifa" as a terrorist organization. DHS has refused to comment publicly, and there has been no further corroboration of the story. I don't doubt the Politico reporter was shown documents by someone in DHS, but whether those documents were legitimate or provided out-of-context is very unclear. Reliable sources can make mistakes or be fed misinformation, so without further corroboration, I don't think it's due weight to include this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C, or, failing that, A. Strong oppose to B and D; both are both completely unacceptable - they misrepresent the source by giving the impression that the DHS publicly made that designation, which numerous sources (including the Politico article itself) specifically say it did not. Even with proper wording, it would be WP:UNDUE - this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim with very little coverage relative to what you'd expect if it was worth including, and at this point it's clear that the story went nowhere and doesn't really say anything meaningful about the topic; dredging up, essentially, a two-year-old article that failed to gain traction doesn't make sense. But the wording proposed in both B and D completely misrepresents the source in a way that makes them flatly unusable as written. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D or B - Option D, preferably without the last sentence, unless it can be sourced. Mcrt007 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose B as it states something as fact that cannot be verified and as has been pointed out above suggests that it was a public statement rather than something coming from anonymous sources. Strongly oppose D for the reasons given by DanielRigal and Aquillion and of course the last sentence isn't sourced. Strongly opposed A because it's wrong. The FBI and DHS did not report anything. Anonymous figures within those organisation told, not reported, Politico various things. Which leaves me Support C unless someone comes up with reliable sources other than Politico. If WP:UNDUE applies anywhere, it applies here. Note that I am not supporting terrorism. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C per Doug Weller et al. Sources really don't back up the Politico story, and the whole things smells rotten to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C as above. Just don't see the sourcing for such a label. O3000 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C per Doug Weller and others. We need context from reliable sources before passing this on, and we shouldn't be intentionally including confusing details just because we can find a flimsy source. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C - A single anonymously-sourced claim reported in a single source doesn't appear to merit any weight here, particularly given the inflammatory context of the word "terrorist." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C - per Doug Weller.--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C - From the news, it is clear that Antifa does have a tendency towards violence, and if the DHS equates "violence" with "terrorism", the source may even be telling the truth. The problem is that most people don't equate "violence" with "terrorism." To most people, "terrorism" denotes random attacks, with murderous intent, on disfavored groups of people, such as 9/11, truck bombings, the Mazatlan or Hasan Nidal shootings, etc. That's quite different from Antifa's preferred form of violence, which appears to be relatively low-level violence, such as thrown objects or nonfatal beatings, against individuals it doesn't like. It's not the same thing, and we shouldn't pretend it is.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Terrorism is defined slightly differently by various major institutions in the US. The Department of State defines it (approximately) as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f). The Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political." More US definitions: here. Mcrt007 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The term used is "domestic terrorism," which as defined much more narrowly by the U.S. government, and would not include this incident. TFD (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C - per a gross lack of addtional, stronger sourcing failing WP:V for an exceptional claim. The fact that it was all reported as an internal discussion with no further clarifications means policies are against its inclusion. Goverment agency internal discussions usually can generate all kinds of wild shit out of sheer ineptitude alone, we're not going to list them until an official statement is made. Option B and D are completely unacceptable for we're going to be responsible for another citogenesis incident. Tsu*miki* 🌉 04:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I had not heard the term citogenesis before but I was aware that this is a thing that can happen. I am pretty sure that I have seen deliberate attempts to trigger it on this article and several others. It is good to have a name for it. In a post-truth world, editing Wikipedia can feel like a step towards editing reality itself. We need to take a tough line on this in order to discourage a pipeline that runs along the lines of: Unsupported assertion from an anonymous source -> Credulous journalist -> One RS source -> Wikipedia -> Other RS sources via Wikipedia -> Perceived truth. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C - per User:Doug Weller.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C cytogenesis concerns appear to be very real... Not currently convinced by any of the arguments for inclusion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C per Doug Weller's reasoning. Strong oppose to A, B, and D, none of which accurately reflect the source. An accurate sentence would begin, "Anonymous sources told Politico that..." and of course any sentence that begins like that and ends with an accusation of terrorism would be UNDUE. Levivich 17:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D without the last sentence: This information has been reported by several reliable sources and is clearly relevant. The claim that this information is somehow exceptional is wrong; on the contrary this classification isn't much of a novelty compared to how this movement has long been classified elsewhere. Antifa, as the term is understood in Europe where it originated, is a loose movement traditionally affiliated with "anti-imperialist" communism ("imperialist" meaning the U.S./NATO/the western world); as such it was seen as a threat to national security in countries like the Federal Republic of Germany. The "Antifa" movement has long been classified as "extremist" and "violent" in German government reports, and is monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the agency tasked with matters of domestic extremism and terrorism, as openly stated on their website and in their public reports on extremism. This is the main definition of Antifa/"anti-fascism" published by the federal office:

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

In order to understand what the term has come to mean, especially in Europe, one has to remember that for decades, the Soviet Union daily used the word "fascism" to describe the western world and "anti-fascism" to describe the Soviet struggle against the western world (the official name of the Berlin Wall being one of countless examples: "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart"); as a result "anti-fascism" and "Antifa" took on a specific meaning, unrelated to historical fascism (even social democrats were for years smeared as "fascists" by the Soviets and their supporters).
The decades-long established official view of the German government on "Antifa" really isn't very much different from what is now reported to be the American government's view on this movement. This is particularly significant since the German government is often regarded as the antithesis to Trump these days. (As most people know, I'm not at all a supporter of Donald Trump, but we should evaluate the relevance of this piece of information based on its merits rather than an automatic rejection of everything the Trump administration does.) --Tataral (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, is American Antifa really the same thing? Are they just adopting a common moniker? I am not sure (though I am far from an expert) that we can really rely on prior or geographically disparate experience here. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I doubt that the majority of Americans involved in loose "Antifa" groups in the U.S. have a full understanding of the history of the term/movement in Europe and all its connotations, but on the other hand they have adopted the name and symbols and professed goals of this historical movement from Europe. Regardless, it's noteworthy if the U.S. government considers them to be "domestic terrorists". My main point above was that this isn't very exceptional when the German government has called the similarly named movement in Germany "extremists" and "violent", and monitored them in that context, for decades. --Tataral (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow -your arguments on this rfc are by far the most insightful. Thank you, Tataral! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose option C and support the last sentence of option D. The rest of it should be mentioned, but worded in a way that appropriatly expresses the uncertainty. I'm somewhat indifferent to the precise wording. Benjamin (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C per reasoning by Simonm223. If one or two additional RS, that were not simply précis' of the original Politico article, could be presented then it could be revisited. Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D per multiple WP:RS Loganmac (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment There's only one independent WP:RS - other sources are citing the Politico article and don't constitute independent sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B There is a source. Lets not over think this. We have seen numerous cases in which ANTIFA organize to create mayhem and terrorise their political opponents. They frequently talk about using violence against people who hold other ideologies Jeff1948a (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Option A and Option B both work. Im fine with either one. HAL333

  • Option D, maybe without the last sentence. As others have noted, some government agency targeting an organization or broad collective for terrorist activity doesn't imply that they are terrorists, and I don't think it's a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, given FBI's history, as hundreds of leftist groups have been watched by the FBI in the same way without any actual terrorist attack. On the other hand, given that in this case it's not a widely established fact, at the moment it should be attributed to Politico. --MarioGom (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Possible amendment to Option D: Per Politico, by 2017, sources at FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." --MarioGom (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion[edit]

  • It's an inappropriate use of WP:NOTCENSORED to argue against the application of WP:FRINGE. The idea that a loose ideological grouping which have killed no people in political violence is considered terrorists by the state without any such indication from the state is the very definition of a WP:FRINGE statement, and the fact that it showed up in Politico should be making people doubt the reliability of Politico, rather than lending credence to this fringe nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Simonm223, there may be an angle to this that you're missing. The fact that a group of people has been labeled as terrorists by the government doesn't mean they are terrorists. This is especially true in this administration, which lacks credibility across the board. I think this story is comparable to other instances in which the federal government has targeted non-terrorist groups as terrorists, for example here. The fact that the Trump administration is targeting left-wing groups is plausible, even likely, and highly significant. It's consistent with Trump's "both sides" rhetoric. And the fact that they would publicly deny it is totally unsurprising to me. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't believe the terrorism claims warrant any coverage on Wikipedia. They're the patently false delusions of the far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes it does, see WP:RGW and WP:NPOV. I don't care who you love or hate, but this page is not for defending terrorists. wumbolo ^^^ 19:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
You've lost me Wumbolo, but the purpose of my comment above is to try to bring us toward a consensus, and I don't know if your response helps in that respect. I don't think anyone here is loving or hating or defending terrorists. R2 (bleep) 19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm also lost, but about the comment about a group of people being labeled as terrorists. R2 I agree with you about credibility, but where were they labelled as terrorists. Wumbolo's post seems an attack on editors who disagree with him. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when asking for reliable sources gets you labeled a friend of terrorists. So which, laugh or cry? Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Doug, according to the Politico source, Antifa's activities were labeled as domestic terrorism. In my view this is somewhat akin other left-wing groups that the feds have added to terrorist watch lists in the past, like Greenpeace or PETA. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Wumbolo I'd remind you of WP:NOTFORUM your belief in imaginary leftist terrorists is irrelevant to whether this is a violation of WP:REDFLAG and WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone actually described a terrorist act or even planned terrorist act about whomever Antifa is supposed to be. Otherwise, I go with Option E. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I could be mistaken, but don't believe there's any evidence antifa has ever engaged in any sort of terrorism. But that doesn't seem to be a basis for ignoring this significant development, which, in my view, reflects more on the federal government than it does on antifa. R2 (bleep) 22:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree, Objectcive3000, but we also have Politico, which might not be a top-tier RS, but I'd say is B+, making a significant claim. I think it definitely merits inclusion, but also needs context to make sure it doesn't veer into WP:UNDUE. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Which is why I look askance at declarations from this gov't. I suggest we wait a tad and see what comes of this. My own opinion, which is irrelevant, is that antifa is a disconnected bunch of drunken, pissed off assholes with nothing better to do. But, I was wrong when I missed the fun in 1789 at the Bastille. O3000 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This isn't breaking news. 2017. FWIW these weren't "declarations" by the government. This was investigative reporting using multiple sources and documents. R2 (bleep) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)*
  • Your version still carries the implication that they have been publicly designated as domestic terrorism, when the source specifically says otherwise. I'm baffled that you can continue to make that mistake despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you. I don't think the source passes WP:DUE at all, but your consistent insistence on misreading it in a way that makes it seem more dramatic and important than it actually is only undermines your arguments for inclusion, since it seems like an implicit acknowledgement that once the The FBI and DHS had no comment on that, or on any aspect of the assessments, saying they were not intended to be made public bit is included in the summary (as it would have to be, in any version we put in the article), the whole thing becomes a nothingburger not worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Dumuzid I don't know what is meant by "formally designating" something as domestic terrorism, but I suspect it has something to do with this. There was a DHS office that tracked domestic terrorists, and according to the reporting there might still be one. R2 (bleep) 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect you're right, and I also suspect that maybe the journalist phrased it in a way that the source might not have; all that said, it's still just...terribly unclear! So it goes. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Do we have anything other than an unconfirmed story almost two years old, not mentioned in any of the major mainstream news outlets and with zero followup? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
This was exactly the point I was about to make. The "concerns" highlighted in the Politico article amounted to precisely nothing. There was no sign of widespread coverage at the time, and none since. More likely is that it was useful for the Trump administration to portray Antifa in an unfavorable light at the time, statements were made by government officials to that effect, and Politico and a couple of other Beltway media organs lazily reported them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
And what are these acts of domestic terrorism they are supposed to have carried out? The Weather Underground article says the FBI considered them a terrorist group, then outlines various terrorist actions they carried out such as bombing the Capitol, the Pentagon and various other U.S. government installations. I haven't seen any coverage of antifa carrying out these sorts of attacks. On would expect that Politico's article would at least explain the reasons for the label, if in fact their story is accurate. TFD (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Well you see, someone who might or might not have been a member of an antifascist group threw a milkshake at a racist blogger, and that's exactly the same as what the Weather Underground got up to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a plain violation of BLP to call Ngo a racist blogger without providing RS to that effect. Also, they didn't just throw a milkshake at him; they sucker-punched him in the head, repeatedly kicked him. Then they threw something that looks like milshakes on him. He had to go to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a brain hemorrhage. Relatedly, here is a video of Antifa smashing private property and terrorizing people: [1]. There are, of course, many other examples of this sort of behavior. It's very surprising that people are acting like we've never seen this sort of thing from Antifa. Obviously both 'antifa' and 'terror' are going to be disputed words. But we have RS reporting something about this dispute, and with attribution it seems clearly to be due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Why have you posted a video from an anti-Trump demonstration in January 2017 (see DisruptJ20) in a discussion about an entirely unrelated anti-fascist demonstration in June 2019? Neither the video nor the description anywhere mentions "Antifa". Are you confused or are you actively trying to mislead people? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The video was relevant to the question whether Antifa has committed acts of terror, which was also under discussion. I figured some would deny that the black clad "protestors" in the video were Antifa. The matter is disputed. In my opinion, the existence of this dispute is part of why the Politco report is worthy of incusion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean finding examples of academics talking about Quillette pushing a bias in articles on race is a trivial task. Quillette is a racist blog. Ngo writes for a racist blog with articles under his byline including this one and this one. Basically quack quack. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You didn't say he writes for a racist blog; you said he's a racist. That's a violation of BLP. An opinion piece in Arcdigital is not RS for such a claim. Quillette is not a blog. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia describes Quillette as an online magazine, not a blog, but I can't find any description for "arcdigital" which seems to be an obscure (Medium hosted) blog with only 1500 followers. Nicholas Grossman, the author of the article you linked to, seems to be an academic, in the so-called Political Sciences field but he has virtually zero citations and peer-reviewed research. He laments the Quillette article pushes "bad Social Science" - that's quite likely, especially since the entire Social Science field is full of junk research and bad statistics which affect (though to a lesser degree) even so-called "top-studies" like those peer-reviewed and published in the highest impact "science magazines" (Nature & Science) where less than 1% of "researchers" active in the field get to publish. The argument of "pushing a bias in an article" can easily be used against any publication which chooses to publish this kind of research, statistically week or, even worse, invalidated by future experiments (even for Science magazine) if the qualification criteria is just pointing to an anecdote (e.g.: an article presenting what could be junk statistical findings). Mcrt007 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Shinealittlelight: This is not a "dispute", it's a clear-cut case of someone drawing connections that are not only original research but also straightforwardly false. You're either not possessed of sufficient grasp of the factual issues to provide anything of worth to this discussion, or you're not attempting to provide anything of worth, but rather to soapbox and distract from the question at hand. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

With all due respect, I don't think this is one we're going to reach any sort of agreement on. Though I hate invoking it (because I think it very much overused), this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I'd like to suggest we agree to disagree here and get back to what we're doing with the article. Feel free to ignore me, however. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. TFD (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you trying to imply the actions carried out by antifa are not politically motivated? Also yes calling Andy Ngo racist is of course a BLP vio and should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
That's about international terrorism. Domestic terrorism is defined as: to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."[2] Attempts to intimidate a minority population are not considered terrorism, but hate crimes. Attempts to intimidate a political group, such as neo-nazis, do not come under either category. PackMecEng, no, why do you ask? TFD (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Because above you mention Smashing private property and terrorizing people is not terrorism under U.S. law, unless it was done to change government policy or the entire population was terrorized. which I took as you implying it was not to change government policy or the like. Is that incorrect? Apologies if I am mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
And again, let's remember WP:NOTAFORUM - this is largely irrelevant to the question at hand which centers on WP:DUE when dealing with a statement made by one publication and never verified in another independent source. Frankly US law could call tuna sandwiches terrorism and it wouldn't be relevant to whether Politico is due mention. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Willem Van Spronsen[edit]

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

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

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

@Terrorist96: When I talked about the need for neutrality it was precisely the sort of inclusion you just made that I was referring to. Please avoid loaded language such as "attacked" and, prior to any public investigation, avoid making unambiguous statements of fact in Wikipedia voice. All Wikipedia knows for certain is that Van Spronsen is dead in an ICE facility. He was reported to have damaged structures within it. Whether property damage constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and thus subject to WP:NPOV at this time there's no evidence suggesting he intended harm to any of the human beings in the facility. Finally, I deleted the Epoch Times because they're a garbage source. You have already provided better. Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
ETA: please see basically any discussion on this page for why Wikipedia does not call anyone, living or dead, a "member of Antifa." Furthermore, if I recall correctly, BLP protection applies to the recently deceased, especially in cases where WP:BLP1E applies. As such, we have to be particularly sensitive in our handling of this incident. I do think it's notable and warrants inclusion, but there are structural limits to how Wikipedia should include it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
IE: We should be particularly cautious in how we describe the deceased, such as calling them a member of this or that group. As it is the event, not the individual, which is notable and the event only is notable in that it draws a parallel between antifascist action and the public perception that the ICE concentration camps are part of a shift in US border policy toward fascist ones. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I only restored the text by VD88 and added sources to it. By all means, feel free to rephrase it. Additionally, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Epoch Times; see WP:RSP. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's put it this way, you didn't need to include a source from a publication with a long history of fabrication, propaganda and shoddy reporting. You had better sources. So I removed it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I am a little unsure of this just because the major tie I see to Antifa is a Facebook post from a Seattle group, but it is entirely possible I am missing something. I see him frequently described as "antifascist," but that, to me, is not the same as being associated with Antifa, unless we are ready to call General Patton and his Seventh Army "Antifa." So, I guess I'll leave my qualms at that, and let consensus fall where it may. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
From the Heavy link: Van Spronsen wrote, "I am antifa,..."Terrorist96 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

I saw the "I am Antifa" quote, but is that a 'tie' to Antifa? I would say that is 'self-proclaimed' or the like. When I write my manifesto (before making the criminally moronic Wikipedia posts that get me thrown off the internet), I may say "I am a member of the Lancashire County Cricket Club...." It would be a mistake to say I had "ties" to the club. Obviously the nebulous nature of Antifa makes this tricky, but I still think this is one we need to somehow indicate was basically this guy's say-so. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Antifa isn't a club one can be a member of; it's largely an ideological position (that fascists should be confronted directly, that for a variety of reasons, law enforcement is poorly equipped to handle fascists) and as such, it's reasonable to state somebody adheres to antifa principles based on self-identification. My understanding via my non-RS sources is that many antifascist groups are saying, "he was one of ours," IE: that his actions were an act of antifascism to be praised. Remember as an ideology rather than a group there is no member list. Nobody is a member of antifa. So claims of camraderie aren't claims that he was working with this or that group but rather that he was a comrade. However, what I've heard from contacts in antifascist groups through the grapevine is not what Wikipedia should publish. I'd be very open to an edit clarifying that his antifascist connection was self-identified if no specific groups have come forward and said, "he was working with us." Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but I think the phrasing "ties to" belies your point; it certainly implies to me something concrete beyond an ideological affiliation. I'm not saying we should pretend he had nothing to do with Antifa, rather, I think we should just be a bit more careful in how we paraphrase the sources. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • None of this matters. What we need are better sources; not all antifascist groups are antifa, and since he's recently dead this guy still falls under WP:BLP - even with the more cautious wording in the latest version (which avoids using the word 'antifa' in that paragraph), including him here still contains an obvious implication. To include him we need a WP:BLP-quality source specifically stating in as many words that he was associated with antifa; antifa is anti-fascist, but not all anti-fascist groups are antifa. Two of the three sources previously in the article don't mention antifa at all and therefore aren't usable. The Heavy source does include one quote, Van Spronsen wrote, “I am antifa, I stand with comrades around the world who act from the love of life in every permutation. Comrades who understand that freedom means real freedom for all”, but I do not feel that's sufficient on its own until / unless we have at least one source discussing the connection in the article voice. (I'm not saying we keep it off the page forever - given that quote, it should be easy to find a source actually connecting him to Antifa if it checks out and is relevant - but I feel we have to wait until / unless such a clear source appears. Filing this under antifa activism based on a single quote feels too much like trying to connect the dots ourselves right now, which is WP:SYNTH.) Or, in other words, if this is notable antifa activism, there will be a source saying so in its article voice soon enough. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about much of this, but I think the final sentence gets at an important point, which is that if information about this event does belong in the article it surely doesn't belong in a section called "activism": even if we have good enough sources connecting Van Spronsen to antifa (which we may or may not), we certainly don't have sources describing what he did as "antifa activism". This probably connects to the issue raised above about the article's structure. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Count me in the "two minds" crowd as well, but I'm glad Aquillion was bolder than I am. I believe "when in doubt, leave it out." I also believe all Wikipedia maxims should rhyme. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the first lethal victim and martyr of this movement is pretty notable to at least be included in a sentence, he self-describes as Antifa in his manifesto, a manifesto linked to and mentioned in several WP:RS, the problem of No true Scotsman is hard to circumvent here, but he has been referred as Antifa in a few sources, see [3] [4] [5] [6]

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

  • Maybe. "On July, 13 2019, a member of Antifa, Willem Van Spronse..." should not be accepted, ValentinesDay88. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm okay with the proposed wording. At this point I'd lean towards not including it at all, just because I'd like to see the connection drawn a little more explicitly in the reliable sources (though it's awfully close). That being said, it's only a lean and I won't be turning over any furniture if it's included in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This article [1] also uses the words "attacked" and "Antifa" so shouldn't we include this? I'm not understanding why we are avoiding this. -Valentine — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValentinesDay88 (talkcontribs) 02:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I found this webpage [2] on the Washington Post (it's for Washington DC not Washington State) and this on the New York Times [3] they says the same things about the attack. Is that what they want? -Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, because neither of those mentions "antifa", which is predictable as per my last link.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia isn't the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; even if you think the mainstream media is covering something up, we still have to go with what they say. WP:FRINGE, I think it is, even specifically says that arguments that something doesn't appear in the sources because it's being covered up is a sign that it shouldn't be included. --Aquillion (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
We need an article about antifa that mentions it. In comparison, a book about the serial killer Ted Bundy mentions that he was a delegate to the Republican National Convention. But mainstream sources about the Republican Party rarely mention this. That's because while it is important to his story, it's not important to the Republican Party. I notice this article does not even mention the Puget Sound Anarchists, with which Van Spronsen was apparently "affiliated." TFD (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The difference between Ted Bundy being a serial killer not being mentioned on the Republican page vs Spronsen being antifa not being mentioned here is that Bundy didn't commit his acts as a result of his Republican affiliation; Spronsen did, as per his manifesto. And we have enough sources to add it. Here's a new one. In sum, we have,,,,, and several other right-wing sources all explicitly saying "antifa" and other sources such as mentioning "anti-fascist". Still not enough?Terrorist96 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
That's something for reliable sources to determine. TFD (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
User:The Four Deuces has it right. How is this important to Antifa? This has yet to be demonstrated, and frankly I don't think it can be unless there's some sort of successful attempt to show him as a martyr for the movement. Where I disagree with TFD is that I don't think one article would be enough. Of course, maybe if he gets his own article it could mention what he said. Anyone can say that they support a movement without anyone else in the movement even knowing them. Terrorist96, Newsbuster is of no interest here and commments such as yours are neither helpful nor collegial. If you have problems with the sources they don't like, take them to WP:RSN, not here. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

(edit conflict)::It's now in 2019 Spokane attack, was in List of terrorist incidents in July 2019 but I removed it, again, and Terrorism in the United States - the mainstream sources, WAPO and Seattle Times, mention neither Antifa or terrorism, the two right-wing sources do. He did say "I am Aantifa" but that doesn't mean, as I've said, a lot. No question though that he was a left wing anti-fascist. Editors here to push rightwing sources only are a disgrace to this website. Good editors follow policy. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, did you hear? Buzzfeed is now right wing. Someone tell Buzzfeed!Terrorist96 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that everybody needs to cool off, watch the WP:NPA violations and remember to WP:AGF - the purpose of this page is to convey relevant information about the US antifa ideological movement, NOT to catalog alleged crimes of anarchists. Although I don't personally object to including a carefully worded, reliably sourced and neutral statement about this incident respecting the restrictions of WP:BLP there has been a strong case made for WP:TOOSOON. None of this is "white washing left-wing terrorism" and comments to this effect, along with sarcasm about the political slant of sources is actively harmful to Wikipedia. Stop it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

:::I have to assume that if a terrorist attacked a government facility and wrote in his manifesto, "I am a Nazi", that editors would include that in Wikipedia. Why doesn't the same standard apply here?-Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed article doesn't mention terrorism or Antifa with a capital A, it says " self-identified as an anti-fascist, or "antifa," Not all anti-fascists are part of the Antifa movement, and his manifesto uses a lower case "a" - ie antifa, and says "I am not affiliated with any organization, I have disaffiliated from any organizations who disagree with my choice of tactics." Doug Weller talk 18:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's a right-wing source Big League Politics [7] with it clearly in lower case, as it is in the left wing sources I saw. Of course BLP calls him an Antifa member, but you'd expect that take despite him not saying anything of the kind. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::::If a terrorist attacked a government facility and wrote in his manifesto, "I am a nazi" instead of "I am a Nazi" we would not be able to include it on Wikipedia? -Valentine ValentinesDay88 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be included in that individual's article. It probably would not be included in the article about Nazism unless it was relevant to that topic. TFD (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, any connection is too tenuous. And even if we knew for certain that he was a member of the Republican or Democratic Party, we wouldn’t add it to one of those articles. O3000 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
More specifically, it would depend on coverage among secondary sources. If the sources commonly described him as a Nazi and treated that aspect as significant, we probably would, too. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I've struck through the edits of the sockpuppet ValentinesDay88 (also editing as HappyValentinesDay1988) who was a confirmed sockpuppet of CordialGreenery who in turn was a proven sock of OnceASpy. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

List of sources[edit]


The Independent

Fox News


New York Post

New York Post 2

Washington Examiner

Washington Times

National Review


News Busters

The Epoch Times


The New American

USA Today

Seattle Times

My Northwest (Local Seattle newspaper)

KIRO7 (Another local Seattle news station)

KIRO7 again

Tacoma News Tribune (second largest newspaper in the state of Washington per their About Us link

Big League Politics

PJ Media

According to WP:RSP, all the above sources (in order) either have consensus of being reliable, or there is no consensus on their reliability, or are not listed. None are deemed "unreliable". But I guess it's still #TooSoon... At what point are you guys going to admit you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Terrorist96 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)



There has been some back and forth in the edits in the first sentence of the lede recently between “is a conglomeration of” and “comprises”.[8] I really don’t like and don’t see any advantage in “conglomeration” which is (a) an inelegant, unnecessary word, (b) rather vague in meaning, and (c) ascribes more cohesion to the amorphous, leaderless movement than is accurate. Can we go with the simpler, clearer, more accurate “comprises”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean, anytime somebody uses comprises correctly they're already half-way to support from me. So while I've previously supported the conglomeration wording against other suggestions, I'd definitely support the new "comprises" wording, which is more elegant and accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Comprises" sounds good to me; it's vague enough to avoid going beyond what the sources say, and doesn't seem to have any baggage. "Conglomeration" makes it sound like a company, almost, like there's some formal Antifa Conglomerate. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Antifa is neither organized per se nor are they entirely disunified (they at least share a common ideology and common talking spaces, that's more than obvious). I'd suggest the term "unified by" with the addition of a sentence pronouncing their apparent organizational unity within regional circles (one could find social media pages, public discussions &c. for regional sects of Antifa such as in Portland or Chicago) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SapientiaBrittaniae (talkcontribs) 01:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Comprises, definitely. We shouldn't suggest that the movement doesn't have supporters who aren't in groups, which we seem to be doing now - the wording has to make that clear. Again I see this analogous to the Civil Rights movement - a lot of groups but also a lot of unaffiliated supporters. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggested wording to bring the lead into line with the article[edit]

Right now it is simply inaccurate. I suggest "Antifa is comprised of autonomous militant anti-fascist groups and individuals who subscribe to a range of left-leaning ideologiesideologies, typically on the left. They include anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrat. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sadly this often happens, people treating the lead as though it's disconnected to the article or should determine what the body of the article contains, when as WP:LEAD makes clear, it's the other way around. The body of the article says "Antifa is not an interconnected or unified organization, but rather a movement without a leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals.[13][21][33] Since it is composed of autonomous groups, and thus has no formal organization or membership". That's more or less what the lead needs to say to comply with guidelines. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I've just found the current New Jersey Homeland threat assessment, which says "Antifa is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas." I've added that to the article but need help with the url for the actual text, as the main page for the threat assessment doesn't have the full text but a link, which is [9] I don't want to use that alone as it could look unofficial. I also think that we need to rethink the lead in the light of this. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of mention of violence[edit]

The core theme of Antifa is their use of violence against whoever they claim to be fascist, yet this article barely mentions it and doesn’t mention it at all in the first paragraph. Can we change that to bring attention to their use of violence? Victor Salvini (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph is part of the WP:LEAD which should summarise the article and would need to change if major parts of the article change. The key bit of the article is Antifa (United States)#Ideology and activities. That doesn't convince me that the core them is the use of violence, although no one would deny that it's used at times and of course is much more headline worthy than anything else they do. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Victor Salvini: see also the New Jersey Homeland Security quote above. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Other wiki pages on violent activist groups (such as the proud boys) mention that they may use violence, so I don’t see why it can’t be said here.

What quote above? I don’t see any? Victor Salvini (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I second that this be added to the lede and a separate subsection be formed under "Ideology and activities" to talk about their violence in public. This is characteristic of their movement and thus should be significantly reflected in the Wikipedia article. Mention of Antifa in conjunct with their conduct of violence is very commonplace, especially in the news. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could point to specific reliable sources to back up your proposed changes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
As of 20190718 on an incognito Google search for "antifa," the first three news results (1, 2, and 3) make numerous claims to Antifa's violence, predominantly in their headlines. The recent Andy Ngo attacks and the firebombing of an ICE detainment centre further this consideration. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
So if we can find three sources that refer to members of the republican party committing violent acts with political motivation, should we say that a core tactic of the republican party is political violence? Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a silly observation. Your test doesn't work the way I ran mine; none of the top seven Google results for "republican *party*" include mention of their violence. Please stop with the WP:CRUSH. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I would request you immediately strike through your statement about me per WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
And I would deny that, as I spoke only of your content, and not of your character. See, "silly and childish *observation*." Even so, I've complied partially. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
So, sticking to the lead for a moment, the third sentence currently reads: "They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right." How would you want this adjusted or what would you like to see added? I understand the general nature of your suggestion, but I am not quite sure of the specifics. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Here’s multiple links regarding Antifa violence, and I can get a lot more Victor Salvini (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, I get the general gist, but what is the specific proposal? We already mention their use of physical violence in the lead; I am not opposed necessarily to making it more prominent or adjusting the article, but I am not sure what's actually being suggested. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And what I myself would like to see changed is to add violence to their list of “principle features” in the 1st paragraph Victor Salvini (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is in the following sentence, which to me reads as a list of examples of "direct action." But how would you rewrite the lead? Or at least those couple of sentences? Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You would need a source describing it as such specifically. The sources above don't seem to support that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

To me it reads as saying that violence is a practice within Antifa, but it isn’t a principle feature as direct action is (with direct action being a vague term). There are two ways I would propose editing the lead. The first being to simply add “and violence” after “direct action”. The second being to move the third sentence to start after “direct action” and to then continue down to “with conflicts occurring both online and in real life” which would now be at the bottom of the paragraph (in other words, merge the third sentence with the second). Victor Salvini (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I would oppose that edit as being WP:UNDUE. Again just because an ideology believes violence is an option doesn't make it a principal feature. And finding journalists referring to isolated events does not constitute evidence it is a principal feature. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it's not part of their core ideology, but Antifa is very often referred to (and reported on, notably) in terms of their violence. It has become characteristic of their movement to the public, if not to themselves. It's characteristic of them, but not necessarily a universal doctrine as such. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
And violence is mentioned in the lede. The question here is whether to refer to it as a principal feature by restructuring the lede. You're trying to use an argument for the current state to support a proposed different future state. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point, but most saliently I see a discrepancy in the difference between the way the Proud Boy article and the Antifa article are portrayed. It seems unfitting to not make abundantly clear what is the relevant communis opinio (that Antifa often acts violently). SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You do, however, make clear the main problem with our proposal: That no matter how many individual instances we find of reference to Antifa as a violent organization, we will be fundamentally incapable of finding an *unbiased* source confirm them to be characteristically violent, only a statistical source could do that. The ADL refers to them in a way that is close to our characterization, but I'm not sure that should be used. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As I’ve stated earlier, the wiki pages of other groups such as the proud boys make very clear the tendency for there to be violence at the events, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t do the same with Antifa. And as I’ve also stated earlier, I can find many more links and instances of Antifa violence, so these are not isolated instances. Victor Salvini (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Second. @Dumuzid should compare our Antifa article to our Proud Boys article to see our proposed reformation (in order to mention their violence more prominently, that is). SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't find "Article X should be equivalent to Article Y" arguments particularly persuasive. There is certainly mention of violence with regard to Antifa, I agree with that. The question is how to impart that information in a way that comports with coverage. I'm mulling over Victor Salvini's suggestion above, though it would be helpful if he would simply draft it out as a proposal. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
As you and @Objective3000 say, articles should not necessarily correlate on the basis of similar context. The reasoning proposed at WP:OTHERCONTENT, however, is that since anybody can change most any Wikipedia article, it is all too possible that a minor page be changed offhandedly and a major page therefore be made to match it and thusly inherit bad structuring or information. Both the Antifa and Proud Boys articles, however, are of about equal importance and are subject to almost equal debate. Saliently, the Proud Boys article has had this structure in long standing and is under extended protection, invalidating the rule in WP:OTHERCONTENT that equality testing is not sufficient for Wikipedia articles (this is why WP:OTHERCONTENT further mentions that quality-reviewed articles are not subject to its ruling). Best, SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Proud Boys is a different article about a different entity. You will get nowhere here telling editors to look at another article. If you think that article should be changed, go to that TP. If you think this article should be changed, that article is not relevant. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That seems like a non-argument. It's reasonable to bring up an unmotivated discrepancy between two articles; of course, it is not the sole basis for my positioning, but it's worth considering, and further disproving it wouldn't reduce from our position altogether anyhow. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Then why don’t we compare it to the Boy Scouts article? You are suggesting that these two articles are about the same type of organizations. That is original research and will be ignored here. O3000 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe the boy scouts have much notoriety when it comes to acting violently. My argument isn't predicate on the Proud Boys and Antifa being similar organizations; rather, the treatment of reliable sources' claims of violence on either side is resounded differently in their respective articles. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't even make this type of argument between articles on Fox and CNN, or the Rep and Dem Parties, or different presidents. Seriously, this is not a valid argument at WP. O3000 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you can adequately compare news sources and Wikipedia in this way. You seem to be avoiding my point, which is that there would seem to be no viable reason for the PB article and Antifa to differ in this way (it's structure, not content). WP:OTHERCONTENT is salient, but since the Proud Boys article is protected and well-debated, not to mention fundamentally similar to the Antifa article in content and argument, I believe it does not altogether invalidate my point. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not "avoiding" anything. I'm specifically stating that what happens in that article is completely irrelevant to this article. I've never seen such an argument sway consensus. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

[to Dumuzid] I’m not sure what you mean by “draft it out”. In my previous message I suggested two ways the article could be edited to satisfy my proposal. Can you please explain what you meant? Thanks Victor Salvini (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

He is asking you to write down exactly what you think the lede should say and post it here, in article talk, for review and discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Here’s two examples of how I think the first paragraph could be changed!

The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] The principal features of antifa groups are their use of direct action and violence ,[12] with conflicts occurring both online and in real life.[13] They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18]

The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action, with their using of tactics such as digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18][12] with conflicts occurring both online and in real life Victor Salvini (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • So let me reiterate then that I Oppose both but especially find the first one to be WP:UNDUE and inaccurate. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The way we describe groups is not based on our interpretation of them based on what we have read but expert interpretation in reliable sources. You need to provide these in order to make changes. And some event that is trending is not necessarily definitive. The Republican Party, which you mentioned, has been in the news lately because of racist comments made by their leader followed by racist chants at his rally. TFD (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

TFD - this may come as a shock to some, but a racist is someone who is prejudiced against people of another race, not someone who disagrees with Democrats. 😉 Atsme Talk 📧 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NPA apply even when the text is little. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Victor Salvini, for making the suggestion, and thank you Simonnm223, for translating for me. As for suggestion one, while I see lots of reporting connecting Antifa and violence, I am not aware of any that call it a "principal feature" or anything of the kind. I fear that's edging towards WP:SYNTH, but it's entirely possible I am missing or forgetting something. If there are any particular sources you think support that claim--not just violence in general but "principal feature"--I'd appreciate it if you could point them out. As for the second suggestion, I actually like that, more directly linking the examples to the phrase "direct action." I would take out "their" as unnecessary and I personally think we can do away with the 'both online and in real life' language as I think (again, maybe incorrectly) that it is covered by "digital activism." My slight edit of Victor Salvini's second suggestion would thus be:
The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] The principal feature of antifa groups is use of direct action, including tactics such as digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18][12]
For my money, that's both more informative and more parsimonious. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The lead already says that They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. The main impact of this change would be to upgrade those to their "principal feature", which I'm not sure is supported by the sources, and to remove the with conflicts occurring both online and in real life bit. Basically, the lead already mentions violence, and I think it does so to an extent (and with a focus appropriate to) the sources people are talking about above. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I like this resolution. If everyone else here is willing I say we edit the paragraph. Cheers Victor Salvini (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused by the basic premise of this talk section, since it seems incorrect; "doesn’t mention it at all in the first paragraph" is flatly wrong. The lead already mentions physical violence in the first paragraph: They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. How is that insufficient? It seems to basically match the sources provided. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So, for me, I grant that "violence" is already in there, however, I still think this an improvement. The reasons why are stylistic (something akin to Strunk and White's old tautological advice to "omit needless words") and because I think it does the casual reader a service in explicitly linking "direct action" to the list of examples, something I think is slightly muddled as it stands. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
If the goal is to define Direct Action and its relation to antifa, maybe we should take a step back and look at sources for that specifically? The current source for The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action doesn't use the term at all, and the other sources for things Antifa does don't seem to relate it to direct action, either. In the article itself, our definition just uses a quote, which says "The idea in Antifa is that we go where they [right-wingers] go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don't believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece." which doesn't cover everything we'd be implying Direct Action encompasses in the lead with this proposed edit. And our only source for the centrality of Direct Action right now is But Crow said the philosophy of Antifa is based on the idea of direct action, which isn't nearly as strong as what we're saying (and is attributed.) Somewhere along the way Crow's opinion about Antifa's philosophy became a stated fact about its defining feature, which then had everything anyone ever said Antifa did combined under it. The current lead is basically a mess created by a bunch of compromises and edits - we need to slow down, actually consider what the sources say, and find proper sources for the stuff we "know" but which isn't currently well-sourced (eg. what direct action means in this context.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The point of the edit is to make the paragraph clearer. I may just go ahead and edit it as Dumizid and I have agreed on since this is a pretty erroneous amount of debate over an edit that doesn’t really add on to or take from the paragraph. Victor Salvini (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean if you don't think it changes much, then there's no need to rush forward with it; I'm not seeing a consensus for that change just yet. But either way, as I said above, I see it as a pretty major change (it directly implies violence is a "primary feature" of Antifa, which isn't backed by the sources you cited.) I think part of the reason discussions got so confused is because they got started with a request for a mention of violence in the lead when it was already there, which led to things going in circles. Given that it's been pointed out that there is a mention (and that's most of what you were focused on), I'd suggest just closing with no action. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Victor Salvini, Dumuzid, Aquillion, The Four Deuces, Simonm223, SapientiaBrittaniae, and Objective3000: I thought I'd posted this last night but didn't notice and edit conflict. Articles stand by themselves. More relevant is the fact that Antifa is not a group, it's a movement, so it can't be compared to a more unified group. The New Jersey Department of HomelandS Security's 2019 threat assessment, which is quoted in the section above - @Victor Salvini: - says "Antifa is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas." And as I keep saying, the lead reflects the body of the text. Doug Weller talk 01:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of my concerns with the proposed changes. The current version says that Antifa uses a variety of tactics; the proposed rewrite implies that all these tactics are the primary characteristics of all of Antifa, which isn't really reflected by the sources cited. The body says that The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas, and the lead needs to reflect that (even the current lead doesn't do a great job of that.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So, I obviously seem to be in the minority here, which is fine. But my reasoning was simply that I believe the sources support that violence is encompassed in 'direct action,' and that we could make this a bit more explicit. As it stands, it reads to me as though 'direct action' is divorced from the list that follows. If I am the only one who reads it that way, so be it! Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
My problem with that is that if we're going to say that that's what direct action encompasses, we'll need a source specifically saying "direct action is [these things]" - we can't WP:SYNTH it up out of "Antifa engages in direct action, and also Antifa does these things, therefore these things are direct action." Also, we don't really have a good source for the statement that The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action, really (the cite in the lead doesn't mention direct action at all, and the one mention in the article just cites a quote to a random Antifa member, who says something much weaker.) I don't doubt that sources for the latter exist (I think we somehow just ended up with the wrong cite on that statement), but I'm dubious we can find a source that would fully justify turning the entire list of "digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right" into the definition of direct action. In fact, it contradicts our definition on the Direct Action page itself, which is much more detailed, much better-cited, and encompasses far more. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. I thought we had a source drawing an explicit connection between 'direct action' and violence, but upon review, the closest I can find is in this CNN piece where (in a quote), direct action is equated with "caus[ing] conflict." I'll keep looking and thinking. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As Aquillion stated, the lead already mentions "physical violence". And it should stay there. CNN: "What they're trying to do now is not only become prominent through violence at these high-profile rallies. BBC Radio 4: Their willingness to use violence marks out Antifa from many other left-wing activists. NBC News: Trump called out the antifa movement by name at an Arizona rally last week, but they’ve attracted criticism from conservative and liberal commentators alike for its use of violent protest to shut down public events featuring far-right speakers. LA Times: “antifa” — movement to put “themselves on the map of protest” by using violence to “intimidate” both political opponents and those on the left who promote non-violence. BBC Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence. ADL: These violent counter-protesters are often members of the “antifa”. NPR Fact Check: But she says the Antifa shouldn't get a pass on their violence just because they oppose white supremacists. AOL: But the use of violence isn't new for the group known as Antifa, or anti-fascists. Seems like a defining feature.--Pudeo (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not willing to use those sources as evidence for anything but what happened two years ago (and more, eg the AOL source is May 2017) when they were written (even the first one, that CNN article is about the 2017 Charlottesville rally although updated in May for some reason. Your "isn't new for the group known as Antifa" is a specific reference to "The far-left organization made headlines back in January during President Trump's inauguration when an alleged Antifa devotée punched white nationalist Richard Spencer while he was being interviewed on camera." How does this single incident from an alleged "devotee" show that violence is anything like a defining feature? None of them seem more recent than August 2 years ago. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In addition, there's quite a lot of WP:IDHT in referring to antifa as a group. There's no antifa party, no antifa club. Do you think it's good to confront and challenge fascists in some way? Congratulations you are antifa. Some people who adopt that ideological position think it's good to confront and challenge fascists by beating them up. Others try to embarrass them. Others try to make it impossible for them to speak publicly. Others make life difficult for fascists online. None of these are more central or primary to the antifa ideology than any of the the others. (And this is a conception that becomes evident if you actually read the academic literature on the history of antifascism.) This meme on the US right that there's this group called Antifa which is an armed gang that beats up bigots is a fantasy. And Wikipedia doesn't deal in fantasy. tl;dr any attempt to make this article suggest that there's an organized group called antifa will be opposed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Two year old sources are not obsolete in any way. CNN's article is also from this year. How has Antifa changed since 2017 in a way that would render these sources too old, and what are the sources for these changes? --Pudeo (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The CNN article is about events in 2017, even if there was an unexplained update in May. It starts with "After protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent on Saturday," and the quotations used are from then. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I am an anti fascist. I am also an anti communist and anti socialist. I however have no intent to infringe in any of these people’s rights, that doesn’t make me much better than them. The Antifa groups think that what they call fascism is a legitimate threat that they to combat utilizing any possible means including violence (we’ve already sent tons of sources on this and are willing to send even more). So no, we are not Antifa. That being said how much more do we need to say just to make the first paragraph clearer? That “digital actvism, property damage, physical violence and harassment” all fall under “direct action” so there’s no reason the two should not come one after the other. Victor Salvini (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less how you define your political ideology. There's no antifa club. It's an ideology, or at best a movement. It's not a group. It doesn't take a capital. It doesn't have members. And it's not principally defined by violence. Please cease with WP:IDHT and try to understand what people are telling you - that you fundamentally misunderstand the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The Antifa Movement is like the yellow vest movement. It isn’t unified and has no central leadership. However, there are organized branches of it usually at the local level. These organized branches are our best way of telling how the majority of the movement thinks and behaves, and right now that is leftist thought and direct action which includes digital activism, property damage, physical violence and harassment. Victor Salvini (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, I couldn't care less about your opinions. Please provide reliable sources that support your assertions. Because so far you've got nothing but random news reports. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Victor Salvini, Pudeo, Doug Weller, and SapientiaBrittaniae: I've started an RfC below. You're invited. The regulars are already watching - some already participated - so no need to ping them. If you see anybody I've missed, go ahead and ping them. Atsme Talk 📧 07:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Blatant Wikicensorship[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The removal of any information on the well-documented Antifa assault on Andy Ngo is yet another example of why Wikipedia is wholly unreliable on any controversial issue. No wonder Wikipedia is banned as a source at educational institutions worldwide. 2001:5B0:50C0:D148:5022:FB84:E8:272C (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The non-use of Wikipedia in education is not (generally) based on any perceived political bias, and is, indeed, a very good idea. I think you will find that any teacher or professor worth their salt will tell students that Wikipedia is a great place to start research, but should ultimately lead to other sources. Wikipedia's ephemeral nature is both a great strength and a weakness when it comes to actual scholarship. All that being said, if you would like to propose an edit supported by reliable sources, I for one would be happy to hear it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not recall the assault ever being on this page. I just looked through the edit history and couldn’t find anything relating to it ( I could have just missed it, though). If you would like to add the event to the page feel free to do it! Victor Salvini (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a slight word of warning--in the days following the assault, there was a lot of discussion of including it here, but as I recall, some combination of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE won the day and it was not ultimately included. Now that there's a little bit of time between us and the event, it may be easier to make the case, but maybe not. I would encourage anyone and everyone to suggest edits here or follow WP:BRD if they prefer. I would just say be prepared for push back. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Haven't seen any news about actual antifa actions in reliable sources for some time, except for an anti-mask ordinance in one city. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
My feeling as far as the Ngo thing goes is that the sources are mostly partisan media, which are really bad for illustrating WP:DUE or for factual reporting. If it is noteworthy and verifiable, we should be able to find coverage of it in more neutral sources (especially since the claims involved are fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL); those sources would be necessary to provide any sort of analysis in any case. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa, by this page's admission, uses "physical violence" against perceived political enemies, and yet this page is filled with naked praise for them. Unbelievable.

Can someone tell me - does Wikipedia WANT to be known as biased politically? To pretend the Ngo and ICE center controversies don't exist is ludicrous. If anyone here is being genuinely "careful" then you're being played by the other paid activists who are simply protecting the narrative. - sakmode

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Where do I sign up for this paid activism? I have been active for all these years and never once received a paycheck. What a sucker I am. Dumuzid (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
There was a software problem. Call Shirley in payroll and she’ll get you your check. O3000 (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It's worse than the Phoenix pay system I swear. I think I'm owed back pay on at least two decades of communisting. Simonm223 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Like I said, just find a better source. Reason magazine mostly carries opinion, unambiguously exists to push a particular perspective and doesn't have a particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy - we can use them for opinions, but they're not a great source to argue that a particular news event is WP:DUE, or to use to try and cover it. (Especially since the one you tried to add treated it as a breaking event with no followup, which implies it didn't actually go anywhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I am being constantly amused that these discussions always seem to be started by editors who have made a total of one edit on wikipedia. This one. And yet they know all about what happens behind the scenes here. By the way, I got my check yesterday, dropped off by a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask, this time. You might be on the annual payroll plan rather than the preferred bi-monthly one. Yes, call Shirl. Carptrash (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Reason is simple, Brietbart reported a Wikipedia admin who has barred me being an Atifa sympathizer. Weller.17:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:F387:9B00:A172:3714:A95F:3FEB (talk)

Lol. I wonder which block evader this is? A number of us are mentioned at Breitbart claiming censorship and attacking editors. Typical article by The Devil's Advocate - see note on his ban. Seems as though defending our policies is defending the subject of an article. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy Ngo[edit]

I added the following to the article: "In June 2019, antifa protestors attacked journalist Andy Ngo, leaving him hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage."

It was reverted by Dumuzid with the edit summary "please discuss on talk first."

I'm not sure what the basis of the reversion is because this has received significant coverage in reliable sources:

New York Times:, New York Post: Newsweek:

I could go on and on. Cosmic Sans (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmic Sans: Please go on and on. We should establish that this material is WP:DUE before inclusion. The more sources the better - preferably higher quality than eg the NYP. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing in those sources to support the claim about the extent of his injuries or that Ngo was hospitalized. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's a Vox article that references the brain hemorrhage. How many sources you want? Cosmic Sans (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
"Sent him to the hospital with injuries" is not the same as "hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage." So yes, I want sources that support your assertion. See up the page or more on the Ngo incident and on the rumors about the content of the milkshakes. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The Vox article does mention the brain hemorrhage. But in any event, would a compromise be to say that the attack sent Ngo to the hospital? Cosmic Sans (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I see that now - I had to scroll past the ads. I note that the article is not exactly kind to Ngo, that it's heavily editorialized, and that it quotes Ngo's organization on the hospitalization and diagnosis rather than making a flat assertion. Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps because the author had worked for the paper for less than a month; which doesn’t mean it’s not RS. What bothers me is that it’s one incident, the attacker is unknown, and the injuries unknown. We clearly should have the word violence in the lead. But, we don’t have much info on this one incident. Obviously, it can be included in Ngo’s article. O3000 (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
None of that disqualifies reliability on its own, though I'd say that material in Vox is almost always at least partially opinion publication because that's the Vox remit, which makes Vox kind of a bottom-tier RS. In this case, an opinion columnist reporting that Ngo's organization claimed he had to be hospitalized (but he got better fast enough to be on Fox the next day) is insufficiently WP:DUE in an article on the antifa movement. Suggest taking it to the Ngo article per Objective3000. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So, I will put my cards on the table here: I think this probably belongs in the article one way or another. That being said, in the welter of confusion which followed the events (and to some degree persists), it was very difficult to bring things in to focus--and while I think this has improved, it is only a bit. Note for instance, that neither the New York Times piece nor the Vox piece explicitly assign blame to Antifa; rather, this comes from third parties (Mr. Ngo's lawyer in the former, Republican lawmakers in the latter). But I still think this is a notable act of violence at an Antifa-related protest (or counterprotest, what have you). Therefore, I would favor something like "At a protest in Portland which was partially put together by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." So there you have my not-so-authoritative take. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
How about "At a Portland protest, partially organized by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." It's basically the same as what you've said but I tightened the language a bit. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing. I'm certainly fine with that--anyone else have thoughts? Dumuzid (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
We probably want to use different language than 'as a result' given that the hospital visit may or may not have been necessary. Still unsure if this material is due. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Still don't think it's WP:DUE but if it must be included we need to make it clear that Ngo claimed to have been hospitalized. I could walk into a hospital over a hang nail right now - but it doesn't mean I was "hospitalized" in the informal sense of the word. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we also don't know that it was antifa. O3000 (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


And that's the whole problem with this. Really, all we have is what Ngo has claimed to various media as the "source" for all this. There's no outside fact-checking on his claims that it was Antifa members who attacked him, or that he was hospitalized because of the attack. It all boils down to "Ngo said so." Which is where WP:DUE comes in: the facts around this assault are so ambiguous, I don't think it should be included here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
None of this establishes weight. In the U.S., there are tens of millions of Republicans and Democrats - as much as half the voting population - and we don't add to those articles every time one of them commits an assault. In order to establish weight, we need to show that reliable sources have established its significance to antifa in the U.S. TFD (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

These problems of taking Andy Ngo as a reliable source also occur at the article for Ngo. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So it appears I am (yet again) in the minority--this is why I caution that I am often wrong! But I'll try to briefly explain my position, which is, essentially, that for me, this story has reached a critical mass in the reliable sources. And in those sources, it is always linked to antifa, albeit usually in a murky, attenuated way. But many reliable sources see something here worth covering, even with serious caveats. But I also think we're doing readers of the encyclopedia a disservice. It is entirely plausible that people come here looking for info about this very story. I'm definitely not trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but if we say nothing, we're losing an opportunity to tell readers what the RSes actually contain (something like, "a guy got beat up, beyond that, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"). Because it was widely covered, because it will obviously be something people look for, and because so much fringe media is going well beyond the established facts, I think a sentence like the one above would be a meet addition to the article. That being said, I am often wrong, and too old to really care. Cheers all, and thanks for the thoughtful input on this article. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I've heard the, "being mute is a lost opportunity to shape the narrative" statement before, and while I'm somewhat sympathetic, the one weakness with it that I've always found is that it is kind of inherently at odds wit WP:NPOV. Wikipedia should be reporting things that are relevant to a topic, not inserting a particular POV. As we only have Ngo's (not particularly trustworthy) word that the people who beat him up were antifascists, it's hardly relevant to this article. We should instead allow the maw of history to swallow his claims. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the discussion here. We don't just have Andy Ngo's word. We have video. And we have independent coverage of the attack and the video in reliable sources:

I see people questioning the reliability of Ngo as a source. But he's not the one doing the reporting. The viewpoint of WP is that if a source is reliable, they can be trusted to do the vetting on stories for us. There are many more RSes reporting this incident as fact. I think there's enough to justify inclusion per WP:WEIGHT. —Tourchiest talkedits 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

We have video that an attack occurred. We have no corroboration that the attackers were affiliated with antifa groups, or that Ngo required hospitalization after the attack. For those, we only have Ngo's statements. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I've literally quoted articles saying that is exactly what happened. —Torchiest talkedits 20:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no deadline. Should evidence that antifa was behind the attack, and that it required hospitalization, we can add it here. Obviously the claims belong in the article on Ngo. O3000 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources on the topic. I understand that some editors may doubt Ngo's story on a personal level, but we have to go by what the reliable sources say. And there are a litany of sources that support inclusion. I can really see no reason why this shouldn't be included. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have only seen reliable sources stating that Ngo claimed this happened, not that it happened. O3000 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Really? The Buzzfeed News article I've linked to doesn't couch it in those terms, and I'm sure I can find more if you would like - although there are links already cited in this discussion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
A suggestion: If you refer to a huge number of cites, many of which don’t pass muster and many don’t actually support your exact wording, other editors will pick some, realize they don’t work, and won’t read the others. You cannot expect us all to investigate a very large number of cites after realizing many are not on point. If you have some cites that actually claim what you want added, post those and how they do such. We aren’t going to do your work for you. O3000 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
You consider four or five citations to be a "huge number of cites?" Oh, well. The point remains that I've directed you to a citation from a reliable source that claims it happened without couching in terms of "Ngo said it happened." If you feel the need to opine on this discussion without reading the citations, then there isn't much I can do about that. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Arrgh. I just looked at two cites you gave and they don't state what you want added. I say again, we won't do your work for you. If you have cites that are RS and claim what you want added, you must state them and exactly how they support your text. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If I have to make it explicit, then sure. I'll quote what I said earlier in the discussion and tack the URL onto the end of it if that satisfies you. "At a Portland protest, partially organized by local antifa, the journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by black-clad protesters and hospitalized as a result." The article goes into extreme detail about the events of the attack, as the author was there when it happened and watched the entire thing unfold. Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
What url? O3000 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a WaPo piece that says Ngo was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

AfDs of interest to the editors of this page[edit]

The editors on this page would probably be interested in these two AfDs: Willem van Spronsen 2019 Tacoma attack Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


Below is a list of RS that support inclusion of both the Portland riot and Tacoma incident. I did not verify the media's reference to (a) conservative groups as alt-right and/or white supremacists but such contentious labels must be verifiable and presented in this article per WP:LABEL, and (b) the fact that Antifa is sometimes referred to as left-wing rather than radical or extreme left. I'm not sure if we are now associating left wing as violent which, again, is a contentious label that requires in-text attribution per LABEL. I wanted to get local input regarding the following sources and incidents which, for some reason, have been omitted from this article.

  • NYTimes (08-17-17), headline: ‘Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right" - literally? The article refers to Antifa as a "controversial force on the left", "radical activists" who have "openly scuffled with white supremacists, right-wing extremists and, ordinary supporters of President Trump. 🚩 Quote Antifa member: “You need violence in order to protect nonviolence,” Ms. Nauert added. “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically.” Antifa demonstrators, admittedly and through their actions, are confronting more than just white supremacists/racists, they confront supporters of whatever political ideology they oppose. This is RS info that belongs in the article.
  • NBC (06-29-19) - antifa responsible for 8 people injured - 2 officers who were pepper sprayed, 1 punched in an arm, and 1 hit with a "projectile"; 3 civilians "assaulted with weapons," and 1 unaccounted for 8th injury. I have no objection to leaving out the debate about cement in the shakes.
  • Oregon Live (06-30-19) A Patriot Prayer group that was legally organized to march were confronted by antifa with violence. A counter-demonstration by masked local anti-fascist groups gathered nearby among a heavy police presence. Officers seized weapons such as utility knives, clubs and chemical sprays, detaining several protesters early on. When Patriot Prayer protesters began their permitted march, antifa "immediately began lobbing eggs, half-empty water bottles and firecrackers at the conservative marchers, prompting federal police to fire paintballs filled with pepper spray into the crowd."
  • NYTimes (07-01-19) - ...with a black-clad activist striking the conservative journalist Andy Ngo in the face while others slimed him with what protesters said were vegan coconut milkshakes. Also, a professor with Portland State University called for "impeaching the city’s Democratic mayor, Ted Wheeler."
  • Oregon Live (07-02-19) - Andy Ngo suffered a brain hemorrhage and a ripped earlobe. He is a gay journalist of color.
  • NYTimes (07-02-19) - clash between conservative marchers and black-clad antifa protesters in Portland, Ore. Refers to Ngo as a conservative journalist who was roughed up and bloodied. One sentence in the article begins with "conservative marchers" juxtaposed with "confronting white supremacists and right-wing extremists", sometimes with violence. What factual info verifies right-wing extremism? Without verifiability, it appears the NYTimes thinks conservative marchers are fascist, white supremacists and right-wing extremists. However, they describe antifa as follows: Its followers acknowledge that the movement is secretive, without official leaders and organized into autonomous local cells. It is also only one in a constellation of activist movements that have come together in the past few years to oppose the far right.
  • BuzzFeed (07-16-19) headline:The Man Killed In An Attack On An ICE Jail Said He Was Fighting "Against The Forces Of Evil" - according to Tacoma police, Willem Van Spronsen was "armed with a rifle", threw "incendiary devices" at vehicles, lit a car on fire, attempted to burn buildings and a propane tank. The 18 yo leader with the organized antifa group Seattle Antifascist Action told BuzzFeed that Van Spronsen was active in a number of far-left communities in Seattle, but "no one saw this coming from him" because he was "soft powered." He sent a letter to friends saying he was not affiliated with any organization, which tells us that he acted as a lone wolf, not unlike other lone wolf terrorist attacks where people commit suicide for a cause. In this case, the common denominator is antifa.
  • BBC Seven things you need to know about Antifa - they use more traditional forms of community organising like rallies and protest marches. The most extreme factions will carry weapons like pepper spray, knives, bricks and chains – and they don’t rule out violence.
  • BuzzFeed News (07-18-19) the article's summary paragraph reveals the author's left leaning position but at least he tried to present the article from a NPOV: When Andy Ngo was attacked, I sprinted toward him, unsure what I was going to do when I arrived. If I’m being honest, I wasn’t only thinking about his safety. I was afraid of being the reporter who did not prevent Andy Ngo from being beaten. I was also, if I’m being really honest, afraid of being the reporter who prevented Andy Ngo from being beaten. I realized very clearly that anyone documenting the scene at that moment had the power to put me in any public context they wished to, had the power to change my life. I was aware how that would be good content, and how that might feel like violence.

The lede and body of the WP article is disproportionate and biased in that it presents a more favorable, cherrypicked image of Antifa despite the violence associated with it; the latter of which they admit to without hesitation, and have proven true on multiple occasions. Atsme Talk 📧 22:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to be more specific about your concerns. As mentioned above (we just had a big discussion about this!), the lead does mention violence, and the sources you're presenting here (which, obviously, you did cherrypick yourself, so they're not a representitive sample themselves) still doesn't present violence as a core attribute. The only one that provides a broad overview (rather than one incident) says "The most extreme factions..." support violence, which if anything is more cautious than our article. Likewise, a lot of your interpretations (eg. especially your interpretation of the first quote you provided) are WP:SYNTHy; in context, that obviously falls under the article's current description of acting against against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. (You left out the part after the bit you quoted, which says Energized in part by Mr. Trump’s election, they have sparred with their conservative opponents at political rallies and college campus speaking engagements, arguing that one crucial way to combat the far right.) Your larger efforts to tied together a bunch of relatively brief mentions into a larger narrative also smacks of WP:SYNTH - again, we mention violence (as these sources do, with almost the exact same weight and tone they do), but what you're doing here is dumping them all in one place, clipped out of context, and asking that our coverage of it be dramatized and emphasized in a way that the individual sources you're presenting don't support. Regarding the Ngo thing, you're not presenting anything new, but I'll point out that virtually all your coverage is from immediately after the event - I'm not seeing anything WP:SUSTAINED - and much of it is just in passing or is worded in a way that clearly casts his description of events in doubt. Basically, I think we made the right call at the time - it was an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim on his part that, based on the tepid coverage and the way it rapidly died out, didn't pan out. Also, we already have another section open for him (and for pretty much all of this) so I'm not sure what your purpose is in opening another; all these sources have been discussed in the past or are being discussed now, your interpretation of them has repeatedly failed to gain consensus, and you know all this. Beyond a certain point it is necessary to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Your argument is unconvincing. Give others a chance to weigh-in. Atsme Talk 📧 03:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, I find the argument fairly convincing. Though if I were exalted ruler of Wikipedia, I would probably include the Andy Ngo sentence mentioned above. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Others will of course have a chance to weigh in, as they have the past... by my count, roughly ~14 times comparable requests have been posted here over the last few months? Including three still-open discussions directly above this one? Nothing you're presenting here or arguing is particularly new, you're still not making any specific suggestions beyond "we need to describe Antifa as more violent" and "we need to include absolutely everything that has failed to reach a consensus to conclude in the past", and the sources you're providing still don't support your (vaguely-defined) complaints that the current article is insufficient in that regard - it looks like you just strung together a bunch of random pull-quotes, none of which individually support the position you're arguing. If you can find a specific, workable suggestion that might reach a consensus (I would suggest going over the months worth of discussion on this topic we already have, much of which is still on this page, and seeing which proposals people liked), go ahead and open an WP:RFC for it. Otherwise, we're long past WP:DROPTHESTICK territory; opening a second near-identical section to the three (!) already above it, using most of the same sources and arguments, is not going to produce any sort of constructive consensus that the discussion above here didn't. You're the one, basically, who has to be doing the convincing here, since you're advancing an argument that has failed repeatedly in the past; refusing to engage my points by dismissing them as "unconvincing" and saying you'd rather talk to someone else isn't going to help with that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: Your attempt to point the painfully WP:TOOSOON article on the Tacoma police shooting of an elderly man to Antifa immediately followed by this is making it increasingly difficult to [WP:AGF]] here. Could you please consider taking Aquillion's advice and WP:DROPTHESTICK? Because frankly these repeated vague talk page requests are beginning to look like an attempt to push a POV that the people who believe in directly confronting fascists are a scary armed gang, and are reaching the WP:TEND point. Simonm223 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, I'm sure it's a nice essay but I'm well aware of our PAGs, and don't need essays for further elaboration. The material some editors have attempted to include in this article is important information for our readers, such as the incidents in Tacoma and Portland (Ngo). As for gaslighting me with DROPTHESTICK, I'm saying for the record that I've made a total of, maybe, 11 edits here since July 6th, the most recent being the above list of RS that supports the inclusion of material that keeps getting reverted by Dumuzid, who states in his edit summaries to discuss on the TP (see diffs below). Ironically my attempt to discuss on the TP was met with resistance from you & Aquillion telling me to DROPTHESTICK. What message does that send to other editors? I must say, it is pretty impressive team work, inadvertent or otherwise, but I've chosen to AGF; therefore, I believe it was coincidence and not deliberate.

  1. July 19, 2019 - (Undid revision 906938346 by Cosmic Sans (talk) please discuss on talk first)
  2. July 19, 2019 (Undid revision 906959248 by Wags bf21 (talk) let's talk these out first; there has been a lively discussion)
  3. July 20, 2019 - (Undid revision 907103660 by Qwirkle (talk) currently being discussed on talk; please get consensus there)

So, here we are discussing the following proposal which involves 3 new sections as follows:

  1. a new section titled something along the line of Antifa activism or Antifa incidents using a timeline of events that are verifiable and can be corroborated by multiple RS. The source I cited in my example - TDW - is arguably a RS, but a good one for this purpose despite it being a partisan one, because their timeline is cited to other RS such as CNN and WaPo which provides corroboration and balance in compliance with WP:PAGs.
  2. a new section titled Antifa funding (or the like) - follow the money to find evidence of the existing Antifa network - see Antifa International Defence Fund; Current fundrazr; it looks very much like centralized organization to me, or at the least, an organized defence.
  3. a new section titled Antifa's social media network - see Antifa International; Tumblr site; Twitter; - Torch (US) (endorses Antifa's Defence Fund); About Torch; UK;

Bottomline - there's quite a bit of information that needs to be added to this article, such as the article published in The Atlantic titled The Rise of the Violent Left. It appears their anonymity is waning because of the violence. Atsme Talk 📧 19:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope you’re not serious about using that DailyWire “timeline”. It includes a bunch of incidents with cited articles that don’t even mention Antifa. The article is clearly unacceptable. You also listed a bunch of primary sources suggesting they will lead us somewhere. We don’t do research. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The dates in TDW's timeline is all you need - there are plenty of other RS that will come up in a Google search. Atsme Talk 📧 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Well then, I suppose we need only take your word for this and a very poor source and spend our time trying to prove your point that Antifa is behind all these events. O3000 (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Saying that the most extreme members use violence is different from saying the movement is inherently violent. It is the fallacy of composition: "one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole." Extreme adherents of movements as diverse as Trumpism, pro-life, environmentalism, Islam and the American Revolution have attracted people who committed acts of violence. Of course some partisan sources, such as the The Daily Wire, use this logical fallacy for whatever reason. But Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent mainstream perspectives and certainly not use faulty logic to make claims, which violates synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
But Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent mainstream perspectives and certainly not use faulty logic to make claims, which violates synthesis. TDF, there's no SYNTH involved. This is going nowhere fast, so I'm calling an RfC. Atsme Talk 📧 02:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You are the one asking that we apply SYNTH instead of using RS, as you have done in the past. You provide cites that don't say what you want added and primary sources from which you want us to create original research. O3000 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC).
Move along, O3000 and stop the aspersions and gaslighting. You know better. Atsme Talk 📧 04:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Describing your position as advocating original research is a neutral commentary on your proposed additions and not an aspersion on you personally. As many people have told you, the sources simply do not support the tone or additions that you're trying to add to the article; combining a bunch of separate quotes to try and make your argument, when none of them individually say what you want, is WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break[edit]

@Atsme: it looks very much like centralized organization to me, or at the least, an organized defence. I'd suggest that you avoid original research and present content to be added supported by independent reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, MarioGom, we are allowed to use self-published sources for information about themselves, and that is not OR. One such source is "The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund" which recently published their 2018-2019 Annual Report" wherein it states We donated over $22,000USD to 61 anti-fascists. For the fourth year in a row, the amount of monetary support we provided anti-fascists globally has increased. There are RS reporting on the various factions as evidenced in The Nation and several others. CNN published quite a bit in their article "Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement" and it supports what I've said about their use of social media: With no central leader, Antifa adherents have found each other in local communities. They communicate and recruit largely through social media. Their protests are organized via Facebook. They are clearly a network comprising chapters nationwide, all of which utilize a centralize funding source. CNN's reported that the "Portland sect gets the most attention when violence explodes at its rallies." The following statement supports that position: "You have to put your body in the way," the group's leader said, "and you have to make it speak in the language that they understand. And sometimes that is violence." Atsme Talk 📧 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Of course they network and of course there are international coordination initiatives. This is no news to antifa, whether in the US or not. Now, that does not imply a centralized organization, so that would be your own interpretation or synthesis. The existence of international initiatives for fundraising does not imply that funding is centralized either, that would be your own interpretation too. Unless there are reliable sources that sustain it, of course. The self-published source you are citing does not say that the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund centralizes antifa funding internationally, it says it donated $22,000USD to 61 anti-fascists. That does not imply funding centralization, as different groups may use other sources of funding. --MarioGom (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No problem, MG, I understand. The RS are out there (most of which have not been written yet ^_^), but for now the following issues are what I believe to be important for inclusion without creating a false equivalency. The article has good content but it needs better flow, clarity, and balance. The ADL article "Who are the Antifa" brings to light some rather troubling aspects of antifa as follows:
  1. "Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump."
  2. "...misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries."
  3. "...antifa, who have many anti-police anarchists in their ranks, can also target law enforcement with both verbal and physical assaults because they believe the police are providing cover for white supremacists. They will sometimes chant against fascism and against law enforcement in the same breath."
Another important fact about antifa was stated in an interview with Mark Bray: They [sic] other key point, which probably isn’t made enough, is that these are revolutionary leftists. They’re not concerned about the fact that fascism targets liberalism. These are self-described revolutionaries. They have no allegiance to liberal democracy, which they believe has failed the marginalized communities they’re defending. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding regarding the Constitutional Republic that governs the US, the preservation of individualism vs the collective, the Bill of Rights, and the electoral college rather than the "popular vote" we see in European democracies. Facism itself - American right-wing vs European right-wing - is different in the US than in Europe. Compare the definition of fascism in the Oxford Dictionary vs Merriam-Webster's. The NYTimes quoted Katherine Martin, head of US dictionaries at Oxford University Press: “What we found especially interesting is that it encapsulated a trans-Atlantic phenomenon,” she said. “Often, when looking at words, you’ll find one that’s a really big deal in the U.K. but not in the U.S.” She is referring to “post-truth” vs politically charged words like “alt-right”, “Brexiteer” and “woke”. Hmmm. It all boils down to semantics based on one's perception. Atsme Talk 📧 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, I think you missed an important point from the ADL article you cited: it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose Vexations (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I'm well aware of all the important points ADL made, and equally aware of WP:FALSEBALANCE. In fact, the latter has been used in discussions to censor material, and we don't want that, either. I deal only in the facts, not viewpoints or extraordinary claims. The world is round. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 23:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC to add a new section[edit]

The purpose of this RfC is to gain consensus for adding a new section titled Antifa activism for the purpose of creating and maintaining a timeline of notable antifa events, demonstrations, riots and various other forms of anti-fascist activities. Antifa supporters are recognizable by their black bloc attire, the targets they choose and/or their ideological behavior which does not rule out violence. They are also referred to as anti-fascists, or they could be individuals who act out and identify as antifascist but are not connected to a specific antifa group. Following is an example of a timeline with notable dates of past events involving antifa. Each date will include a description of the event per cited RS, and will closely adhere to WP:PAG. Atsme Talk 📧 04:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anarchism#RfC, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Socialism#RfC - Atsme Talk 📧 04:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Antifa activism
  • Jan 20, 2017 - DC - Trump inauguration
  • Feb 01, 2017 - UC Berkeley - Milo Yiannopoulos
  • Jun 29, 2019 - Portland, WA Ngo
  • Jul 19, 2019 - Tacoma, WA - Willem Van Spronsen

Support adding new section[edit]

  • Support - antifa events have historic significance and lasting encyclopedic value. Atsme Talk 📧 04:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support WP:POLITICS member. I agree this should get its own level 2 section. –MJLTalk 05:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose adding new section[edit]

  • Oppose. Just no. Hope everyone is having a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per below for clarity due to the existing section that covers everything WP:DUE and reliably-sourced proposed here, but noting that this is an invalid RFC because most of what it suggests is already in the article, which it doesn't acknowledge. Note that I would not oppose bumping the existing section up to level 2 as a compromise, of course, provided the overall structure remains the same and the Ngo and Tacoma incidents are not added. --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose First. two of the four items have not been shown to be antifa and shouldn't be in the article at all. Those discussions are elsewhere and should have been allowed to conclude before an RfC of this nature was created. The RfC should be closed. Secondly, a timeline is usually used to indicate some sort of progression, like a Gantt chart. It suggests organization and planning that simply hasn’t been shown to exist here. Thirdly, the existence of a timeline makes it all too easy to include items that don’t belong, as occurred in the DailyWire article and has already occurred here. Fourth, a timeline suggests some sort of equality of weight in items. Fifth, this would generate unending discussions on what to include as time goes by. Also, the text at the top of this RfC indicates a POV, which is improper in an RfC. O3000 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposal involves duplicating existing content pointlessly and then adding additional content, some of which may not even be on topic for this article, with the scope for people to add even more later. It may not be intended as such, but it would become a coatrack for regular spurious additions. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above – the section already exists and the RfC is an exercise in wilful ignorance – but also because converting prose to a "timeline" (however fuzzily defined) is bad writing and contravenes the manual of style (see MOS:PROSE and WP:PROSELINE). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its current form, per the above and discussion below. --MarioGom (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lots of reasons, but O3000's points seem worth reemphasizing. Presenting this as a timeline is implying to readers that these events are similar to each other in ways which aren't supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose + malformed RfC - per O3000, Arms & Hearts above and Aquillion below. The first two incidents are already featured and the last two are rejected by the current consensus as undue. This is just an attempt to re-assemble a single unreliable and skewed source's conclusion using other reliable sources - which is textbook WP:SYNTH and absolutely unacceptable. No reason to cherrypick certain "violent incidents" to justfy an editors's idiosyncrasies and feature them far more prominently than what is already neutrally written. Tsu*miki* 🌉 09:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - However, the article could be expanded a bit. See for example. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Section already exists / Invalid RFC[edit]

  • Strong oppose and invalid RFC. First, half of what it suggests is already in the article, under an existing section on "notable activism" that already covers the well-sourced Milo and Trump protests at length (which makes it non-neutral by burying the actual controversial additions under uncontroversial ones we already cover with an implication that the inclusion of those two is somehow at issue or under debate; someone who didn't read the detailed discussions above or didn't read the article could be mislead into believing that the first two are absent or that we lack a section on antifa activism, which is false.) For the other two, the Portland and Tacoma incidents, which are the actual ones at issue, no sources have been provided describing them as "antifa activism", and a simple look at the list shows that the focus requested for them is WP:UNDUE compared to the Trump inauguration and UC Berkley, which received extensive coverage as Antifa protests rather than the brief scattered mentions of Ngo or the pure, groundless WP:SYNTH being applied to Tacoma. Describing every event in which we have a source saying that the people involved supported antifa (or looked like antifa supporters, as the more cautious sources about Ngo put it) as "notable antifa activism" is comparable to describing every event involving a Republican as "notable Republican activism" and amounts to original research; furthermore, the way this RFC and, I presume, the implicit rewrite to the existing section it is asking for is structured (especially in light of discussions above) seems clearly intended to form an overall narrative that is not present in any of the sources and therefore can only be WP:SYNTH. The attempt to describe Tacoma in particular as "antifa activism" based on such sparse and far more cautiously-worded sourcing is frankly a bit startling, especially given that numerous people pointed this problem out above - a handful of sources mentioning in passing that Van Spronsen may have had sympathy for antifa does not make the incident "notable antifa activism". In any case, given the problem I outlined above with this RFC, I strongly advise closing it and opening another one focusing more specifically on the actual changes you're requesting. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and invalid RFC Per WP:TEND and WP:DEADHORSE - the proposing editor should review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and please cease with this protracted attempt at WP:CIVILPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


  • The section suggested already exists, which makes the format of this RFC ("add new section" vs. "oppose adding new section") invalid. Additionally, two of the events it suggests "adding" are already covered, which makes its wording misleading; any casual visitor who skimmed this RFC would think that they were weighing in on a dispute of whether to include / exclude the Trump protests or the UC Berkeley incident, which is plainly absurd. No useful consensus can come out of an RFC whose initial wording is so severely flawed; I suggest deleting this and starting over, ideally with separate RFCs for each of the two things you're actually proposing adding. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
What did you do? You changed the format of this RfC. You need to fix what you screwed up. Move your iVote into the Oppose section, the way I had this thing set up. Atsme Talk 📧 05:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: I restored the original sections as you had it, but I don't feel comfortable moving Aquillion's comment at this time. Sorry. –MJLTalk 05:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MJL - I have asked Awilley to take a look at what Aquillion did because it was disruptive. You just don't change an RfC from the way another editor had it formatted. Atsme Talk 📧 05:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
First, I disagree; it is WP:BOLD, but refactoring RFCs that were malformed or misleading immediately after they're posted isn't unusual (in part because such fixes have to be made quickly to keep the RFC's outcome usable); your RFC is clearly malformed or misleading, and reacting like that rather than accepting a more agreeable format as a compromise obviously makes it even harder to accept any useful outcome from it as structured (since you now know one of the people you're in a dispute with has expressed serious issues with the structure of the RFC and have chosen to push forwards with it in a contested structure regardless.) To reiterate - since the section on notable Antifa activity you're requesting and the bulk of the material you're proposing be present in it is already plainly in the article, this RFC's structure, at a glance, requires that anyone who !votes oppose express disagreement with having the currently-existing, entirely-uncontroversial section on "notable Antifa activity" covering the Trump inauguration and UC Berkeley incidents - and anyone who wasn't heavily familiar with the article's existing content is obviously going to find having nothing about antifa activity or excluding the Trump and UC Berkeley incidents absurd (as they should.) This makes any outcome from this RFC unworkable because you've constructed it in a non-neutral manner that inaccurately represents the dispute at hand; based on discussion above, you would, I presume, want to use the outcome of the RFC, if it goes for support, as justification to include Ngo and Tacoma, but you've structured the RFC in a way that makes it unclear that they're what's really being discussed or that those are actually the locus of dispute. Again, if you want to resolve that dispute, you need to close it and open a more narrowly-formulated RFC specifying the things you actually want to change about the article, rather than suggesting that we "add" a section that is already there, with material that is largely already there, with your changes tacked onto the end with no comment regarding their focus as the center of the dispute. If you don't emphasize the actual dispute and what you actually want to change, the RFC cannot produce a useful outcome either way. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion, quite frankly, I couldn't care less about your opinions or fallacious accusations. You just don't reformat another editor's RfC based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. There was a reason I formatted it the way I did, starting with (a) it keeps the discussion separate from the iVotes, (b) makes things easier to manage for the admins who are watching over this hodge-podge TP, and (c) makes reviewing the RfC a lot easier for the closer. We'd all be a lot happier if you'd stop the WP:OWN behavior and WP:POVPUSHING. Atsme Talk 📧 06:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You haven't answered the key point of my objection, which is why you requested a section that is already in the article, and coverage for two things we already cover. I'm aware you disagree with me, but if you want to resolve the dispute, you'll at least need an RFC that actually focuses on it in a clear and neutral manner. This one does not - do you deny that there's already a section on antifa activities in the article, which already covers the Trump and UC Berkeley events? Do you feel that there is an actual dispute over whether to include those things? If so, why is the bulk of your RFC requesting uncontroversial things as though they're in dispute? Per WP:RFC, resolving disputes like this requires finding a reasonable, neutral description of the disagreement, which you've failed to do here. If you want to (as I assume) add the Ngo and Tacoma material to the article, you will need another RFC focusing on them specifically. Finally, remember to assume good faith; obviously part of this dispute is that everyone involved thinks it's extremely obvious that certain things should / shouldn't be in the article, to the point where the other side looks like WP:POVPUSHING to them. But it's possible to reach that point simply by having different views of the sources, the exceptionality of the claims involved, and the extent to which relying on the collective things they say is WP:SYNTH or not. The way to resolve that dispute is to lay it out plainly (include / exclude disputed material), not this sort of confusing RFC that asks us to add an already-existing section with your preferred changes tacked on at the end. I don't doubt that you feel that this RFC expresses the dispute from your perspective, but you should listen to what the people you're in dispute with say at least a little bit in order to get an RFC that accurately offers a choice between the two options we're in disagreement over, and should consider an RFC about the inclusion / exclusion of the disputed material in particular (certainly, if I feel this RFC's outcomes are at all unclear on that point, I'll open such a specific RFC myself, though I'll wait for this one to end to avoid having two at once on similar subjects.) Either way, accusing me of WP:POVPUSHING just because I don't see things your way and don't even agree with your description of the dispute isn't a useful way to move forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The article is a mess. My proposal is for a clean cut, orderly timeline. I've grown weary of your BATTLEGROUND and will not take your bait. You've been non-stop with the gaslighting and I do not appreciate it. It's late, and I need to get some sleep. Atsme Talk 📧 07:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If all you want is an orderly timeline, would you agree to spin off the question of whether to include Ngo and Tacoma into a separate RFC? Combining every aspect of disagreement into one big "fix the entire article" RFC isn't helpful and makes disputes intractable. I wouldn't necessarily oppose some restructuring, but that's unrelated to the dispute over what incidents to include in that timeline (by default, I would assume that, as a restructuring, it would include what's already in the "notable activities" section - mixing several unrelated changes together obviously makes it harder to resolve anything or to reach a consensus. (And, obviously, accusing people of gaslighting and WP:BATTLEGROUND is also against WP:AGF. I do want to improve the article; but we clearly have different views of what's worth including based on the sources, and it's important to separate out structural improvements from disputes over what we include or exclude. These aren't accusations, as you described them; they're issues I have with some of your proposed changes and with the structure of the RFC you intend to resolve the dispute over them.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It's 2:30am and I can't think anymore - shutting down computer - tomorrow is another day, but yes, I probably would consider but need to sleep on it. 🛌💤😴 Atsme Talk 📧 07:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I apologize for being a bit WP:BOLD with my change before and a bit in-your-face with some of my objections above; I know how, on a heated topic like this, forceful disagreement can come across as more hostile than intended. And yes, sleep is important. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Aquillion. Your apology is very welcome and gladly accepted. Now that we've turned a new page, I look forward to productive collaboration. Regardless of whether my proposal passes or fails, the article needs structure and clarity. I had to conduct most of my research off-WP to learn about this network (it is not a "movement" which is a term that applies to their cause or campaign, not their structure). The lede is confusing, the History applies more to European history, not that of the US. There is a huge difference, and that needs to be noted. The sections need better structure as it relates to WP:MOS, organization and clarity which is important as it makes the article easier to read. There also appears to be a misunderstanding or perhaps a lack of knowledge about how the antifa network operates, its reach and how it is funded. There is also little mention, if any, about the repurcussions/criticisms/concerns regarding the violence, and that information belongs in the article with clarity in a well-structured presentation of facts cited to RS. My intention is not to be overly critical of our good editors who have worked hard to provide information to expand the article; rather, my intention is aligned with the various projects on which I serve, including copy editing, WP:LIT, as a reviewer of GA/FA/NPP/AfC and so on. My purpose here is to help make it a good article despite the controversies surrounding the network. It's still our job to not only make it encyclopedic, but one that will be stable and can more easily withstand the test of time. Atsme Talk 📧 16:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the position presented by Aquillion. There is already a Notable activism section. A new section indiscriminately listing antifa protests might be an exercise of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that is not due here. Also if we adopt criteria like Antifa supporters are recognizable by their black bloc attire, the targets they choose and/or their ideological behavior which does not rule out violence. This is very broad and might include protests generally not recognized as antifa. Further discussion about the article status seems out of scope for this RfC. --MarioGom (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: In my opinion, a good source for determining what events to include would be Google Trends. Look at the date of the events and see how high they score on the graph and if it's similar to or higher than already included events, it would be worth including that event. Google Trends link. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Terrorist96: Google Trends just measures user search terms. Any speculation of an antifa connection by high audience TV show or website could produce a spike of the search term, regardless of the reliability of the source or credibility of the report. If we adopted Google Trends to assess notability of an event in connection to antifa, we would be at risk of acting as a speculation and hoax amplifier. --MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That being said, Google Trends might be a useful exploratory tool. It can help you find potentially important dates to later use on reliable sources search. But the notability and facts would need to come from reliable sources, not Google Trend itself. --MarioGom (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Terminology section[edit]

The terminology section seems to imply 1) that current use necessarily came from German and 2) English usage started (prominently) in 2017. Both are surprising claims, as I have heard and used the term antifa for years in multiple languages. See here some samples (original research ahead, but I think it's due for the purpose of the discussion):

  • Used in English, see examples in 2013.[1]
  • See Antifa: Chasseurs de skins film (French) in 2008.[2]
  • The Russian movement also referred to as antifa in English.[3]
  • The Coordinadora Antifascista de Madrid (Spanish) using the domain since 7 October 2010.[4]

I think we're confusing origins and usage of the term with recent massive adoption by US media due to notable events in the last couple of years. Let's see what the cited sources say about this:

  • adopted from German usage
    • Today’s antifa (an abbreviation of “anti-fascist action”) sees itself as the ideological descendant of activists like these. Anti-fascist brawlers — many of them communists, socialists or anarchists — began organizing in the 1920s and ’30s to oppose the rising dictatorships in Italy, Germany and Spain through demonstrations and street fights. The groups re-emerged in Europe in the ’70s and ’80s to combat white supremacists and skinheads, and the idea migrated to America, where groups were originally known as “Anti-Racist Action.” The source talks about ideological lineage, not the specific term origin, adoption or usage.[5]
    • The origins of the word “antifa” — shorthand for decentralized, militant street activism associated with its own aesthetic and subculture — might be murky to most readers. Even in Germany, few know much about the popular forms of antifascist resistance that coined the term. The article continues talking about historical origins, but not about term usage.[6]
    • Antifa is a word that originated in the time before World War II, but has enjoyed a surge in usage today. Vague claim on a self-published source.[7]
  • Only came into prominence as an umbrella term in English in 2017
    • Includes a few examples from 2017, but does not strongly support the above statement.[8]
    • Short for ‘anti-fascist’ the word Antifa has had an unusual rise to prominence in the course of 2017 Note the difference between unusual rise to prominence in the course of 2017 and Only came into prominence as an umbrella term in English in 2017.[9]

I think the section should be reworded for more accuracy and with better sources or otherwise removed. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Anonymous. "Rules of engagement - Antifa".
  2. ^ "Antifa: Chasseurs de skins". IMDb.
  3. ^ "Antifa Takes On Nationalists In Russian Youth's Civil War". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 20 November 2009.
  4. ^ Cannot be linked directly, see .es whois.
  5. ^ Sales, Ben (August 16, 2017). "What you need to know about antifa, the group that fought white supremacists in Charlottesville". Jewish Telegraph Agency. Retrieved August 25, 2017.
  6. ^ Balhorn, Loren. "The Lost History of Antifa". Jacobin. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  7. ^ "Antifa – Grammarist". Archived from the original on |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help). Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  8. ^ "Words We're Watching: 'Antifa'". Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  9. ^ "Antifa: a word on the rise | OxfordWords blog". OxfordWords blog. 2017-12-15. Archived from the original on |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help). Retrieved 2018-11-13.
I agree that the sources currently cited for the claim about German origin are insufficient. There are other, better sources available, though. The best sources for etymologies are often dictionaries: in this case we have Merriam-Webster (in a definition and an article preceding the definition), the OED (in a blog post, but still a good RS) and Collins, all of which identify it as a loanword from German. We could probably cite all of these in place of the existing sources for that claim. Two of these are already cited in relation to the separate claim about the term's unprecedented prominence in 2017. As regards that point, I think we could temper the point somewhat to more closely reflect what the sources say (we could even directly quote Merriam-Webster), but the point should probably stay in some form. Bear in mind (forgive me for stating the obvious) that this article is about antifa in the United States, so evidence that the name was used elsewhere prior (i.e. the sources linked above, about the UK, France, Russia and Spain respectively) isn't really relevant. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Arms & Hearts: Fair enough. However, note that sources about usage in other countries are relevant in this case, because the cited text reads as in English not in the United States. --MarioGom (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome, MarioGom - I agree with your presentation above, and look forward to collaborating with you on this article. Before I read your comments in this discussion, I had responded to a different discussion here, but it appears there may be parallels. Are we close to being on the same page? Atsme Talk 📧 16:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I hate to get all academic here (it's a pejorative term among some sections of the population these days), but JSTOR's earliest hit is in an article from 1946, published in The World Today: "Between April and July, 1945 the most widely-observed political phenomenon was the appearance of local anti-Fascist committees, usually named "Antifa" for short. Some had existed in embryonic form since the beginning of the year, when growing confusion had weakened Gestapo control. Communists played an important part in their formation, not as a result of any national or international direction, but because any survivors of underground Communist cells knew the technique of the clandestine meeting and the passing of notes". Interesting to see the note about why "communists" are in there, and let's raise a glass to "any survivors of underground Communist cells", who had by then been battling Nazis for at least a dozen years.[1] Another early hit is in August of the same year, which explains that especially "Antifa" organizations (which consisted "particularly", so not exclusively, of Communists and Socialists) were banned in the US Occupied Zones, more strictly and longer than the other zones--interesting.[2] I have not looked at sources later than 1980, cause I have other things to do, but the six or seven English-language articles I looked at from 1946 to 1980 all use the term "Antifa" to refer to German anti-fascist groups (and in one case to a Soviet "education" program) without any hint that it is an esoteric term. So, from these sources it is clear that "only came into prominence as an umbrella term in English in 2017" is just not true; it already was an umbrella term for a variety of groups and individuals who were frequently leftist but united only by their goal and perhaps practicalities. I urge editors to consult academic sources more than they do. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies. I will just remove the whole section: the German origins are already discussed in the history section, and the prominence is just not supported by sources and clearly not correct. The fact 2017 was a notable year for the subject is already discussed elsewhere in the article too. --MarioGom (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
MarioGom, I don't want to tell you what to do. I'm reading all these articles now about the formation of political parties and indeed politics in post-war Europe; it's fascinating stuff. I was not aware that there were parties that thought the US occupying forces were in fact too lenient toward "lefties"; most of the comments that I've read so far steer the other way and point out the active suppression of all-too left parties in that era. But that's a side note for this discussion, of course--the most recent article I just read was from the early 1990s (and one of them was a really interesting piece by Habermas about German unification), and in almost all of them "Antifa" points back, to WW2, which makes sense since, well, until the 1990s there really wasn't much in the way of fascism or neo-Nazism to deal with, at least not in an organized sense of groups with large appeal, groups expressing things tolerated, enable, or amplified by democratically elected representatives. In other words, I think it's entirely possible that some of the sources you discussed or mentioned above present some of the facts, but I wish that such outlets published more substantial stuff than "ANTIFA: HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW", as if everything can be handled in a Dummies Guide to.. or a short "life hack". Maybe I should just write that substantial thing, with the help of my 250 or so JSTOR hits, get it published, and then you can stick it in the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, working on getting a cite to your own work even before you've started on it. That's why I became a member of antiacad[10]. O3000 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ G. K. Y. (1946). "Germany in Defeat". The World Today. 2 (2): 66–78.
  2. ^ Neumann, Robert G. (1946). "The New Political Parties of Germany". The American Political Science Review. 40 (4): 749–59.


The lead should not be filled with rambling descriptions of the group's ideology--we should be striving for concision here per MOS:LEAD. Also, "comprised of" is grammatically incorrect. See WP:COMPRISEDOF. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to fix that after I posted it but was too tired and in bed already. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No opinion on compromised of vs composed of, but the rest of your changes are a bit more controversial - specifically seeking to include unsourced 'accusations' against anti-fascist protesters. I think you should workshop that more before putting that in the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
As you can see above, we had a full on discussion merely over the word "conglomeration" and achieved consensus before we implemented the change. Please don't rewrite the entire lede and expect no one to revert and ask you to discuss and gain consensus first, that is "stupid, counterproductive, and harms the consensus building process". QuestFour (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@QuestFour: I have yet to hear what your actual objections are; if you could articulate them, that might give us a good starting point for the discussion. What you're doing seems to me like WP:STONEWALLING. And @PeterTheFourth:, that the group's members have been accused of employing violence (have, in fact, employed violence) is noted in a multitude of reliable sources. Here's one from the NYT. That the current lead glosses over these details in favor of an elongated description of it's supposed ideology is both an NPOV violation and dilutes what should be a short summary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's look at one example: the lead says the group engages in "direct action," apparently as a euphemism for the physical confrontations/attacks we've seen reported, and links to a BBC article. However, that phrase isn't used in the source whatsoever. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: Direct action is not a euphemism for violence. We have an article on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not asking whether or not "direct action" is a legitimate standalone topic. I'll ask again: How was that term deemed an appropriate descriptor? I don't see a source making that assertion, at least not the one cited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
We used direct action as a summary for the various diverse tactics employed by antifa activists in a rather painfully agreed consensus some months ago. It's supported by RSes in the article body per MOS:LEDE. Considering how some editors who have previously come to article talk want to POV push the idea that antifa activists are an organized gang of violent vigilantes, the use of the phrase "direct action" was, at the time, a very real attempt at a compromise that supported WP:NPOV. But if you believe you can construct a more neutral lede please feel free to run a draft by us here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that is an inapt cite. This CNN piece would work if we decide to keep that terminology. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The CNN source does not use that terminology either - "direct action" appears to be a summary wholly contrived by a Wikipedia editor without any proper sourcing. This appears to be pretty blatant WP:OR and possibly WP:SYNTH, and a so-called "consensus" does not allow a violation of established policy. Second, "run a draft by you?" I don't see many "POV pushers" asserting that "antifa activists are an organized gang," though I see that the majority of reliable sources covered incidents of violence by the group, and that a small group of editors in this discussion appears to be exhibiting some WP:OWN-like behavior. The current lead is out of compliance with NPOV and reads like a PR piece for the organization, and this problem extends into much of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, so all I suggested was that if you didn't like the compromise decision from several months prior you could propose a draft of a new para. I know it's easier to just do a drive-by tagging but it's hardly productive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
To quote from the CNN piece I linked above, "But Crow said the philosophy of Antifa is based on the idea of direct action." I can see reasons to disfavor that in the lead, but this does not count as use of the terminology? Dumuzid (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that either of these sources say that "direct action" is the group's "principal feature." And even so, the majority of coverage on Antifa in the USA is about violence that's been attributed to its members. Why is this being downplayed in the lead and throughout the article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it's not being downplayed and there is a good faith disagreement between editors with different perspectives? In my experience, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Any perspective based on the sources would have to account for the violence the group is responsible for -- if an editor's own personal perspective is what prevails, we have a problem (it's called POV-pushing) and that's what I'm reading in this article. Also problematic are the edit-warring, efforts to stifle ANY changes, and auto-removal cleanup tags. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so you are right and other views are invalid. That's good to know; it simplifies things greatly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, because you and others on this thread have proven so open-minded and amenable to change? Please. Why don't you try addressing the substance of my comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No thank you. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you might find discussion easier if you stop using words/phrases like stonewalling, blatant WP:OR, so-called "consensus", a small group of editors in this discussion appears to be exhibiting some WP:OWN-like behavior, editor's own personal perspective, POV-pushing, efforts to stifle ANY changes, Right, because you and others on this thread have proven so open-minded and amenable to change? Striking out at other editors in nearly every edit rarely leads to consensus and you are likely to be ignored. O3000 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and O3000: I'm unmoved by your prediction that I'll be "ignored." My comments are on the article and editors' behavior that I believe is damaging the article and tilting away from neutrality. @QuestFour:'s insistence on automatically reverting any changes and removing cleanup tags without discussion exemplify that problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Simonm223: You've accused me of "drive-by tagging" and not participating on the talk page. First of all, I'm tagging you here, on the talk page, where I've raised my concerns. Second, in case this wasn't clear the first time, you should not be removing cleanup tags without consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You refusing to discuss drafts and then unilaterally inserting your preferred version of the lede in mainspace isn't precisely seeking consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The issue here is that you're repeatedly removing cleanup tags, for which proposing text is not a requirement. I've raised my concerns about neutrality here. The lead should not editorialize by describing "direct action" as a "principal feature" and calling property damage and violence a "varied protest tactic." The NYT explicitly stated that the group encourages violence, also mentioned in the body. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of tags is to bring in editors to discuss something that isn't being discussed, normally on quiet articles. This article has 276 page watchers. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: Several other editors disagree with your changes, going against WP:CON and insisting on reinserting your preferred version will only get you blocked. QuestFour (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@QuestFour: You are misrepresenting consensus—and edit-warring minor and in some cases necessary changes. There has been little to no discussion on my specific edits, which I have explained here repeatedly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────I agree with Wikieditor19920 that the article violates NPOV and should have the disputed neutrality tag. The lead in particular is saying things that go beyond sources. "Principal feature" is not in the cited sources as far as I can tell. Online conflicts are not mentioned in the body of the article. "Rather than through electoral means" seems to go beyond anything in any source or in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)