Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Domestic terrorism

I don't know if we can do anything about this without sources mentioning Antifa, but the fact is that the FBI has about 1000 cases of domestic terrorism on its books, and these seem to be mainly white supremacists/nationalists athough there are no figures.[1][2][3] And of course there's still no confirmation about the Politico report. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually I've been searching for reliable sources repeating the Politico claims. Where are they? Fox News, Newsweek, National Review, Breitbart, all repeating Politico. But none of the big hitters outside of Fox. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well there are multiple sources analyzing and supporting Politico's claim the government classifies them as such. Other groups that have the same classification have no bearing on the weight of this one. So I see no issue with weight here, I say leave it be. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Pack, it is amply covered so weight is not an issue Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The report includes:

• "FBI, Homeland Security warn of more 'antifa' attacks - POLITICO [www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 link] Sep 1, 2017 - Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists "domestic terrorists."

These appear to be internal documents not confirmed by the authorities. Per WP:WEIGHT, the inclusion of this claim would be undue, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Leaked documents are used by the press all the time, are you saying reports on such ought not be mentioned in Wikipedia? That's a non-starter, official recognition of leaked documents by the relevant authorities is not in any policy I have read. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller - As the FBI's listing in the past has been very political, given the mood of the administration in power, that label should be taken with a big pinch of salt. If I recall correctly that during the Iraqi War, the Bush Admin. had listed the 'Raging Grannies' and several other anti-war groups in a similar manner while removing white supremacists from lists. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. was on the list for his opposition to the Vietnam War, for some historical background. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a note on the administration in charge at the time of the classification, it was in April of 2016. During the Obama administration, not one known to be terribly hard on left wing groups. PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I would question how left sympathetic the Obama Admin. was, as it's record showed it to be conservative as Democratic past administrations; just look at their record on deportations of undocumented person for one example that they were more conservative than even the Bush Admin. before them. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we used leaked documents, but these aren't leaked documents in the normal sense. You can normally expect to be able to read leaked documents. These can't be confirmed or analysed. @PackMecEng:, which reliable sources analyse and support, as opposed to simply repeat, these claims? And how did they manage to analyse them or support them? I don't put much weight on the suggestion that the FBI and and Homeland were less hard on left wing groups than previous administrations, but that isn't relevant as there's no way we can use that. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I forgot. I'm not saying that I don't believe that these interviews and documents are reported faithfully, just that the evidence and the coverage is slim. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

We are not the judge of what to believe. I have yet to see a RS report on Politicos story saying it was untrue. In the end, it is widely covered and supported by multiple RS. I guess what I am asking then is since we agree its okay to report on what RS say about leaked/confidential documents as a secondary source and we have several other RS reporting on it as tertiary sources what is the issue here? PackMecEng (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I was talking about my own views, not what I think the article should say. But I did ask you for the sources that analyse and support the Politico statement rather than just repeat it, and you haven't answered. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then please try and stay on topic here. Fox expands on Politocos article and comments on it. So does the Independent and Washington Times. All also offer no disagreement or refutation of the Politico article. So again I ask, what is the issue reporting what several RS are saying? PackMecEng (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am staying on topic. But I'm also being careful not to be misunderstood, as I know that my views might be misrepresented offwiki. You probably don't have that problem. But your links aren't that persuasive. Fox does indeed amplify the case. But the UK Independent (which I note was fairly recently called an unreliable sources at WP:RSN by a number of editors) doesn't, and just repeats the Politico claims and treats them as fact. The Washington Times is borderline RS at best, and the opinion piece you link to is by Alfred S. Regnery from a 3 generation right-wing family.[4] He also states the claims as fact, adding some nonsense that "they want to change the world into a workers’ paradise". If this is the best you can do it's not very good. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay so at this point we have 3 sources (including the Politico article) that you also consider RS on the matter. We can dump the Washington Times article. Also on the Independent, certain parts of their online has become clickbaity but this article does not appear to be that. So seeing no policy based issues with keeping long standing reliably sourced information in the article we are good. PackMecEng (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to say, the Independent, Fox and WT do not "expand on" the Politico article in the sense of contributing any information or analysis. The Indy, as Doug says, repeats the Politic article almost verbatim. WT is an opinion piece. The only thing Fox adds, which may be useful, is at the end where it says the DHS declined to comment, and quotes a statement that neither confirms nor denies the Politico piece. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Add'l sources

The sources offered above are not convincing. For example, Wash Times’ article is an opinion piece by Alfred S. Regnery, who is not a journalist. Regnery is currently Chairman of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, a lobby group, and Chairman of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a group that self-identifies as “promoting conservative thought on college campuses”. He’s RS for his own opinions, but his opinion is most likely undue for this article. Given the weak sourcing, the inclusion of Politico’s reporting is undue, in my opinion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I must disagree. We can drop Washington Post Times and still have 3 RS cited for a single fairly none controversial long standing sentence seems due. PackMecEng (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's Washington Times, not Post -- different publications. The other sources are not much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, typo. Politico, Fox, and the Independent are absolutely fine RS. So I am not sure what you mean there? PackMecEng (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Amusing, opinion pieces are fine on one article for contentious statements of fact, here opinion pieces are undue and not useful 😂 The sources are fine, and everything is attributed. We have RS reporting on this, and all the sources are RS per our policies. I'm for keeping it as is. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And here is another source for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that these source lean conservative and have a bias in political matters. This makes there neutrality very much questionable. Of course the designation it's self has been political from the start, so it would be of little surprise.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Militant description in lede

Numerous sources have described antifa as a militant group.[5][6][7][8] Claims of bias or non-neutral term are unfounded. Truthsort (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The third sentence of the lead says: They are known for their militant protest tactics, including property damage and physical violence. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

And the fourth sentence currently says "They are predominantly far left and militant left", so the word "militant" already appears twice in the 5-sentence lede. But what is "militant left"? Is that a thing? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the militant part from the third sentence. I'm not even sure what "militant left" is. Truthsort (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We should seek more reliable sources for this kind of claim. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We already have enough sources for this. Truthsort (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are more sources.[9][10][11][12] Truthsort (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we're being squeamish about the word "militant". It's overkill to have it 3 times in the lede, and the term "militant left" is meaningless, but "militant" is not a slur, and "militant anti-fascism" is a commonly used term among UK antifa at least, see e.g. https://www.akpress.org/militant-anti-fascism.html or https://libcom.org/blog/militant-anti-fascism-occupy-movement-24122011 BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Then remove militant left and "Militant in the protest activity sentence. Truthsort (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that "militant left" should go (in the lead). The two references provided do not support this concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The soucres I added meet WP:Verifiability. I will re-add this in lede sentence soon unless others object. Truthsort (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well we have sources to support militant left, Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise, A New Wave of Left-Wing Militants Is Ready to Rumble in Portland—and Beyond Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2017

This entry is extremely biased and not well researched. It would be more accurate to state something to the effect of "While some claim the Antifa groups are autonomous, if there were 100% true the groups would share the same uniforms, the same slogans, the same rhetoric, the tactics, the same age brackets, and the same methodology as every other associated group in the world. It is the same group in London, Berlin, Paris, and in the USA. That isn't autonomous when the street tactics are exactly the same and the rhetoric is exactly the same. That is an "association" by definition. This article is written by a Leftist with her own agenda, and has no objectivity. TYeghian (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please state a specific edit Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Joke tweet ": “November 4th" fooled the alt-right, Nov 4th rallies not Antifa but an anti-Antifa left wing group "Refuse Fascism"

See [13] [14]

As for the real Nov 4th rallies, these don't seem to be Antifa. Although the right is linking Antifa to some rallies to take place, the Washington Post links them to Refuse Fascism[15] which is explicitly not Antifa and denounced it in September (see it's article). Refuse Fascism is political and probably to the left of most Antifa movement people.

And just to confuse things, there's a story going around about a DoD drill to coincide with the planned demonstrations.[16] Doug Weller talk 13:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A minor point, but I think you've misunderstood the Refuse Fascism article: the group did not denounce Antifa, but rather denounced attacks on Antifa. The statement is here. You're right though that they're different groups with different focuses and approaches. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This article and this report are good on the conspiracy theories and on antifa and their relationship to RefuseFascism. This article (though am not sure if considered RS?) very informative on RefuseFascism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

Closed as the lede has again been changed making this pointless
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=38FC5C1}} Looking for community input on changing the lede from The Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a political movement of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States. To this Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] is a far-left militant [2] political movement of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Sources for far left militant can be seen [17][18][19][20][21] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Support Support - that they're militant and on the far left is as well supported as that they're anti-fascist. Tom Harrison Talk 19:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose Oppose on several grounds. First, it doesn't actually have any of the usual political goals of, well, any part of the spectrum. It's anti-fascist and except for fascists themselves, people of any political ideology can be anti-fascist. I'm not sure we should even call it a political movement, but this RfC isn't about that and I don't want to push that here. Sources use a number of terms to describe it, and some make it clear that it doesn't have political goals and includes people of varying political outlooks. And they are real people - we shouldn't label them all as far-left. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC) We are not labelling people, we are describing a movement with the same words that the sources use, do you deny the sources call them far left and militant? However I think altering it to "left wing to far left militant movement" Thoughts on that Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Sources call them a number of things, but I'd certainly prefer "left wing to far left militant movement". Far left is basically revolutionary left and I doubt that even a majority are that (remember the main US Communist party isn't even revolutionary any more). I don't know what happened to the text "In a CNN interview, a member of Rose City Antifa (a group based in Portland, Oregon) said that "People in our group come from across the left sector, we have people who are anarchists, we have people who are socialists, we even have people who are liberals or social democrats." Doug Weller talk 19:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose. For one, it's an illogical (and editorializing) leap from anti-fascist to far Left. As I've already pointed out, actual Fascism is both anti-liberal AND anti-conservative. Certainly, back in the 1940s few Rightists (even those who had made plans to oust FDR in a coup) stood up in defense of Hitler. And as U.S. antifa is such a loose agglomeration, even if it can be said to have some sort of defined and stable central philosophy, there's no way that anyone is going to be able to prove that a significant portion of the individuals subscribe to that agenda, or are even familiar with its existence — painting every individual who chooses to join a local rally against racism (or whatever) as "a member" of one fomenting group (an ill-defined one at that) is to me rather anti-WP. Furthermore, the new definition claims "improvement" as a figleaf to blithely slide past the imperative need to clarify the terms used, not least militant and movement and self-styled and groups. A teapot tempest to give an illusion of improvement. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC) The sources say far left, we go with them, not what editors 'think' they ought to be described as. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC) I know I've only been at this for a year, but since when is a "yea or nay" discussion the place for ONE EDITOR to repeatedly browbeat others? You ask for opinions; we publish them; you waltz over and tell everyone they're stupid; people get bored and stop playing your game; you declare victory. Please stop. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose. Well, I couldn't have put it nearly as clearly as Weeb Dingle, but he hit all the problematic terminology used in this article. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose. For "far-left militant" is only part of what they are as a coalition of groups and organizations; the local groups in my area (Portland & Seattle) have those elements but a lot more that are not SO 'far-left' or 'militant'. Given that this is a national movement that has many autonomous groups acting in different ways, it seems too broad of a brush to paint them all from my research. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose. The existing intro is clunky and could be improved but the suggestion is vastly worse than what we currently have. My absolute objection is not to what it adds but to what it takes out. By changing "self-styled anti-fascist groups" to "self-styled groups" the whole description is disembowelled of all meaning. What even is a "self-styled group"? Is this really what is being proposed or is this a mistake in the drafting of the proposal? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Yup a mistake on my part, have fixed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose. For the reasons already given, and because the cites are a bit on the weak side to me for lead inclusion. Fox News is good, and The Chicago Tribune (though it's in a "fake news" roundup) but I don't see this as quite "there." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose Plucked a few sources from a google search that meets the criteria the proposer desires, is all this is. TheValeyard (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC) References Discuss That link just leads to a Google UK search for the word 'antifa'? Gabriel syme (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC) It also has "far-left+militant" in the search term, if you want I Shall just put a bunch on here, the search of Gnews is just to show the usage is prevalent Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC) A search like that probably turns up headlines as well, which we shouldn't use. We should reflect the variety of political beliefs shown by sources, so you need to search for other terms as well so we can actually analyse the sources, not just count them. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Swapped it out for direct links Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Movement is a political movement???

"Movement is a (...) movement"

Well, the current lead needs fixing, IMO:

• The Antifa movement is a political movement..."

This does not read well. We could say "The Antifa movement is a loose affiliation..." or even take CNN's route: "Antifa is a term that describes..." Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I agree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Just got biased editing to create false reports, there is no way to support the claim that - The Antifa movement is a political movement. People that join in with Antifa rallies are simply people that have decided, mostly from press reporting that they oppose fascism, although mostly they won't even know what fascism actually is. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If that's true I am sure you can find some reliable sources saying that. Actually, there are plenty of reliable sources describing it as a movement (see above). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can we go with "The Antifa movement is a loose affiliation..."? The wording of "movement is a movement" is strange. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think so. Or "Antifa' (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) refers to a loose affiliation of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States." BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Continued discussion, originally as "Movement is a political movement??? "

This just reads wrong: "The Antifia movement is a political movement of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States."

Note to change a word of it, but could we move the 'movement(s)' further apart so it does not sound so clumsy? May I suggest moving 'anti-fascist' before 'political movement' so there is the 'movement(s)' are further apart?

• Re-write proposal: "The Antifia movement is a anti-fascist political movement of autonomous, self-styled groups in the United States."

Suggestions? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm still getting up to speed on this topic, but a few points do jump out at me, and they seem to be tripping things up, so FWIW.

First, I like the concision of the lede for Antifaschistische Aktion: Antifaschistische Aktion, abbreviated as Antifa, is a militant anti-fascist network in Germany. (Though not literally stemming from the German group, the current U.S. antifa does seem to have drawn inspiration and name from that source.)

But on consideration, I'm presently on the proverbial fence as to whether antifa is indeed (yet) a social movement by usual criteria, or just some sort of "flash mob" phenomenon. The Salon piece that calls it "an organizing strategy," rather than an organization, seems much more accurate.

(And the History section ought to be renamed entirely, as it speaks only of somewhat similar precedents rather than the creation of the (for lack of a better term) movement itself.)

If I had to come up with a "good enough for now" lede, it might be something like Antifa is an anti-fascist organizing strategy of autonomous, self-styled groups in the United States. However, I am not comfortable with the "fascist" part, since there's also strong elements of anti-racism and anti-capitalism, and it's simplistic to label the non-Left, even the outliers, all as fascism (the "fascist negations" being "anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism," so it's clearly possible to be Conservative yet not Fascist).
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

l have a much more modest gaol of making the lede less auckward by seperating the two 'movement(s)'. The lede has been fought over so much, that any larger changes would be near impossible.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Reread the foregoing; you're rehashing a discussion from a few days ago, almost word-for-word, adding nothing. While there, note some alternate suggestions which accomplish your goal, for instance Antifa is a political movement of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups. I'd have backed that except there's little proof that any significant number of people are indeed a "group," or rather people who have chosen to join a public rally — really NOT interchangeable.

As a putative editor, you ought perhaps be bold and make a proper change, rather than simply inserting one term to separate the two instances of "movement" by a tiny increment.

But thanks for drawing my attention to the lede's flaws. I may get rid of "self-styled," which is at best editorializing and in any case an undefined and vague term.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm at work at this time and on my phone, so I can't do much. Sadly it matters little as someone deleted it all. I will try to do more when I get home.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Weeb Dingle:, I returned it to the prior lede as requested. However consider my small change, please. I did not add or delete anything, I only moved 'anti-fascist' up in the sentence so it comes in between the two 'movement(s)', no else was changed. It flows better in thought and speech if the two are a bit further apart. Thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

CW Gilmore proposal above still has the "movement is a movement" problem, and unclear what "self-styled" means if not "self-styled anti-fascist". My suggestion, a couple of sections up, was "Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) refers to a loose affiliation of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States." That was also intended to avoid the problem of making antifa a thing ("Antifa is"). I like the "organizing strategy" wording too, as this is also how it used - an analogy would be Black bloc, which is not an organisation either. What about "In the United States, Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) refers to a loose affiliation of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups or to the organizing strategy associated with these groups."? BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's better than the current lead, the some have argued for political movement being in it; but if others agree, please proceed. I just dislike the current 'movement is a political movement' as it's hard to read.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with how it is? It no longer says what is being discussed here Darkness Shines (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That was done by without discussion or consensus, and you keep returning it. Please contribute in a positive and constructive manner. People worked for months to gain consensus, not to have it deleted by one editor. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I restored the original consensus version, it was changed without consensus before you came along. You also reverted other improvements by myself and other editors ffs. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You call them 'improvements' but we disruptive editing as you have not built consensus before editing. Now please leave it along until more people can have their say. You are not the only editor and unlike other pages, you can not do just as you please. It took months to build that lede into what it was and though I dislike it, it needs to stay until consensus is reached, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As usual you refuse to listen, DHeyward Restored the consensus version, read the fecking diff. Then you reverted him, all I did was restore the consensus version and remove some duplication Darkness Shines (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The consensus has not been reached and is currently under discussion so please leave the original, as you have other pages where you can play without such concerns. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So you never lookec at this diff at all then, colour me surprised. BTW, do no call my edits vandalism again. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder that consensus can change. I have no idea where consensus might be on this article, but maybe it's worth considering an RFC or some such? An editor claiming consensus in an edit summary may or may not be correct, but such ipse dixit claims are understandably of little worth. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Proposal

• I would be fine with what was proposed above by Bobfrombrockley, minus "self-styled" which sounds like editorialising:

• "Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) refers to a loose affiliation of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States."

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support anything that will end this, DS little edit war. Please do it soon.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for loose affiliation. So Oppose, I notice far left militant is also missing, and that is cited. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Agree "self-styled" should go (otherwise pretty much every Wikipedia article would have to have self-styled in the first sentence, as more or less any term is disputed by somebody). "Loose affiliation" is already well sourced in the body of the article; doesn't need another citation in the first sentence. "Left" and "militant" are in the lede already; no reason to have them in the first sentence too, as they are particularly controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see this discussion became outdated immediately and moved further down the talk page. Will read all of that and reply there instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede editors describing antifa in their own words

I looked at the 3 cited sources, not one of them describes antifa as "a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups". The only attempt at defining what "antifa" is, is in the CNN source, so I've replaced it with the only definition given in the cited sources.

New Version

   Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) is a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party Platform. 

Old version

   The Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups in the United States.

Also, I've removed the NY Times source titled "Justice Dept. Demands Data on Visitors to Anti-Trump Website, Sparking Fight". It only mentions Antifa loosely ("But a smaller group of anarchists — sometimes called the “black bloc” of the so-called Antifa, or anti-fascist, movement — protested violently.") and isn't used in the article at all.

I've looked in the history to see if there were removed citations from the lede only one from lifezette which also doesn't corroborate the old lede.

CNNs definition is vague, but it's the only cited definition, improve upon it by getting more sources.

--Policypolicy (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted, so you have my apologies. I think the discussion should come first--and I am not sure the direct quotation of CNN's definition is the best approach here, but perhaps I'm wrong! Dumuzid (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to revert, offer an explanation don't just revert and say we should discuss WP:TALKDONTREVERT. As I said, "CNNs definition is vague, but it's the only cited definition, improve upon it by getting more sources."

I don't think the direct quote of CNN's definition is in any way a good representation of the RS; rather it's favoring one above others. You'll also take note that there are others who agree with me--searching for consensus is always a good idea. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, cite the others, as I said, CNN is the only one that attempts to define "antifa". Also "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view". Policypolicy (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, and Dumuzid reverted before I could) Hi, I believe this is based on a misunderstanding about references. The description given in the lede sentence is a summary of the contents of the article, so the references for the claims in the lede sentence (such as 'autonomous') can be found in the rest of the article. If I understand correctly, you accept that your version, being based on one source, is vague, but believe that it's better because it's properly cited. I agree with the first part of the analysis, and think the original version is much better. I'll revert it back to its original, but if there are claims in the lede sentence that aren't supported in the body, they should certainly be removed. Cjhard (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, first of all conglomerate is unsourced in either of the 3 articles. Don't revert without proper explanation, and you can't just include autonomous in the lede just because it was mentioned once in another source, that isn't cited in the lead but elsewhere in the article. I don't think the original is better, I just said the one cited source is vague. Don't just revert because you feel like it. Cite the citations from the body to the actual lede. Because I don't see anything for "conglomerate of autonomous groups" in any of the body sources.Policypolicy (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, I think you've misunderstood Wikiepdia's requirement for verification in an extremely strict way. Every word of an article doesn't need to be directly sourced. The lede sentence describes Antifa as a 'conglomerate of autonomous groups' because the article is describing a conglomerate of autonomous groups. Indeed, it's basically a rephasing of the first line of the 'Ideology and activities' section: "The Antifa movement is composed of autonomous groups, and thus has no formal organization." What part of 'conglomerate of autonomous groups' is missing? 'Conglomerate'? Conglomerate means "a number of different things, parts or items that are grouped together; collection." You should also drop the combative tone, it's not helpful to yourself or anyone else. Cjhard (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. WP:SYN Some editor took it upon themselves to describe it as "conglomerate of autonomous groups" which is unsourced. "Every word of an article doesn't need to be directly sourced" No, how you describe it in the lede does need to be sourced.WP:VERIFY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policypolicy (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, Policypolicy! But where we are differing is in that "sourcing" does not necessarily mean direct quoting, and using direct quotes can be a problem for representing the spectrum of reliable sources, rather than just the source quoted. Honestly, we welcome your contributions! If you could be a touch more collaborative, I think it would be great for all. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to User:TheValeyard 's revert due to "no consensus" WP:DRNC. I'll put the edit back in tomorrow if there isn't any change in the lede or any proper arguments against my edit. Policypolicy (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And I take it you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes a "proper" argument? Makes things nice and easy! Dumuzid (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In the last few weeks the lede has been changed without consensus, it was changed without consensus again last night, so which is the consensus version? Not the current one for sure Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Policyx2, so you can be blocked for edit-warring and bad-faith battleground behavior. TheValeyard (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not edit warring.Policypolicy (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I had earlier looked at the citations for the 1st sentence and they did not match the content provided. If these refs are confusing, I suggest they be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, the 2nd and even the 3rd don't even match the content provided. The wired article describes what they do, but it's not even used in the article.Policypolicy (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

First, I prefer the "conglomerate" version to the version which mentions the Dems, as it is closer to summarising the article. However, I have a bunch of problems:

• I don't think there should be footnotes at the end of the first sentence - the sentence should summarise the sourced article. If it does, the three footnotes there now (Jessica Suerth of CNN, "Justice Dept. Demands Data" in the NYT, and "No-Nazis Face a New Foe" in Wired) are odd choices.
  • This WP article puts a lot of weight on the Suerth article, but it should not. The journalist who wrote it is a journalism student[22] who was an intern at CNN[23] and it was her second ever article for CNN.[24] I think it is very likely CNN really didn't know what antifa was when they first heard of it in August so got an intern to quickly write an explainer. Just as WP replaces breaking news articles with better secondary sources after stories have progressed (see WP:BREAKING, we should be really cautious about relying on this kind of quick ill-informed background piece from mainstream media.
  • "Justice Dept. Demands Data" is an article about something else which mentions antifa in passing, and in an unclear way. It is a very bizarre choice of article to use to source anything about antifa.
  • The Wired piece is much better informed and the sort of article which we should be using as a source in this article. But I expect it is being used here because the headline has the words "far left" in it - but reading the article it seems clear that this is an editor's choice of words that bears no relation to the content of the article.
• What does "conglomerate" mean? It's an odd word. I think "loose affiliation" is better, or "loose network"?
• Should the lede say "Antifa is", "The antifa movement is" or "Antifa refers to"? I would avoid the first of those, as it gives the impression of a proper noun. I marginally prefer "refers to" as it least gives that impression.
• I thought it was clear from the above discussion that the consensus is against "self-styled". That seems like unnecessary editorialising, and should be self-evident anyway.

So, my proposal would be something like this, with no footnote at the end:

   In the United States, antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/) refers to a loose network of autonomous anti-fascist groups.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support the wording suggested by Bob Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Recent edit

In this edit, the different line breaks prevent me from seeing what was actually changed. I reverted it for now, but would be open to further discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The edit shifted the term "militant" to a more prominent position on the first line, an edit which I would be opposed to, for the record. TheValeyard (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TheValeyard. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I support the edit. There is no reason why "militant" should not be in the first sentence. Truthsort (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a change; current placement is fine. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I do, the current placement is too low, it's mostly known for it's violent protests, so this should be near the first paragraph. "The group is known for causing damage to property during protests" Policypolicy (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

it's mostly known for it's violent protests... is a point-of-view found in a narrow, slanted selection of mostly fringe sources. Minor POVs do not get equal weight. TheValeyard (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Your POV doesn't constitute at the Majority POV, it's a quote from the 2nd article cited in the wikipedia page. CNN doesn't seem like a "fringe" source. Your POV doesn't get equal weight to the cited sources. Policypolicy (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My p.o.v., whatever it may be, is not germane to the discussion. The sources cited say they are "known for" acts of violence, while "mostly known" (emphasis mine) is a concoction of your own. Words have meaning, and when you try to add them to Wikipedia articles with no support from a citable source, it becomes original research. TheValeyard (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

PP isn't advocating that "mostly known" should be added to the article, they're merely expressing that opinion to support their point. That said, I don't know why they want "The group is known for causing damage to property during protests" to be added, I feel like "They are known for their militant protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence." covers it pretty sufficiently. Cjhard (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Employing militant tactics is a feature that they do to shut down supposed facist.[25] There have been all sorts of acts of violence committed by Antifa. There is nothing POV about having the word "militant" in the first sentence of the lede. Truthsort (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede

I'm pretty sure this is the consensus version, ping @DHeyward: as he seemed to think so also. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As is mentioned in the above section, the changes were under discussion so no that was not the consensus. Please discuss your proposed changes, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is "under discussion" then the consensus version ought to be restored until a new consensus has formed. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I did per the discussion, just above this new section you started. I returned it to the version before I made the changes. Leave me alone.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward had already reverted it to the consensus version here Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither you (DS) nor DHeyward were in the above discussion of the lede and the consensus was for me to return it to the way it was before my changes. You are being disruptive again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I'm such an idiot, because you discussed something that automatically makes it the consensus version, my bad. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it was still under discussion means that it gets reverted back when someone asks and undoing that was disruptive. I will not speak on your idiocy. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, that change was not down by me and I ain'ta gotta clue who or how it happened. By the way, you are not alone in getting push back on ideas here; I could not move two words without upsetting someone. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been following this page for a while and I am absolutely certain that that version never had consensus (and it has definitely never been the stable version.) Just looking up the page shows that it was roundly rejected the moment it was proposed, with almost nobody joining discussion in favor of it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Antifa apocalypse placed into 'Hoax' sub-section with other incidents

Should there be a section on the false tales being spread about Antifa? This last one, Antifa apocalypse, was a whopper. Plus that article has come under [26] by DS; so by combining it with other hoaxes, we will not lose the information and all the sourcing, as I don't believe this will be the last one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me, as there was definitely coverage in RSes. There's currently an article at Antifa apocalypse being considered for deletion; I think it's better dealt with briefly here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the section currently entitled Twitter spoofing could be re-named to cover all of these fake news stories? Definitely Antifa apocalypse should be dealt with (briefly) here, whether it has its own article or not.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a Hoax section as I'm sure this will not be the last one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll be a dissenting voice. I don't think there should be a section about "Lies About Antifa", especially with this Antifa Apocalypse thing as an example. I don't think a minuscule hoax that will be forgotten in a week, concocted by some sort of extreme fringe, needs to be debunked in the article. I have the same opinion about most of the Twitter spoofing section too. Russians trying to declare Antifa a terrorist group is encyclopedic information. Some dickheads on 4chan trolling twitter is trivia. Cjhard (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

These 'hoaxes' appear to be a real and new feature of today's politics and as such are noteworthy from a political science point of view. The fact that the 'Antifa Apocalypse' spent weeks bouncing around the far-right news echo chamber is sign of a consorted dis-information campaign, like 'the UN troops gathering in North Dakota' stories of the past; it speaks more of those that are saying them, than the ones being spoken about. Given how some of these political hoaxes gained traction, even as far as being repeated within the White House, shows a fundamental shift in US political intercourse that should be documented, IMO.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with Cjhard, the information is already covered in the Refuse fascism article, it us trivia and has no place here, it is simply UNDUE Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Political dirty tricks have a long history in the USA including dis-information and slander campaigns. These issues are of note as Antifa is political in its nature. Thus a small sub-section is not unreasonable, and Antifa is NOT Refuse Fascism so the issue should be addressed on this page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this per WP:notnews. Truthsort (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The hey that got to do with anything? Something like 80% of this article has to do with recent events. Volunteer Marek  02:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't have any long-lasting notability. Truthsort (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not by it's self, but it does as a pattern of political misinformation campiagn conducted by elements of the far-right. This is why it needs to be groups with the other incidents in a sub-section so others can also note the pattern from the Twitter Hoax, all the way to this one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about editor's biases. Take it to user talk pages.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the same Darkness Shines that that nominated Anyifa Apocalypse page for removal so there appears to be some built-in biased. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Do you have to comment on me constantly? It's up for deletion as a pointless article, and the content has no place here as it's already in the Refuse Fascism article. A see also link is enough for such trivia Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC) I mentioned your actions as they color your comments. You have skin in this game, you started. In fact my suggestion is a way to deal with you putting the page up for deletion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think it may be worthwhile to have a section "Hoaxes targeting Antifa" or something similar, as a catch-all section to cover such instances, rather than focusing on individual ones in the section name. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Hoaxes targeting Antifa appears to be the consensus and to merge the Twitter hoax with other hoaxes and disinformation campaigns under this section. I wonder how Volunteer Marek feels about this as Antifa Apocalypse was a page that they were involved with greatly? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Volunteer Marek  02:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek , when you have time, you would be the best person to merge your article with the Twitter section and begin a new Hoax section. With continued news like, "'Antifa Supersoldiers' Are Coming to Kill White People Within Days: Right Wing Conspiracy"[27] it seems that this will be an issue for time to come. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus to merge that material here. The result of the AfD was redirect to Refuse Fascism where it is covered. No need to astroturf a fake event. --DHeyward (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is consensus of the majority and your opposition is noted along with the other two editors. The result of the AfD was to redirect that article, but here the consensus is to merge some of the information with other articles and as the hoaxes focus on Antifa, not the lesser know and smaller Refuse Fascism, it is logical to include the 'Antifa Apocalypse' on the Antifa article. Likewise, as I just pointed at, with the 'Antifa Supersoldiers', Newsweek story, these hoaxes are continuing and as they make national news about Antifa; logic would dictate their inclusion here. Thanks again for your input. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to add this junk here. It's already covered elsewhere so no need for passing news if the day to be here Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The stories circulating were about an Antifa Apocalypse, not "Resist Fascism Apocalypse" (which honestly, isn't all that notable itself). And it's Antifa that's been made into this boogey man of the right, not Resist Fascism or whatever. Volunteer Marek  20:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• • We have four against and five in support of changing the Twitter section to 'Hoax' and adding Antifa Apocalypse and Antifa Supersoldiers to a growing list of fake stories, hoaxes and political style dirty tricks being spread from the American conservative far-right. This seems to be a bit of an impasse, so suggestions on how to precede would be helpful. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add my voice to the five in support. None of these stories are notable enough for more than a brief mention, but the fact that there is a sustained campaign of misinformation around antifa is certainly notable and worthy of a section, and these stories should be mentioned in it. I don't get why that would be the least bit controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • There was an apocalypse announced? Very exciting. Was it paid for by Soros? Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Drmies -There was an ad, by Soros [28]; but the real issue is what the far-right wing media, in the USA did with that ad[29] [30]. It appears that perhaps, Antifa is being used as the new boggyman that ACORN once was[31]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

To focus on the ad is misplaced given that it did not even lead to large scale protests; what is the big story here, is what the right-wing media did with that nothing story and blowing it up into a bogieman that would bring down the USA as we know it. @Drmies:, your participation on how to best include that story into this article would be both constructive and helpful, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree the ad (clearly not paid for by Soros) is not at all notable (and if it was it would go on the RefuseFascism page not here) but what is notable is exactly the way the story was circulated and amplified. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

references and text

What is the best way to organise things into sub-sections under a title, perhaps? Also which types of references to use, perhaps one like this[32] and [33], that show the spinning of the hoax and echoing of it as that seems to be the real story, if I understand the news of this correctly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Latest fake story appears to be '"Antifa" Responsible for Sutherland Springs Murders, According to Far-Right Media'[34] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Look, there's a whole bunch of morons blaming "Antifa" for everything, and that it is happening is interesting and notable. But we shouldn't turn the article or a section thereof into a laundry list of such incidents, not just because it's not encyclopedic but also because it makes humanity look dumb. It is far better, in my opinion, to aim for the "real" thing--for a study, an academic article, etc., which can make this case and explain it. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Quite so, all of these, from the fake twitter and websites, to the misinformation campaigns of Antifa Super Soldiers and Apocalypse; these must all be taken together as a political trend of dirty tricks. As a house is not built from a single brick but careful placement of the many; the article should be careful not to lose sight of the full range and size of the dirty tricks being played and show how these pieces fit into this home of fake news the far-right echo chamber is building, one brick at a time. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Antifa communist in past or present?

The article claims Antifa is composed of 'communist' groups. But the article only mentions the term 'communist' three times. Many more references are made to 'anarchist'. So the question remains: is this movement more anarchist, than communist? The article seems to suggest so.

The first reference to 'communist' refers to the role played by Germany's CP in the creation of Antifa. The article suggests the German CP played a role. What other groups played a role? If it was only the communist, and not other groups, then perhaps an entire section should be dedicated to spelling out the origins of Antifa, seeing, the movement as a whole, despite being composed of different tendencies after its creation, has its roots in the communist party movement (rather than the anarchist and other movements). The second reference to 'communist' is made with respect to the Communist Workers' Party. Another historical example, which seems to suggest Antifa had communist beginnings, but then turned anarchist. The third reference is a repeat of the problematic and unsubstantiated claim that antifa 'include anarchists, socialists and communists..' Problematic because anarchists and communists are both socialists (socialism is a general category, under which anarchism and communism are categorised, since they are specific manifestations and expressions of socialism, albeit they are incompatible and contradictory. And the claim is unsubstantiated because the article doesn't really say anything about the communist movement's involvement in antifa, other than provide two historical examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.45.7 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the US Antifa is all that communist, more anarchist IMO, communism would be more European than US Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked a bit of the first paragraph in history. I wouldn't call anarchism socialism, they are different animals although both are anti-capitalist. Do we have any evidence that any of the American Communist parties are involved in Antifa? I suspect some of the more radical small ones are, but we need sources. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

far left movement

all this twaddle about the group being left wing socialists is sad press, I edited all that trash out of the top paragraph. here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=815761912&oldid=815731098 - For good will I self reverted, it's got weblinks does not make it correct. Suit yourself, but my edit is an improvement to a neutral position and a benefit to the reader. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, your position is that we should believe you based on your own authority, and not all the lying citations of which you disapprove? Just want to make sure I am grasping things here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, antifa have always been primarily socialist. It began as a communist/anarchist movement as a response to Mussolini's fascism. Liberals and conservatives have sometimes been antifa, but it has always been a socialist tactic made up almost entirely of socialists. I don't know what conspiracy crap you're getting your dumb ideas from, but liberals tend to be opposed to antifa because liberals advocate for private property and white supremacy in a way that socialists do not. You come off like a smug Samantha Bee liberal trying to rewrite history in your favor. 06:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.99.6 (talk)

Let's not even get into what kind of person you "come off like"... Instead of insults and pontificating, find reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP is talking nonsense and seems to be just stating their own opinion. And socialists aren't communists or anarchists (well, there is a type of socialist anarchism but it's rare). Doug Weller talk 12:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ursula K. Le Guin anyone? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This CNN interview [35] sums it up pretty well as the Antifa member says that people in their group come from "across the Left-spectrum" from Anarchists to Liberals. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

History section

1. What was wrong with this sourced claim, which has been deleted (I think by Doug)? Antifaschistische Aktion's two-flag logo, as well as the three arrow anti-fascist circle used by the Social Democrats led Iron Front (which was formed in 1931 by Social Democrats), are the most commonly used symbols of contemporary U.S. antifa activists. Is it just a desire to not mention Communists? If so, I don't think that's a good enough reason. 2. Another very recent edit (again I think Doug) changed a claim that Antifa is not new to a claim that it is. The sources cited in the article seem to me to show that the older version is correct - ARA groups changed their name to Antifa long before Trump, for example - but that the media has paid them attention since the Trump election. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that Bustle is a reliable source? I couldn't find much at the noticeboard and a quick review of the site leaves me with some doubts -- there wasn't a staff listing, that sort of thing. Even if it is, there might be some question of due weight, but for me, ensuring reliability is the first hurdle. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

All me. For the first, "While there is not necessarily a central antifa symbol, since there is no central antifa organization in the U.S., one symbol commonly seen on antifa flags and other possessions during the Charlottesville counter-protests consisted of a circle containing three arrows." doesn't back the statement that anything is the most commonly used symbol. We don't have a source for that and doubt that we will, who's counting?

For the second, the US Antifa movement is pretty new, but I agree it isn't post Trump. The article on ARA says "Anti-Racist Action is regarded as the predecessor movement to Antifa (U.S.).[36]" What's the source for ARA groups actually changing their name? To an extent this is a matter of perspective, is this a new movement with an older heritage or just rebranded? I'd say the latter. I also think that the history section is too long and suggests that somehow ANTIFA today may have some direct relationship with the 1920s. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The first time I saw anything like the current Antifia was during WTO in Seattle, WA. They were more Anarchist at that time, using direct action. Next saw something similar during the Occupy Movement, but again, they were not quite the Antifa that we have seen in the past 2yrs. It is like they morphed as needed and congealed with the rise of Trumpism as a lightening rod for their attentions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Needed a page that encompasses this subject

It could have a page regarding the American opposition as we have described about the Syrian Opposition, taking into account extra-parliamentary manifestations, neutralists in international politics, politicians who focus more on internal politics, populists outliers/outsiders, individual minority leaders who are or have been part of the Republican and / or Democrat Party, NGO'S/social moviments outliers, outliers third partys, domestic and international terrorism as well as separatist and pacifist movements in general. 2804:14C:5BB5:8FFF:E843:CAB0:6222:1889 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, for my money, I would first want to see some reliable sources making the sort of categorization/grouping you're talking about here. Otherwise, grouping together a bunch of otherwise disparate elements together under one banner would strike me as WP:OR. But if you have sources, by all means, please present them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018

I wish to change the white house petition section most notably the last setence in september the white house AntiFa has been labled as a "Domestic Terrorist" organization. Slartybartfaster (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nihlus 20:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

New clashes between Antifa and Proud Boys, Seattle 2/10/18

It appears there were new clashes and arrests at the University of Washington Republican rally [37] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the other sources do not mention Antifa and the Stranger [38] only states they were 'likely members of Antifa'; however, the local Antifa groups' facebook page does state they were there. This is slim evidence. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the last bit; the twitter hoax

Using the polarized source such as "Salon" on such a polarized topic (of which they are both polarized in the same direction) is probably not going to give unbiased information. The paragraph itself comes off as out of place; almost like "hey we're not that bad, look at what the other guys are doing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krigeris (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarity needed on what is antifa and what is not

It would be useful to try to clarify what is specifically "antifa" and what is not. For example, the paragraph in "History" beginning "After World War II, but prior to the development of the modern antifa movement..." appears to be about an anti-Klan action which neither the marchers nor the commentators on the action called "antifa" or "antifascist"-- it was referred to at best as "antiracist". Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, since there were no comments on this in two weeks, I took the step of cutting some material from the "History" section in which no citations given to show that the group involved was identified in any way as "antifa". I left in the citation, so people can find it, and I will also note that link to the "more information" article is still on the page (the information I cut was pasted verbatim from that article), so this information is still there for people looking for details. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

European/American pages?

Why do we have pages for antifa and the newer surge of antifa tactics and organizing in the USA? could this not just be a sub-section n the antifa page? i do not understand the reason for the separation. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk)

There is a short sub-section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-WWII_anti-fascism#United_States but I think this article is too long to go there now.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

They're different. Basically the same goals but in different cultures and different histories. It wouldn't help the reader to have both in the same article. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that they're different. The European word "antifa" was pasted onto groups of American activists as an umbrella term, but this is relatively recent. The American groups really do not have a common origin with European Antifa groups, it was just a convenient label that got applied. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous changes to Miscellaneous things.

I have three proposed changes for the article :Antifa (United States). First, I would like for the "Notable street protests and violence" section to have a couple of changes. First, I believe that the Protest part of the title be changed to Riot. I believe this because upon reading, you may notice that not a single one of the instances outlined in the section actually fits the definition of the word protest, at least the way that most western societies use it in a way to describe the action of peaceably showing disapproval of something, like the actions of Mohandas Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but rather all of the outlined instances perfectly fit one of the four meanings of the term Riot. According to Merriam-Webster, riot means "public violence, tumult, or disorder". As you can see, this fits because all of the outlined instances, as well as one that I am about to present, use the act of violence, be it looting, robbery, or, by far most common, domestic violence. Domestic violence is so core to Antifa that it even features in their de facto motto "Punch a Nazi".

Second, I believe that the "Notable street protests and violence" section be updated to include various events, including the silencings of speakers at dozens of college campuses, for example the instance earlier this month with Sargon of Akkad.

Third and finally, I believe that it should be pointed out that Antifa, despite being supposedly opposed to the concept of Fascism, shares many similar tactics and ideologies to the Nazi Party. Aside from being literally an acronym for "National Socialist German Workers Party", socialism being an ideology that Antifa wants to have implemented, and that the tactics of Antifa just coincidentally correlate with the tactics that Hitler and the Nazi Party used to gain power in the Weimar Republic, like violence and intimidation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofthemeat (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — LordoftheMeat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi Lordofthemeat. Thanks for your input, but it's unlikely that any of your proposed changes will be made. This is because all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable: it must be supported by citations to reliable sources. In practice what this means is that if reliable sources like major news organisations mostly use the word "protest", then we use "protest," but if they mostly used a different word we would follow their lead. Likewise, if major news organisations made the connection you make in your third point, then it would belong in the article, but they haven't, so it doesn't. As far as your second point, I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to, but information on the protests against Carl Benjamin in London earlier this month wouldn't belong in this article, as this article is specifically about Antifa in the United States. Let me know if you have any questions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll agree with the above: the points you suggest should be added to the article if you can find reliable sources supporting them. Just expressed as commentary, as you did above, they are unsupported, and don't fit Wikipedia. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

ADL is a legitimate source how about this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVFEGoUV_64KirinMagic (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC) How about the ADL https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa KirinMagic (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice link. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

So as I provided a link with no argument against, will someone allowed to Edit change it to Antifa is a facist hate group.KirinMagic (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No. That link doesn't say that at all. You need to find a reliable source which supports the changes you want to see made. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No. You're moving into deliberate disruption with that edit. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I provided 2 sources, what is the problemKirinMagic (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You posted a YouTube video of people shouting, which isn't a source, you misrepresented the ADL source, and you used no sources at all in your edit. Don't make controversial changes without explicit consensus. Misrepresenting sources will result in a block: the ADL description is critical of the group, but it doesn't support your edit. Acroterion (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The YouTube source provide proof and ADL does the same. You are being unreasonable. please try to give me proof that Antifa is not a violent hate group or restore. I had consensus you did not.KirinMagic (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The YouTube video of people shouting is not a usable source for anything on Wikipedia. The ADL source does not support your edit claiming "hate group" status. You have no consensus, and complaining that enforcement of policy and existing consensus is unreasonable won't get you far. Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

KirinMagic's a sock, I've struck through his posts. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Milo = Alt Right ?

The article states that Milo Yiannopoulos is an "alt right speaker" yet the man himself does accept the label, and neither does the ADL. Should we use political labels based on self identification or popular usage? See [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.62.123 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

ICE spreadsheet

I see where you added the sentence mentioning the ICE spreadsheet. Why did you not list it as a "controversial" list? Is it only right leaning organizations who give out controversial listings? If the organization putting the listing out is a leftist organization, does it get a pass? Or do you not think it is controversial because it is an organization that leftists support? Just asking these questions to figure out if Wikileaks is a neutral site or leans to the left. Answers will determine if I decide to use Wiki as a reference anymore, as I like to get the facts. Not opinion of either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.100.119 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Why has there been no mention of the Antifa spreadsheet listing of ICE employees? This should be considered and listed as controversial, just as the professor watchlist on Turningpoint USA is listed as a controversial subject, here on Wikipedia? Here is the link to Wikis own "controversial" posting of Turning point, and an independent news item from the UK mentioning the ICE list. I am sure there are others, since I have seen NBC news programs reporting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Watchlist https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/antifa-ice-employees-list-immigration-nebraska-github-medium-linkedin-sam-lavigne-a8412496.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.191.179 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on this to the "Ideology and activities" section. Thanks for pointing it out. (The Professor Watchlist article is neither here nor there though – the fact that that topic is notable, and that Wikipedia editors have written an article about it, has no bearing on this totally unrelated topic. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this ICE thing notable? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the Independent and Newsweek pieces cited in the article are enough to make it worth mentioning. Google News turns up plenty of other results, but most are less than reputable (Daily Caller, Sputnik International) and others don't make the connection to the antifa group explicit. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Enabling readers to visit the spreadsheet

I removed a link to a reliable source which included a link to the spreadsheet, per the guideline Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. Please discuss here instead of putting it back. It violates WP:BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 14:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I certainly understand the concern, but I think the "In Articles" section covers this, and as such, I think it's okay--though I would vastly prefer it if we could find another source to cover the same ground without direct linking. Just my $.02! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There already is a reference next to it which doesn't include a link. wumbolo ^^^ 16:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Questionable Wikiprojects

Two of the Wikiprojects here seem inappropriate:

1. WikiProject Military history: This is nothing to do with military history as far as I can see. I can't see any military aspect to this subject mentioned in the article.
2. WikiProject Organizations: This is not an organisation, even if some of entities within it are.

WikiProject Military history was added fairly recently. I propose that we remove it if nobody has any objections. Of course, I could be missing something here. Pinging @CPA-5:, @Peacemaker67: as they may have opinions on this.

WikiProject Organizations has been applied for rather longer. It seems wrong to me although there are organisations within the Antifa movement. Does anybody feel strongly about that one? --DanielRigal (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not fussed. It just came up while I was working through our assessment backlog. As a politico/civil entity with no real connection to the military, you are probably right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: although this is on my watchlist, I don't pay much attention to it. But the issue has come up in the past and the response has always been that this is a movement and should not be treated as an organisation. I'm removing it. User:Peacemaker67, thanks for your agreement. I guess we should wait for CPA-5 but I can't think of an argument for keeping it. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it for now. If CPA-5, or anybody else, disagrees then they can revert, explain and we can discuss further. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of these WikiProjects from the page because Antifa is not an organization, and therefore is also not inherently related to any military (but certainly not military history) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)