Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Antifa is not a "group" and as such this article should address this common confusion and/or mischaracterization

Far ranging discussion on topics discussed many times before that proposes no RS supported revisions WP:NOTFORUM applies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There have been a number of news organizations, pundits, politicians, and other prominent figures, especially on the right, but also on left and from the mainstream media, that incorrectly describe Antifa as a groups, describing it the movement as if it is an organization with members and a leadership rather the the reality in which it is a loose political movement that fights fascism. While there are groups associated with Antifa, they do not represent the Antifa movement. Due to this mislabeling (or a simple misunderstanding of the nature of Antifa), many right-wing critics of the Antifa movement have suggested trying to use laws designed to go after against engaging in illegal political activities such as the KKK, ISIS, SLA, etc. including terrorism laws and the RICO act. The article should have at least a paragraph mentioning this confusion about (or in some case, intentional mischaracterization of) the nature of Antifa as the arguments for going after "Antifa" under terrorism laws or RICO act and any counterargument for why that would either a) not work or b) be bad practice even if it did pass legal muster. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC) I tend to agree with you from an empirical point of view, but can you point us to any reliable sources which make this argument? The simple fact is that if the reliable sources are confused, the Wikipedia article will be as well -- that's the nature of this encyclopedia. With apologies to Winston Churchill, I think it's the worst possible arrangement, except for all the others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Why do you think it's true, if it's not what the sources say? Benjamin (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC) It is indeed correct that "Antifa" isn't really an organisation, but a very loose movement, as is also clear from European sources. Antifa is clearly European in origin, and claims that they "fight fascism" should be treated with extreme caution; rather they fight what they claim to be fascism – a very important distinction – which has historically, in Europe, included pretty much everything related to liberal democracy and "capitalism" (see above for a more detailed explanation), as "anti-fascism" had become a smear term used by the Soviet Union to disparage the west (as seen e.g. in the name of the Berlin Wall, "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart). Even in the U.S. context of opposition to Trump and his policies, we cannot simply adopt the position of Antifa that the U.S. government is "fascism" (I have previously argued for the inclusion of some material in articles about Trump and his policies about scholars debating a possible relation between Trump's policies and fascism, but there hasn't much support for the inclusion of such material). --Tataral (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)Because there's no evidence that it is a group. The Civil rights movement was not a group but there were many groups involved. We know that the KKK, ISIS, etc have an organisational structure. And of course not all the sources, probably not most of them, call it a group. What actual evidence do you have that it is a group? Even reliable sources can be wrong. Doug Weller talk 19:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Tataral, do you have any reliable sources to which you can point for the idea that American Antifa has adopted the Soviet definitions? I certainly appreciate your expertise, but original research is not usable here on Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC) re: no evidence that antifa is a group. can you explain how the organization structure of ISIS and Antifa differ? is a group required to have a principal leader in order to be a group? if the members generally have a large overlap in political strategy, culture, history, goals, ideas, words and phrases, congregate on social media, listen to the same podcasts, etc. - is this not a strong qualification for a group? group definitions from merriam webster: number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship. an assemblage of related organisms —often used to avoid taxonomic connotations when the kind or degree of relationship is not clearly defined (bold emphasis added by me)Mbsyl (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC) And a whole society can be called a group by our definitions. And our article. But Group itself is a dab page which includes both social groups as you are describing and organisations. As I said, Antifa resembles the Civil rights movement - both made up both of individuals unaffiliated to any specific groups and specific groups (such as Rose Antifa). It doesn't sound as though you have much understanding of ISIS -- also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or officially as the Islamic State. Did you know that the UN calls it a terrorist organisation? How are they similar? Doug Weller talk 08:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC) i'm not saying antifa and isis are similar - i was just hoping you could point out the differences in their organization structure, and in doing so help me understand what you mean by 'group' exactly. definition of terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. how closely do you think antifa violence would fit this definition? also: see https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-cult-of-violence-always-kills-the-left/ -written by far left Chris Hedges, noting that ex-head of the far left terror group Weather Underground "sees his old self in the masked faces of the black bloc and antifa" https://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/antifa-anti-fascist-action <says their violence can not be ignored. due to his prominence/arguable expertise, it may also deserve a quick mention that "former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik" who was nearly head of DHS, has also said they should be called a terrorist group. Mbsyl (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Mbsyl (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Apologies if I get my indenting wrong here, but a couple of thoughts occur. First of all, it's easy to point out at least one major distinction between Antifa and ISIS: the latter has an avowed leader. Also, let's stipulate that there are many nuanced definitions of terrorism, and it's above our pay grade here to make that call in any sort of legal sense. That being said, my gut says "yes, this is terrorism," because it is essentially political violence. But my head asks: at whom is it directed? It doesn't seem to be "civilians," really, though there is certainly incidental damage and violence. Secondly, what is their goal? Opposition to the groups they see as "fascist," certainly, but that sort of second-effect political goal strikes me as somehow different. Do they have an actual agenda beyond that? I could be wrong on either count here. I'd honestly like to know. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC) i know isis has a leader. that's why i asked "is a group required to have a principal leader in order to be a group?" sorry..i didn't put things very clearly. its not just your gut that says its terrorism, its supported by a former far left terrorist and an ex police comissioner of America's biggest city. would you say that the 9/11 hijackers weren't terrorists if their mission was really aimed at the military (i.e. getting the US military/political system out of the Middle East, as I believe they have stated was their main goal)?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC) @Mbsyl: if you read their article I think it would be more obvious. Eg they have a Cabinet ()government) a council of high-ranking members of government. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC) "Do they have an actual agenda beyond that?" Re-electing Donald Trump? Tom Harrison Talk 18:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC) There's obviously a difference between goals and unintended outcomes. From what little I know, I would put that possibility in the latter category. I was asking about the former. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC) @Mbsyl:, {it's not really helpful to call everyone to your left "far left.") Low level political violence is not generally categorized as terrorism. Secret Service agents arresting someone for threatening the President for example is not an act of terrorism on their part, although strictly speaking it is politically motivated (protecting a politician) and violent (an arrest). No reliable sources refer to street brawlers as terrorists. Also, U.S. law uses a stricter definition of domestic terrorism. The terrorists must terrorize the population, not just a subset of the population. That's why hate crime murders are not prosecuted as terrorism. We are in any case getting into original research. Terrorists are whoever reliable sources say they are, otherwise they are not. TFD (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC) its helpful to say who i'm calling far left that isn't. if you're referring to chris hedges, i suggest you read his wiki. if you're referring to weather underground, same thing. they are both arguably RS in regards to this topic. i think we are seeing different US law definitions of terrorism. what i am seeing: The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). Mbsyl (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC) While it does say that, Section 802 of USA Patriot Act is more restrictive,[1] and it's pointless to take an act at face value when courts may interpret it differently. Can you provide any examples of anyone prosecuted for terrorism for street fighting? While far left may not be a clearly defined term, the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right says, "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5)[2] I got the impression from his article that Hedges did not advocate violence, terror or dictatorship. Mind you, I sometimes watch Fox News and they seem to call anyone who does not agree with them far left. TFD (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) i think that definition should say "the New far left" or "the violent far left" as black-bloc/antifa isn't very representative of the far left (see: the [total??]lack of prominent far left voices supporting their violence, [which is a big part of who they are, according to antifa historian Mark Bray], and comments by chomsky, chris hedges, richard cohen - the last 2 who have debated antifa thought leader mark bray about his encouraging political violence.) i think its a big over simplification to call it street fighting. see: paul welch video, andy ngo attack, lack of coverage of paul welch, lack of response by large crowd of onlookers, arguably due to being scared to upset the group who just did what was arguably an aggravated robbery of a US flag at a political rally in daylight.Mbsyl (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Referred to as militant; timeline Jan - Aug 2017, each section cites originating RS (WaPo, CNN, CBS, et.) for verification; Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left (referred to as violent counter-protestors). It all depends on perspective. Center sees both sides as problematic, domestic terrorists. How law enforcement sees them: "Domestic extremist movements covered will include white supremacists, white nationalists, black identity extremists, animal rights and eco-terrorists, anti-government and other radical separatists groups. ¶ In addition to the previously mentioned training topics, and due to several recent highly publicized violent protests and demonstrations, a large portion of the course will focus on Antifa/Anarchists and their current method of operation around the United States." And one more Guardian article: "The report frames political street violence in America as an evenly-poised battle between “antifa’s”, described as “an alliance between anarchists and communists to confront and defeat fascists and white supremacists by whatever means necessary”, and “anti-antifa, a loose collection of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, Ku Klux Klanners, white identity groups and a group called the alt-right”. It's what the sources say. Atsme Talk 📧 02:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC) i don't think its fair to say that 1 class taught to North Carolina police represents the view of 'law enforcement.' if antifa's main goal is to confront fascism directly, why not act in a way that doesn't alienate most people, build a large coalition, and go after the far right people who have real power, who could arguably take over our government as a cheap hobby, like they may have nearly done with Gen. Smedley Butler. antifa is not fighting fascism, they are giving the far right video clips of people's rights being violated via scary looking people who vaguely represent the left, which the far right uses to boost recruitment/political power. this is why antifa's biggest supporter is richard spencer (who they often cite saying antifa's tactics made him stop his tour - in order to justify their violence, with no sense of irony or the fact that maybe he's lying so that antifa will keep being violent, and because it helped hide the fact that he Really cancelled his tour because no one was coming.) https://gizmodo.com/richard-spencer-postpones-college-tour-no-one-was-atten-1823720014 Mbsyl (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)` Mbsyl, while I agree with the general tenor of what you say here, I would remind you that history is full of people with honest and earnest goals, who go about pursuing said goals in sub-optimal or self-defeating ways. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC) None of the sources you provide call them terrorists. And note the ADL source (most antifa) says, "Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years." So they don't even call violent nazis terrorists except those that engage in terrorist actions. If reliable sources do not call them terrorists, we cannot determine that they are, per no synthesis. TFD (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Uhm, no - PBS - white supremacists were Democrats, sorry. Catch-up on your history. The shift to alt-right in the US doesn't date back very far historically; it's recent and most of the info is coming from left-leaning academia and media. It has become political. There was also a strategy that was used called playing the Race card. Labels are temporary - actions are what get documented in history. Historians will get it straightened out over time - we just have to endure the "trends", and not try to distort history based on political motivations/propaganda which is designed to divide, not unite. Atsme Talk 📧 03:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC) I realize that some misinformed right-wing activists try to recast the Southern Democrats as left-wing. I suppose that makes Karl Marx and his supporters right-wing because they supported the Republican Party during the Civil War. TFD (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC) So, Atsme, is the ADL source correct or not? It does include the claim you mentioned, but it also includes the claim TFD mentions. Dumuzid (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC) This is getting pretty far off-topic, but since you're trying to argue against sources based on a flat misconception I feel I have to correct you. You're not strictly wrong about groups like the first (19th century) KKK being largely Democrats, but you're wrong about almost everything else. First, the second KKK (the first 20th-century one, and the one you're most likely referring to) consisted of both Democrats and Republicans, as detailed in our Ku Klux Klan page. Second, being Democratic in the early-to-mid 20th century (let alone the 19th century) doesn't mean someone was left-wing; the Democratic and Republican parties weren't completely sorted out in to left- and right-wing parties until much more recently (see democratic party in the mid-20th century and Conservatism in the United States for details on the process.) Third, by far the most importantly, the KKK (and similar groups) have always been considered a right-wing extremists in all their incarnations. See Right-wing politics and the Ku Klux Klan, which have extensive high-quality sources going into detail on why all three incarnations of the klan were right-wing extremists. Understanding the definition of right-wing politics would explain to you why this is (since right-wing politics is about defending hierarchy, or arguing that it is natural and proper, which includes defenses of racial hierarchies); it would also explain why Antifa is classified as left-wing (because they oppose hierarchies.) Obviously there is some complexity here when dealing with eg. right-wing populism or left-wing governments, but these words have actually well-defined meanings - they're not meaningless labels. The numerous, extensive scholarship that labels the KKK as right-wing and antifa as left-wing are based on extensive analysis of their goals, their underlying drive, their motivations, and how these things fit into the larger dispute over whether society should be organized on hierarchical lines. This isn't "recent" or the result of "left-wing academia", this is a basic, essential part of the entire field of political study. Politics change over time and don't break down into the strict comfortable labels we're used to, but the shift to American politics along racial lines in the mid-to-late 20th century is extremely basic stuff, as is the fact that the KKK and their ilk have always been defined as right-wing (they are practically the defining example of a right-wing extremist group). --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Yes, this is getting off-topic, and I see some discussion about Antifa that belongs on a forum, not here. Here we should be discussing the article, not its subject. I'm pinging a couple of other editors who have commented elsewhere on this, @Arms & Hearts and Sam Sailor: . Doug Weller talk 13:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Thanks, Doug, for trying to bring the discussion back on topic. I agree with Notcharliechaplin that the article would benefit from a section that makes clear that antifa is not a formally constituted organisation with a leadership, membership etc., though as ever we need to be careful not to go beyond what the sources say. In this case, I think we could use sources like The Washington Post, which says "antifa is not itself an interconnected organization, any more than an ideology like socialism or a tactic like the picket line is a specific group"; the Anti-Defamation League, who say "[a]ntifa is not a unified group; it is loose collection of local/regional groups and individuals"; and Vox, who say "[a]ntifa is not a monolithic organization, nor does it have anything like a hierarchical leadership structure." We probably can't use these sources, however, to suggest that the kind of misunderstanding or misdescription that Notcharliechaplin describes is commonplace. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Doug - I support hatting the off-topic portions of this discussion, and will not partake in further parlance in that regard. No good ever comes of blame shifting; i.e., left blaming the right and vice versa, based on whatever nuanced definition describes right and left today. Facsism is another attempt to shift blame despite multiple definitions that state otherwise. I'm of the mind that subjective blame contributes to the rise of SJW, anarchy and violence, often against innocent people. I mentioned Fascism because it's the ideology that gave birth to Antifa, so it plays a role here. Antifa has been described as domestic terrorists per RS, secondary and third party. We just need to exercise caution regarding what we say in WikiVoice, make sure to not present opinions as facts, and use in-text attribution with quotes for material that may be challenged. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 16:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC) @Atsme: no, they were never described as terrorists. At least not in the original and only source, which was then copied by others. Their activities were so described. A big difference. Again, there were no sources other than Politico and very few media (except the right) reported what they said. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Where is that source, Doug - from what RS say, it was a confidential report and I'm wondering how it was leaked to the public and by whom? Wish we could be this investigative and steadfast on some of the Trump allegations, but as I've been told, we accept & trust what RS say and that's what we go by. Atsme Talk 📧 17:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Here is the source to which everything seemingly relates back: [3]. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC) That's the source I've seen, Dumuzid. It was also published by others citing Politico, the latter of which is more center than WaPo, although Politico's editor in chief used to write for WaPo. We ran with the Trump-Russia dossier when no other media would touch it but the relatively unreliable BuzzFeed, not to mention the dossier being unverified. Even if we had the actual document that Doug speaks of (which would be a primary source that we're discouraged from using) we should go with the RS that viewed the document and published an article about it. It was published by 3rd party sources as well, so I'm not understanding why there's even a question of it being included. Cite a quote from Politico with in-text attribution, and add 1 or 2 more sources to go with it and be done with it. Atsme Talk 📧 17:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Here is a ADL primer on Antifa that describes it as a: "a loose collection of groups, networks and individuals who believe in active, aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements.": https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa Thus by the ADL understanding, it is not a "organized group" or "Organization" that has a leadership structure and other features found in an organization. As such, you can go after it like you would ISIS, the KKK, the Italian Mafia, etc. Here is another article on the distinction: https://psmag.com/social-justice/antifa-isnt-so-new-after-all Here on the other hand is an National Review article describing it incorrectly as a organization (one of many right-wing articles to do so): https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/andy-ngo-antifa-kkk-rico/ --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is any common misconception about Antifa, I would very much be interested, as it would be relevant for that article. Benjamin (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not think there are because the average person has never heard of them. Any misconceptions would come from right-wing blogs that try to blur the distinction between them and the Democratic Party. But it is not the role of Wikipedia articles to debunk conspiracy theories, there are sites such as Snopes and other fact-checkers for that. TFD (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Leaderless

@Arms & Hearts:, I looked at the sources and couldn't find "leaderless" as per your text change[4]. Of course there are some "leaders" in some individual groups. It's just that there isn't any centralized organization and separate groups may not even talk to one another. Seems that the current text is a closer fit to sources. O3000 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The Vox article by Sean Illing says: "Antifa is not a monolithic organization, nor does it have anything like a hierarchical leadership structure." Though the word isn't used, the second part of this sentence is synonymous with "leaderless." Nonetheless, we could more closely mimic the language used in the source. How would you feel about changing "a leaderless movement comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals" to something like "a movement without a leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That looks OK.The two forms aren't quite synonymous. O3000 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa Creating and Spreading Hoaxes?

This should be mentioned in the article, seeing as you have a section titled "Hoaxes." 2601:49:1:5316:C8D4:4023:EA9F:4615 (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you summarize it, and state what exactly you'd like added to the article? Benjamin (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have another source? O3000 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We'd certainly need better sources than the The American Spectator. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. And the source says "spoof" rather than hoax. "Journalist Andy Ngo Staged Attack by Antifa at Portland Protest" and "Andy Ngo hires Proud Boys to pose as Antifa and attack him at Portland Rally" are headlines one would never see in the American Spectator, even if they were true. A hoax would have attributed them to a mainstream publication. The intention is humor. TFD (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The Intention is not humor, as you can see in the article if you read it. Saying that you would need "better sources than The American Spectator" says nothing about the quality you're looking for or why it should be dismissed. Seeing as you have quotes from twitter as sourced, this should qualify. In particular it mentions that Antifa is trying to spread misinformation and "Fake News" on the topic of Andy Ngo. "In a Twitter thread posted on Monday, evolutionary biologist Heather E. Heying shared screenshots of doctored American Spectator and Reason headlines she had found circulating the Twitterverse. The articles (comparison below) had been doctored to claim that the attack was a false flag orchestrated by Ngo: the altered headlines say he hired members of the Proud Boys to assault him in a manner reminiscent of Jussie Smollet’s staged assault in January." - I fail to see how this is any different from the #PunchWhiteWomen "spoof" played up by people "trolling Antifa." It appears that you're being selectively biased against this source because it shows antifa perpetrating the identical tactics that the people against them are employing.2601:49:1:5316:983F:6EDB:2E5F:BBBA (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It's simply not notable outside the sphere of the American Spectator; whatever quality we assign to that publication, I would want to see other RSes cover this before we make a big deal out of a story that boils down to "there's fake stuff on the internet." If it gets covered elsewhere I would certainly reassess. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP's claim is clearly nonsense - we have to follow our policies, in this case WP:UNDUE - one mention, particularly in a source with no indication that it passes our criteria for reliability, is not enough for an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References

First off Dumuzid, no one is saying this story is a big deal as it would only need to be a single sentence mentioning the activity within the "Hoaxes" section, and secondly, I fail to see how this being "just within the realm of the American Spectator" keeps it from being relevant as you have a Salon article in reference to the #PunchWhiteWomen. Secondly you have Vox, which is far less respectable than the American Spectator, referenced multiple times. As far as I'm concerned, this article does meet the criteria for reliability as it is not self-published, does not have questionable sources as their basis for the article, and has a long publishing history which should stand for itself as evidence of their clout. Unless of course you have proof for their lack of reliability, they must be credited.2601:49:1:5316:C474:454D:FBA9:8821 (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Two thoughts occur. First, reasonable minds can differ! I think it undue, but you obviously don't, and that's okay. You may well reach a consensus with which I disagree. But I disagree that "they must be credited" in the absence of "proof for their lack of reliability." Insofar as "credited" here means the information must be included, I don't think so. It's entirely possible to have information in a reliable source that is nevertheless WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, a source isn't reliable until it's not; rather, sources must be shown to have several factors, including a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if the American Spectator were shown to have that here (and I honestly don't know one way or the other), it would not be enough, for me, to merit inclusion in the article. Again, I am often wrong! So, by all means, persuade away and may the marketplace of ideas do its thing. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

Change: The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] To: The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing, militant, autonomous[7] groups in the United States who claim to be antifascist.[11] JustNoting179 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources; the current wording is supported the sources cited in the article, whereas your proposed wording is not. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt, a guideline which warns against using language (like "claim to be") which implies that a point is inaccurate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the sources listed that supposedly support that assertion:

• [5] Source only says that Ryan Lenz of SPLC makes this claim.
• [6] Literally titled Antifa: Guardians against fascism or lawless thrill-seekers? and only says that their own members claim they are antifacist.
• [7]Small local news. Claims that they are antifascist are coming from members of the movement themselves. Note that this article also says and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security classified their activities as “domestic terrorism.”. You can't use it for this but then refuse to use it for the terrorist claim.
• [8] Maybe the only source that states as fact that they are anti-facist, however it's a yet another small local news outlet.
• [9] Again local news outlet. Again only stating that that's what they say about themselves.

So that argument isn't very convincing, in fact the opposite is true. The current text is not well supported by the sources and the proposed text is. Galestar (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It may be convincing to you personally, but that doesn't change consensus. Since there is no consensus for this edit, this request has been closed. This discussion isn't closed, just the edit-request. It should not be re-opened until consensus has changed. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not about me. It's about if the current text is verifiable and supported by the sources given, which it isn't. Galestar (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll note that I didn't claim that the citations included in the passage in question support the claim; rather that "the current wording is supported the sources cited in the article" (emphasis added). Per MOS:LEADCITE there's some leeway as to whether claims in the lede that are also made, and for which sources are cited, in the body of the article require sources be cited in the lede. That being said, that guideline does also suggest sources be cited in the lede for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". So, for the record, sources currently cited in the article that explicitly equate antifa with anti-fascism include KIRO 7, Kansas City Star, CNN, the New York Times, Wired, Wired again, and AOL. That's seven out of the first fifteen sources cited in the article. If you want to add any of these to the lede that would not be inappropriate, though adding all might be excessive (especially as there are no doubt many more—I didn't look at the other 92 sources cited). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You can debate this if you wish. But, it's highly unlikely that you will be able to change consensus. I don't know what they're for -- but it's well documented that they are anti-fascist. O3000 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

IPA Transcription

Antifa can be pronounced with either prepenultimate or penultimate stress, all four possible variants should be expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SapientiaBrittaniae (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@SapientiaBrittaniae: I don't really understand what you're proposing (probably largely because I don't really understand IPA). What are the four possible variants? Don't the two pronunciations currently given in the article indicate that the word "can be pronounced with either prepenultimate or penultimate stress"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: In General American English, the four possible variants should be as follows: /'æntifə/ /æn'tifə/ /'æntifɑ/ /æn'tifɑ/. Further, in RP English they can be mutated into /'antifə/ or /an'tifə/ SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Poorly Structured "Ideology and Activities" section

The section "Ideology and Activities" is very long and could be better formed. Most saliently, the sentence "By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism" is embedded in a very long and circuitous set of paragraphs about very different subjects. I suggest each of these (the terrorism accusations, the mutual aid, &c.) be migrated to their own subsections. It would be much easier to navigate at a glance as a result. What do you all think? SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

agreed. it definitely needs better structure. maybe something like the Proud Boys page, where each notable incident has its own subsection. Mbsyl (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Willem Van Spronsen

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 (talk • contribs) 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 [10] [11] [12] [13]

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 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 (talk • contribs) 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 on the Washington Post (it's for Washington DC not Washington State) and this on the New York Times 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 buzzfeednews.com, heavy.com, independent.co.uk, theepochtimes.com, foxnews.com, and several other right-wing sources all explicitly saying "antifa" and other sources such as seattletimes.com 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 [14] 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

Buzzfeed

The Independent

Fox News

Heavy

New York Post

New York Post 2

Washington Examiner

Washington Times

National Review

Townhall

News Busters

The Epoch Times

NTD

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

news.com.au

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)

References

Conglomeration

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”.[15] 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 [16] 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)

AfDs of interest to the editors of this page

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)

Blatant Wikicensorship

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)

Terminology section

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.
• See Antifa: Chasseurs de skins film (French) in 2008.
• The Russian movement also referred to as antifa in English.
• The Coordinadora Antifascista de Madrid (Spanish) using the antifa.es domain since 7 October 2010.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
• 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.
  • 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.

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)

References

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. 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. 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[17]. O3000 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References