Talk:Antifa (United States)

Incorrect Quoting
"Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."

Why is it worded like this? The article clearly says that they are highly decentralized and autonomous and the cited articles mention they are anonymous, but then uses word play to suggest that those who do perpetrate the bad acts aren't actually Antifa, but then says all antifa, and antifa members, all stand for the same thing and go about it the same way and if they don't they aren't necessarily antifa? The intent is questionable at best. You can't use such broad strokes and generalizations for all Antifa. The wording should be along the lines of "Some Antifa Members are known to protest using the following methods" or omit the word "some", you can't pick and choose what forms of protest are Antifa approved, there isn't some membership book that says who is and isn't antifa and retroactively revoke it when they do something that isnt "antifa approved" by a non-existent governing body. The preceding sentence states that (all) Antifa use *These Methods* but some people who identify as antifa use *These Methods*. I read the cited articles and none of them mention this facet, no paraphrasing or anything. It's a complete sentence making a bold and specific claim with no citation, or worse, an unrelated citation. HoadRog (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If there is no membership, then we cannot call anyone a member. United States anti-abortion movement says, "A small extremist element of the [pro-life] movement in the US supports, raises money for, and attempts to justify anti-abortion violence, including murders of abortion workers." Maybe the broader movement in both cases encourages violence and should be held responsible. But that's not for us to say. Instead, we report those claims with attribution to whomever made them. TFD (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This new editor has made 20 edits in all, the last edit being at Talk:Fake news 29 months ago. Doug Weller  talk 07:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And who made the claim? there is no citation for this. The writing says almost verbatim that members of Antifa do this but that some people who identify antifa do this as-well, why is there this distinction? What is the source for saying Antifa members take action A but some people who identify as Antifa take action B instead? What is the justification for making it a stand-a-lone sentence that insinuates that people who take action B might not be antifa but that ALL antifa take action A? It should be grouped in the sentence that came directly before it.
 * As with what you said, why not make it say, "Some/small extremist elements of Antifa are known to protest using (List methods)." HoadRog (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The writing says almost verbatim that members of Antifa do this but that some people who identify antifa do this as-well, why is there this distinction?
 * Er, no, it doesn't. It doesn't make a distinction, it specifcially uses people who identify as antifa precisely because it's a voluntary label, not a formal membership. You're reading a distinction that isn't there. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If membership is voluntary or self identifying, then why does the sentence that lists negative attributes prefaced with the self identifying moniker, but none of the preceding sentences are? Why is that not established earlier? It should be, "some people who identify as antifa take part in antifacist and antiracist political movements." If it's voluntary and self identifying, then I can easily provide anecdotal evidence that there are members of antifa that do not take part in antifacist and antiracist political movements by self identifying as Antifa. It's literally a no true Scotsman fallacy. Either give pretext for the entire article about this distinction clearly or don't do it at all. Shoe horning a disclaimer into a separate sentence listing negative actions taken by the group is disingenuous. The actions need to be added to the ones already listed, not made into their own without any independent main idea, the sentence exists only to say those actions are committed by some people who identify as antifa, hinting at them not actually being antifa. All the while the previous sentences make no mention of the self identifying characteristic of Antifa. If the group is self identifying, why is it only said in the fourth sentence, but the editor opted to not put it in the next or previous sentence about the exact same topic- actions taken by the group? Without a source, mind you. There should be a full complete sentence somewhere in the first paragraph noting this facet of Antifa, being that the group has no formal membership or that anyone can self identify voluntarily to be Antifa. And then remove the "Some people who identify as Antifa" part :) HoadRog (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it’s self identifying, then the first half of the sentence is redundant. You can’t say there is only one group when you also say “antifa” and then “some people who identify as antifa” you made two distinct groups by adding that to the sentence unnecessarily. If you want to say “antifa=people who identify as antifa” that must be said very early on in the article, and then pick which term you want to use throughout the article, either antifa or people who identify as antifa. If you absolutely want to use them interchan geably, and I can’t ever imagine why in good faith you would, you need to establish that they are the same when talking about them before you do. HoadRog (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So which source specifically says that? I read through all the sources on the citation and none of them have any wording similar enough to warrant this kind of paraphrasing. actually, most of the articles included suggest membership is tangible. In-fact, a verbatim quote from the ADL source listed in citation no.6 says:
 * "''While some antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces. They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence.
 * "Away from rallies, they also engage in “doxxing,” exposing their adversaries’ identities, addresses, jobs and other private information."
 * It needs to be re-worded. HoadRog (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a totally disingenuous read of those citations. Nothing about that suggests membership is tangible.
 * Also, resurrecting a section that's been dead for over 2 months is not a good look. WP:DEADHORSE applies here. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, i'm just bringing attention to the ongoing isuse. Even if you think membership isn't tangible, why did the paraphrasing from the ADL source include a part that the ADL did not mention? it's like a reverse omission to include it. The ADL word-for-word is "antifa members do this." not "some who identify as antifa members do this." Someone who made that intro took some "creative liberties" on the paraphrasing is all im saying. I'll leave it at that and hope another individual comes along and has an interest in the subject like, say, Mr. @The Four Deuces who was the first to reply on the topic. I will leave it there if you wish? HoadRog (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the ADL is, as a source, appropriately due for statements in Wiki voice regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you provided links so editors don't have to find the version of the article you are referring to or the ADL article used. TFD (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20180401085658/https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa
 * This is the source they used in the second to last sentence of the introduction. If you go to the 2nd and 3rd to last paragraphs of the ADL article it states that antifa members use doxing and violence among a few other tactics - not people who identify as antifa do.
 * ADL says: "While some antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces. They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence."
 * "Away from rallies, they also engage in “doxxing,” exposing their adversaries’ identities, addresses, jobs and other private information. This can lead to their opponents being harassed or losing their jobs, among other consequences. Members of the alt right and other right wing extremists have responded with their own doxxing campaigns, and by perpetuating hateful and violent narratives using fake “antifa” social media accounts."
 * The Wikipedia entry says:
 * "Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."
 * It's just odd to include the "Who identify as" part when the rest of the intro doesn't make that distinction. The preceding sentence and the proceeding sentence do not do so, and they deal in absolutes about what antifa stands for and does. HoadRog (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think this is necessary. Antifa is fundamentally anti-fascist (hence the name), but all people in Antifa don’t necessarily participate in violence. I dunno, I think it’s pretty simple. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Pacific Beach Events
Is the Pacific Beach "antifa trial" being covered anywhere on Wikipedia?

So many sources: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/03/17/san-diego-antifa-trial-also-scrutinizes-right-wing-media-andy-ngo/11482238002/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2024/mar/05/stringers-antifa-asks-for-names-of-embedded-cops-in-pacific-beach-violence/ https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2024/05/03/two-men-convicted-conspiracy-riot-violent-2021-pacific-beach-protest https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/04/02/antifa-trial-pacific-beach-proud-boys-rally/73184411007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/05/03/antifa-trial-in-san-diego/73563573007/ https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2024-05-03/antifa-trial-verdict-san-diego https://www.kpbs.org/news/public-safety/2023/11/03/defense-attorney-asks-judge-to-remove-san-diego-district-attorney-from-antifa-conspiracy-case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im6plFhjC_4 https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/trial-begins-for-two-men-allegedly-involved-in-pacific-beach-protest-that-turned-violent/ https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-begins-deliberations-in-san-diego-antifa-conspiracy-case/ https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2023-11-17/san-diego-district-attorney-stephans-antifa-conspiracy-disqualification-ruling Kire1975 (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not. Wikipedia isn't a news site. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We can cover it after the buzz dies down a bit. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * how is that fair tho? It's an actual event that is happening 213.233.85.208 (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I said this back in May, it's June now. Has the content been added in the meantime? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2024
An·ti·fa noun a political protest movement comprising autonomous groups affiliated by their militant opposition to fascism and other forms of extreme right-wing ideology. 2601:245:C480:2590:933:901C:70C2:C3D0 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Extremist organization
Antifa should have extremist in their description They took part in many violent atacks,from normal assaults to assaults with deadly weapons (the "bike lock incident") 213.233.85.208 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making a claim based on original research. It would be more compelling if you could point to reliable sources that use the terminology.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/08/eric-clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-berkeley-rally-bike-lock-assault-case
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/professor-charged-berkeley-trump-protest-assault/ (a trusted wikipedia source btw)
 * youtube video linked by cbs news
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg&ab_channel=SHUTTERSHOT (the incident in question WARNING  GRAPHIC CONTENT AHEAD)
 * should i provide more data on antifa's violent activities? 78.96.206.170 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not interested in the YouTube as it's not an RS or someone random person's label, neither of the reliable sources mention Antifa, and believe it or not, you can be a violent anti-fascist and have nothing to do with Antifa. And of course one person's actions can't label everyone in a movement, that would be like calling the old civil rights movement because one person, or even a number of people, were very violent. Doug Weller  talk 10:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your posts at Talk:White pride. Looks like you are on a bit of a mission. You seem to also be the IP who started that complaint. Doug Weller  talk 10:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * if you see any bias on my arguments please notify me of them so i can further learn from my mistakes
 * maybe i did a mistake when asking for a definition before stating its use by extremists groups but i didnt intend to justify discrimination in any way shape or form 78.96.206.170 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just as disingenuous however to omit violence that can be attributed to antifa. I agree the extremist prefix is a needed addition. The ADL sources already highlight that antifa violence is significant enough to be mentioned. Just because some antifa don't use violence doesn't mean the instances they do need exclusion from the article - harking back to the other discussion of a no true Scotsman fallacy, you know, the one where the editor lead the reader to the conclusion that violent antifa is not actually antifa. HoadRog (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Last year, police searched Clanton’s apartment and seized flags, pamphlets and other paraphernalia associated with Antifa and anarchist movements. He was arrested following the search, Berkleyside.com reported."
 * https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-professor-accused-of-hitting-trump-supporters-with-bike-lock-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-gets-probation.amp
 * His association with antifa is corroborated here. It's a high profile case. His use of Black bloc tactics and violence is also evidence of his affiliation with antifa. Neglecting to mention this high profile incident would be a serious issue for the writers & readers.
 * I would also add absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. antifa violence and black bloc in general is to make identification hard, so repeat violence is easier and consequence-free. HoadRog (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Was it "high profile"? Maybe on right wing social media, but not outside of that. Reliable sources have mostly ignored that one event, six years ago. If reliable sources treat that one event as a specific example of why antifa is "extremist", then propose those sources. One brief news article which barely even mentions antifa and says nothing about antifa's ideology or politics is useless. Your WP:OR about black block is also useless. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That reply and source were specifically to highlight Eric clanton as both a political violence user and antifa member, as a pertinent example of antifa violence that editors have argued doesn't exist or is insignificant. You talked past that.
 * Honestly I am losing a lot of respect for a cabal that charades itself as an unbiased encyclopedia. I don't know why Ideological bias on Wikipedia and Media bias in the United States that is well documented both anecdotally and academically is coincidentally ignored when it comes to writing contemporary articles. Editors generally don't turn over stones they think will challenge their confirmation bias. I advise you not to reply to this second paragraph to prevent derailing and further strawmanning and deflecting.
 * https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa
 * Extremist antifa exists
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/05/29/a-man-clobbered-trump-supporters-with-a-bike-lock-the-internet-went-looking-for-him/
 * WaPo covering the attacks
 * https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-professor-accused-of-hitting-trump-supporters-with-bike-lock-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-gets-probation.amp
 * Fox covering the attacks
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/professor-charged-berkeley-trump-protest-assault/
 * CBS covering the attacks
 * https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/26/eric-clanton-former-calif-professor-arrested-in-vi/
 * Another source covering the attacks
 * https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Eric-Clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-13142123.php
 * California based news site covering the attacks and also verbatim says the assault(s) "drew widespread attention" so that quip about it being a big deal only on "right wing social media" is moot and kind of speaks to a potential lack of wanting to do sub-superficial research. HoadRog (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think that source 5 also mentions that some  antifa members do take violent actions,  cited sources back my claim here 78.96.206.170 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't care. There's a narrative the editors are playing into. You can't change the article to be unbiased but you are welcome to try and make an edit request through the proper channels. If you are up for it, you can submit a new article covering the bike lock attacks. HoadRog (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead says "Antifa political activism includes non-violent methods like involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing. Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."
 * What parts of that do you think are not true?
 * Your sources are also pretty old. The Eric Clanton one is from 2017, one individual anti-fascist person out of many thousands, Antifa has no members, the sources don't say he is even an Antifa supporter so far as I can see, just an anti-fascist. Even the right wing Washington Times says "went viral in the days following clashes between Trump supporters and so-called anti-fascists."
 * Our MAGA article doesn't even mention violence - but there are a lot of sources out there that show it is often violent. Do you think there's no violence involving MAGA supporters? Doug Weller  talk 09:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So the lead supports the content and could use a tweek, seems to be what everyone is talking aboit so thsgs a nothing.
 * Old sources is a cop out and meaningless here, thats also about the age of most of the sources since Antifa kind of pettered out.
 * No true Scotsman is another tired argument, they have no members, everyone is a member, only a member if self identified, only a member of RS say very specific things, only if the RS says it and the person and their mother agrees, and so what worming around the point. But only if it's negatove.
 * Finally the broader article doesn't mention it but the article dedicated to the thing probably shoild. Again that is just an OtherStuff argument and means nothing for the content that should be here. PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @PackMecEng So we don't need sources to show someone supports Antifa and isn't just an anti-fascist? Doug Weller  talk 14:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said that? The issue is your interpretation of sources. PackMecEng (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said that? The issue is your interpretation of sources. PackMecEng (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Question about bias from sources
I’m new to the rules here, so I wanted to ask a question. Mark Bray is cited quite a few times in this article, but he clearly displays bias towards the movement. However, the source is quite comprehensive. My question would be does this constitute a conflict of interest or would his bias be irrelevant to the information he has provided about the movement? SuperSodiumalreadytaken (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict of interest, but there may be a bias due to his political leanings. If you think any of the sentences citing Bray's work may be affected by his own support for anti-fascism, make a case for it here. Yue 🌙 05:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)