Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 16

QAnon
Did anyone else who edited this page get weird messages on their talk page from an unregistered IP user, saying something like "you aren't safe" or "Qanon supporters get retweets and Antifa associates get the Patriot Act. God is good. <3"? I'm pretty sure QAnon trolls will heavily vandalize this page as this week progresses. Please remain vigilant for this. -- (talk)

Far-left
Some editors have recently changed the description in the lead describing anti-fascism as far-left rather than left-wing (which I already thought was pushing it), claiming that the documentation in reliable source of claims about antifa by Donald Trump - a ] - is the same as documentation by reliable sources. This is astounding ... and makes no sense. Opposition to fascism is no more far left (or even left-wing) than opposition to communism and Marxism is far right, or right-wing. Historically centrist parties on both the right and left have opposed fascism - let alone left-wing and far-left groups. I'd suggest the lead be fixed. Nfitz (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't conflate opposition to fascism with the Antifa movement. Those are not synonymous. There are many organisations that oppose fascism but are not connected with or sympathise with Antifa. Sjö (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion about the appropriateness of "far-left" in the lede at Talk:Antifa (United States) (or scroll up past the dozen or so edit requests). It would be sensible to keep discussion of this to that section. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nfitz Please don't bring your political views into Wikipedia. Sentiments like yours are usually the problem and source of conflict itself. And this has nothing to do with Donald Trump regardless. Numerous reliable sources describe ANTIFA as being far left. - Cement4802 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't mentioned my (generally centrist to centre-right) political views, User:Cement4802. Virtually every reference you restored quoted Donald Trump - don't pretend that this has nothing to do with him - also please review WP:CITEKILL; I'm glad to see that consensus has confirmed that far-left is inappropriate.. Thanks, User talk:Arms & Hearts ... I looked for a discussion and was surprised not to see it - I assumed the edit was too recent ... gosh ... almost need a separate page for the edit requests! Nfitz (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

ANTIFA is a HOAX
If this were not the case, you would find the group listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website listing of hate groups and terrorists as such.

Civil War re-enacters are not listed there either. Putting on a costume and taking part in a riot, blaming vandalism and other acts on the other side is nothing more or less than theater, to give credence to the idea that your opposition is instigating both political unrest and / or criminal activity.

Why there is even a Wikipedia page devoted to what basically is a reality TV tactic to boost ratings and fire up President Trump's base is testimony to the efficacy of the tactic.

Far left activists, if they do anything, only push for getting the largest number of voters registered to vote, where it is the far right tactic to try and suppress this, or provide an excuse for demonizing their opposition. Danshawen (talk)danshawen

I second the motion to have the entire text of the Antifa article permanently removed, or until or unless the SPLC agrees with identifying the group with left-wing activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danshawen (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * While the SPLC lists hate groups, it does not list terrorist groups per se. antifa is neither a group nor does it practice hate as defined both by the SPLC and U.S. legislation. TFD (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Evidence https://qz.com/1839337/new-evidence-links-civil-war-reenactor-to-fake-antifa-threats/ Danshawen (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)danshawen
 * So, your "evidence" is an article where one guy blamed Antifa for his own actions. That... does not constitute evidence the entire subject is a hoax. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Danshawen you can't second your own motion. Since you left the second unsigned were you attempting to pass as an anonymous user to create the illusion of support? Jaydavidmartin (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And on the subject of this section, obviously there should be an article for Antifa. It is mentioned in numerous reputable sources and at high levels of government. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Even if antifa had made the threats, it would not have met the criteria for hate. As the Hate crime article says, these can "include, and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation." Being a civil war re-enactor is not included. TFD (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The splc is hardly a reliable source for anything, let alone the sole deciding factor in domestic terror. AnticomWa (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The SPLC is considered a reliable source. You can take this to WP:RSN O3000 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:AnticomWa has been blocked as a sock of User:GirlishDriver. SPLC is certainly a reliable source, and is listed so at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Members" is generally inappropriate
as Antifa is a movement, although there are groups within it that presumably have members. The use of the word presents a false picture of the movement. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can be a "member" in a loose network. But "individuals involved" works too. --Pudeo (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of cleaning up the article to avoid "member" whenever possible. Of course it must remain within direct quotations or as otherwise used per cited source. NedFausa (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020
186.77.136.51 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Antifa is not a group of people. It is a political stance. If you are anti-fascism, you are antifa.

Well, it's a movement. But no, not everyone that is anti-fascist is a part of this movement. O3000 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
Wiki claims ANTIFA has not been involved with any murders, however multiple officers have been killed directly and indirectly by riots and violence incited by ANTIFA. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/retired-police-captain-shot-to-death-at-st-louis-pawn-shop-in-slaying-caught-on/article_d482138c-0224-5393-bd87-9898bebb3fd1.html

Why will no one attribute these murders to ANTIFA? At the very least, trying to imply they're not as violent as they are is being willfully misleading about this violent group who should also be labeled as an extremist group based on this sites own definition of extremist and terrorist organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism 67.3.143.182 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
The notes in the first sentence on this being left wing the resources cited are hearsay and unreliable 70.55.109.239 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: The purpose of the template is to alert a confirmed editor or administrator to make a change you are unable to make after consensus is reached. TFD (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
6.11.1.10 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC) The page is inaccurate and highly biased. It does not list all the violent extremist terrorist actions that Antifa has committed. It does not list the fact that they are in fact, and now labeled as such, a terrorist organization. When will Wikipedia stop being overtly biased, prejudiced and anti American?
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Labeled terrorist group
The US State Department recently declared and labeled ANTIFA a “terrorist organization”. I think it’s about time its added into the wikipedia. Ulriknicolaisen (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See: O3000 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See "Trump Can’t Designate Antifa — or Any Movement — Domestic Terrorist Organization" on factcheck.org debunking this latest conspiracy theory. Note that it was the DOJ not DOS. In the future, I suggest that you provide reliable sources before suggesting additions of text, because all text must be reliably sourced. Also, it helps to weed out the misinformation that people read that has no basis in fact. TFD (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do like the part of the source that says but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant anti-fascism groups. They got that right at least. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they got it right. We had a discussion here yesterday about umbrella in an edit of the lead that read Antifa is an umbrella term for a left-wing, anti-fascist political activist movement in the United States…. I agreed with, who said: "I don't think you can have an umbrella term for one thing – 'umbrella term' implies multiple things fall under the umbrella." Wiktionary confirms that the term covers a broad category of things rather than a single specific item. So FactCheck.org uses it correctly, writing that "Antifa isn't one organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant anti-fascism groups." (Emphasis added.) The distinction is applying umbrella to individual groups (plural) rather than to the movement (singular) as a whole. NedFausa (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Factcheck.org is hardly unbiased source, same for CNN and guardian. Amisderbi (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , both the community of Wikipedia and most of the rest of the world disagrees. Both CNN and the Guardian are respected outlets of journalism, internationally. If you want to challenge the reliability of these sources, take the issue to WP:RSN. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
Describing leftist as communism, Marxism, or others listed is not accurate. Those are political views in their own right and do not align with America’s “left wing” politics views. 71.36.127.134 (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This may shock you, but unlike the far-right, which has extensive literature, far-left is an ambiguous term that basically entails to mean more left than thou, usually to the left of social democracy, but not always; thus it may be used more as a pejorative whereas for the far-right there is a clear consensus on what it entails. For example, what is far-left? The left of the Democratic Party? The left of the Democratic Socialists of America? The left of the Socialist Party USA? The left of the Communist Party USA which has been criticised for not being left-wing enough?--Davide King (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This may shock you, but the IP user did not mention far-left. NedFausa (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was my impression that the IP was saying the ideologies are not left-wing as we write but far-left. My bad if I misunderstood. There was no need to repeat This may shock you though.--Davide King (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * True, there was no need for me to repeat "This may shock you"—just as there was no need for you to be patronizing towards the IP user. NedFausa (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, to clarify, that was certainly not my intention. I wrote that because it seems to be common to consider those ideologies and thus antifa as far-left (as can be seen by the several requests asking for us to use far-left) but that is not supported by sources as explained below by and thus may indeed come as a shock for those who do not know of its usage and meaning.--Davide King (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Both in the world outside the U.S. and academic writing in the U.S., left-wing means socialist, communist or anarchist. They would not call politicians whose base of financial support is Walmart, Amazon and other corporations left-wing. TFD (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PackMecEng (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata infoboxes should be avoided
Basically because there's no. Intros over them, no need for them to have reliable sources. If I had time I'd find a current discussion on them in another context, but I don't. In any case, infoboxes should reflect OUR article, not the views of Wikidata editors. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Content not supported by sources, self-published sources: needs to be taken care of, stat
In the lead section, there is an inaccurate description that says that the group encompasses adherents of "liberalism" (and the article is inaccurately classified in the "liberalism" category). But the great majority of the sources (including the cites that are used supposedly to support the statement (!) obviously counter that, e.g.:


 * Vox (Bray interview): "'They have no allegiance to liberal democracy': an expert on antifa explains the group ... As I said before, anti-fascists don't have any allegiance to liberalism"
 * WaPo (Bray article): "their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists."
 * WaPo (Lozada): "Conservatives or even moderate liberals who oppose fascism do not find a warm welcome."
 * NY Times: "Its adherents express disdain for mainstream liberal politics, seeing it as inadequately muscular, and tend to fight the right through what they call 'direct actions' rather than relying on government authorities."

There's also newly inserted cites to sources of insufficient reliability:


 * "Knouff, Matthew (2012). An Outsider's Guide to Antifa" &mdash; which is a self-published book published through the vanity press Lulu.
 * And there's also a new cite to a book called Antifa and the Radical Left which is also not usable (it is a book chapter, riffing on Reddit, by a self-described "freelance writer" cited to a publishing company, Greenhaven Publishing, that describes itself as primarily a publisher of "books on social issues for middle school and high school students.").

, or others, can you help take care of this? This kind of stuff needs to be removed without delay. It is illustrative of the influx of low-quality, or downright misleading content, that takes place whenever a new subject is in the news. Neutralitytalk 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. But, I'm up against 1RR at the moment. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and : Sorry to ping you, but since you've recently helped out on this article or talk page, could you please consider assisting on the above? The editor who repeatedly reinserted the above unsourced/badly sourced content is non-responsive, there's no consensus for any of this challenged material, and this is a high-profile article at the moment, so I think this needs more active intervention from others. Neutralitytalk 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I only added this article to my watchlist this weekend, and I'm not that familiar with it. I am looking into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, removed. I see it was added over this weekend and it is not supported. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And I've been reverted by, who should join this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The antifa page clearly needs work, particularly due to the increased traffic it is receiving after this weekend's events. Self-published sources, none of which I am responsible for, must be removed. As for the inclusion of liberalism as an ideology, I believe it should stay. Three (3) credible sources, which were cited long before this weekend, claim that while the entire American antifa movement and most international antifa movements hold no "allegiance to liberal democracy", some in the American antifa are liberals and subscribe to modern liberalism despite liberal anti-fascists often feeling unwelcomed. antifa is not a centralized group with one clear ideology (with the exception of anti-fascism). However, the inclusions of the liberalism category and portal may be unnecessary as it could be seen as not reflective of those entire movements.  (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : Three separate editors have objected to your edit, which is not supported by the cited source. Given that, there's clearly no consensus for inclusion of the challenged material (the onus of which it is on you to establish). Please remove the challenged text and the category. I would really prefer not to seek sanctions. Neutralitytalk 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted my edits. Now please read the sources that were cited or edit the Ideology and activities section which also makes reference to some members being liberals and social democrats. Thanks!  (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To the extent that there are some indications that "some members are liberals," that belongs (if at all) in the body. Neutralitytalk 03:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : The sentence in the lead about the movement's ideology has major problems. The references that state the members of the movement subscribe to the anarchism/anarcho-communism, communism/Marxism, and socialism ideologies are all from the aforementioned non credible Antifa and the Radical Left book — the only properly cited ideologies are anti-capitalism and social democracy. Should we remove this sentence? I feel that the rest of the article does seem to cover the movement's ideological aims pretty well.  (talk)
 * : I removed the Greenhaven Publishing-published and non-credible source. Feel free to re-add the content (hopefully with credible sources) if needed.  (talk)
 * : Antifa and the Radical Left is published by Greenhaven Press, which is not a self-publishing platform. NedFausa (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Has Greenhaven Press been deemed a credible source by Wikipedia? The discourse on this talk page makes it appear that it has not, though this may be incorrect. My apologizes for describing it as a self-publishing platform if that is not the case. BTW, NedFausa have you received any of these weird anti-ANTIFA, pro-QAnon messages? – I fear they will be followed by massive amounts of vandalism on this page.--Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Judging from their Wikipedia page, Greenhaven Press is a reputable publisher. If you have reason to suspect otherwise, please cite WP:RS. NedFausa (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The particular source being cited here is a random book chapter by a self-described "freelance writer" in an anthology of opinion published by Greenhaven, which describes itself as being geared toward a young audience. There's worse sources out there, to be sure, but it's not a top-quality source by any stretch. I would use it, if at all, only with in-text attribution. Neutralitytalk 14:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please sign your comment. -- (talk)

The Sullivan chapter in Antifa and the Radical Left is a republication of this piece in a publication called Rooster. I agree that it isn't a reliable source for contentious issues, as it's unlikely that a book consisting of reprinted online essays from minor publications could have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we require per WP:REPUTABLE. (I would say the same about the other essays in the volume, of which about half are pro-antifa, though it's possible that some are by experts or previously published in better sources.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of the arguments on the reliability of the article in Antifa and the Radical Left, I have removed the phrase "(particularly anarcho-communism)" from the second paragraph in the lead. While all of the other ideologies mentioned are corroborated multiple times in clearly reputable sources like The New York Times, The Atlantic, and the The Washington Post, the anarcho-communism claim is only mentioned in Antifa and the Radical Left.Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
The United States government has declared this organization a terrorist organization. It needs to be added to their bio. 73.120.250.228 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌: The United States government has not designated Antifa as a Terrorist organization. The article space already includes Trump's tweet that "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization," but that has not yet happened. NedFausa (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. Once something definite and significant happens, if anything at all does happen, then we can cover it. I sort of doubt that they will be quite hubristic enough to officially designate a completely non-existent "organisation" as a terrorist organisation but maybe they will designate some specific Antifa related groups which do exist and pretend that that is the same thing. Trump's tweet is, at, best vague and, at worst, incoherent. Until anything official happens we can't possibly predict what, if anything, will need to be added to the article so it makes sense to hold back for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

White supremacist tweet pretending to be Antifa, US gov't & designation, Antifa positions
See this. "A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of "Antifa" was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said Monday. The company removed the account."

"On Sunday, Trump tweeted he would designate Antifa a terrorist organization, despite the US government having no existing legal authority to do so."

"Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many people espousing those beliefs support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get out their messages." Doug Weller talk 09:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Was just about to come here and post same thing. When someone linked to the Twitter debacle yesterday citing only a Fox News article written by Gregg Re I was both mystified how this wasn't listed as an opinion piece, nor how the writer could be a lawyer, nor how his Twitter feed could be promoting so much un-journalistic content.
 * It is clear that for contentious content reliable sources needs to actually provide legitimate coverage, not merely barking out the content of a Twitter feed. Koncorde (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it should be in there as well as the fact that antifa had little if any participation in the demonstrations. TFD (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Physical violence" removed from lead
I have removed "physical violence" in the litany of defining characteristics of Antifa in the article lead. It is not verified by the cited sources.  SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Physical Violence" absolutely belongs in the lede. AntiCom88 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AntiComm88 has been blocked for having a racist username. Doug Weller  talk 18:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Also a sock - striking text Nfitz (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The removal has been reverted here. Please cite recent mainstream RS that verifies the instigation of violence by Antifa. If it "absolutely" belongs, it should be easy to provide such recent sources.  SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is supported by the mega cite in the lead [28]. For example some of them are CNN, AOL, BBC, and NPR. It is supported in the body by the Activities section. PackMecEng (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, actually those 3 year old citations do not support violence as a defining characteristic. You could help out here by citing specific text from recent RS sources, so that we can reconcile the conflicting views on this. I have found none.  SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree those citations are problematic. They are almost all explainers hurriedly published by poorly informed mainstream media sources when "Antifa" suddenly hit their radar in 2017. I think we are far better using better informed sources, e.g. actual experts, rather than see our old mega cite as eternally canonical. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are informed and widely accepted RS. You do not get to discredit RS for no policy based reason. Not how it works, full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My policy based reason is Remember that all breaking news stories are primary sources. They are, by definition, being published very close to the events that the document. Most breaking news stories from reputable news media are independent primary sources. "Independent" does not mean "secondary". Plan to replace all breaking news sources in the future with solid secondary sources. Just like the citations dated 1 June 2020 added to the lead today, the August/September 2017 sources added back then might be OK for specific facts -- but are poor for a measured characterisation of a complex movement in the lead, where we want to give a serious, considered assessment, which should be based on tertiary and really informed sources not on ephemeral news items. In the case of a contemporary political movement, that might be political scientists or contemporary historians. Are you really arguing that this or this are really the most robust sources we can find for the lead? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are not sources I cited so no idea why you would say I am arguing for them? Seems like you are setting up a straw man argument. Don't do that and perhaps you should strike the implication. But anyhow the sources that I actually did give are obviously robust sources that work just fine for the lead. You can try RSN I suppose, otherwise the long standing consensus version and sources will just have to do. PackMecEng (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue might not be that there's anything wrong with those sources per se, just that even better sources exist which contradict them. Mark Bray, for example, is quoted to that effect in the article ("The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent"). It's not unreasonable to think that a published expert on the subject is a better source than a CNN primer. But I haven't received the CNN etc. sources in any detail. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly right . Apologies if I appeared to be making any personal accusation. Just to recap, Specifico said we lacked recent decent sources; you replied that "the mega cite" in the lead was fine, highlighting three of the better refs in that cite; I suggested the mega cite (by which I meant the mega cite as a whole) is problematic as it is dominated by rushed and ill-informed primers. My point is not specifically about the sources you give, but about the sources in the lead in general, which I don't think are robust for the lead. I think we need better sources, e.g. actual academic experts. That's not a straw man argument. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * From the same book you also have him saying on page 169 the justifications for their use of violence. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging that they sometimes use violence and arguing that it's justified doesn't contradict the claim quoted above. "The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent" implies that a minor part of anti-fascist organising is violent. So I'm not sure what your point is. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Just that your source is kind of contradictory while noting above that most RS describe their use of violence. Given the sources in the lead and the strong support in the body do you think it is not something that should be in the lead? PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's a case to be made for removing it. But I don't have a specific proposal for how this issue should be covered in the lede or what sources should be cited. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fiddlesticks. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The removal should NOT have been reverted. This shouldn't even be discussed. Thia is exactly what i meant by the lede containing blatant lies. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the answer is to make it clear that they are mostly peaceful (given that Brey, who is an expert cited, emphasizes this fact.) The current list gives the impression that these things are all they do - which isn't really what the sources say - the other sources are biased a bit towards WP:RECENTISM / man-bites-dog coverage that naturally focuses on the most sensational parts, but even they don't directly contradict Brey on this.  Longer-term coverage means noting these aspects but avoiding giving them such overwhelming weight. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean not really. Most RS say they are violent, the fact that you found one or two sources that say they are only kind of violent does not really over rule the majority. We do not promote fringe viewpoints like that. PackMecEng (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This has been discussed in the past. In a July 2019 comment I listed many high-profile sources that detail the willingness to use violence which indeed is a defining character of "Antifa". Discounting sources like BBC because they're 3 years old is nonsense. Experts on extremism, the Anti-Defamation League, go into a lot of detail about violent tactics in their Who are Antifa? article. --Pudeo (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is absolutely no justification for removing "physical Violence" from the lede. AnticomWa (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , here is the context for that comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_10#Lack_of_mention_of_violence It was clear then that there was no consensus for what you argued, and and  gave strong policy-based objections to your suggestion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Blatant lies in the lede
"(...) Activists engage in varied protest tactics, including digital activism, property damage and physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.

Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-capitalist[29] views and subscribe to a range of ideologies such as anarchism (particularly anarcho-communism), communism and Marxism, socialism, and social democracy."

I'm sorry, but who wrote this. Sounds like somebody fox news would regurgitate on a slow news day. This is pure right wing propaganda and needs to be removed immediately. How wikipedia allows something like this is beyond me.46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it incorrect?—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 14:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For starters, it is. It also reads like something an alt right youtuber would write, and the citations link to a whole bunch of other citations, and a book of questionable reliability. This is propaganda. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * How would you rephrase it and please provide sources. TFD (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of the ideologies listed are corroborated multiple times in reputable sources (which I recently made easier to see by adding quotes to the references). But I think "(particularly anarcho-communism)" should be removed. It's mentioned only once in a book that is not well known, as part of an article written by a freelance writer who does not have bylines in notable political sources. I do not think it merits inclusion in this page. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * After seeing the debate in Talk:Antifa (United States), I've gone ahead and removed it. To several users the merit of the single source is debatable. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * On the sentence about tactics, all of the tactics mentioned are listed in reputable sources. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * False. As stated in the next section, those tactics, especially the "physical violence" part, are listed in three year old breaking news stories which are NOT reliable sources. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * (retracted). 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You should strike this comment or back it up with a report to WP:AIV. Accusations of vandalism without evidence are personal attacks and can result in you being blocked. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (retracted)46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Why the division by countries?
Why is there not a single article about antifa? As it is, there is Antifa (Germany) and Antifa (United States) and the general Antifa is just a disambiguation page. Yet, there are Antifa movements pretty much in every occidental country. Why divide pages according to countries this way? MonsieurD (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Post-World War II anti-fascism serve that purpose? Part of the issue is that, while there are anti-fascist groups in most places, they aren't necessarily known as antifa outside the U.S. and Germany. In the UK, for example, similar groups exist but the name isn't at all commonly used (though there was a group called Antifa, now defunct, mentioned in the Anti-Fascist Action article). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right A&H. The post-WWII article used to be called "Antifa" and then after a considerable tussle in the talk page in August 2017 it evolved into what it is now. See the talk page. I guess the Antifa page, now a disambiguation page, would be the place to discuss creating a new general article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Antifa members are trying to divide by countries because they are trying to argue that it cannot be listed as a terrorist organization because its not international. Which is wrong on both aspects

1) American groups are able to be considered domestic terrorists 2) Antifa is international as you can see by the antifa riots in London and other countries. Prefix-NA (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Antifa Riots in London? You mean the what the UK Daily Express, a pretty right-wing UK newspaper, calls the "George Floyd protests"? You've got an interesting way of describing them. The Daily Express has two articles that are relevant, one telling people where they can find the protests and calling them peaceful,, the other describing "Antifa' as meaning anti-fascist and saying this:
 * "The antifa movement in the United States is a militant, left-wing, anti-fascist activist movement.
 * Antifa groups are opposed to neo-Nazis, Neo-fascism, white supremacists and racism, and are often seen as having anti-government tendencies.


 * The movement is known for traditional forms of protest such as rallies, but are not opposed to violence."


 * Please show us a link or some reliable sources that says that the US has a mechanism for designating groups are domestic terrorists, and how that would work with a movement. Doug Weller  talk 09:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2020
"anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists. As we will see, anti-fascists have accomplished this goal in a wide variety of ways, from singing over fascist speeches, to occupying the sites of fascist meetings before they could set up, to sowing discord in their groups via infiltration, to breaking any veil of anonymity, to physically disrupting their newspaper sales, demonstrations, and other activities."

Source: Bray, Mark. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. , 2017. Print. Dance2it2 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is more accurate and sites a well researched source by a noted authority. Dance2it2 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done. The template is for uncontested changes and alerts someone with editing privileges to make a change that the proposer is unable to. You need to discuss the proposal first and get consensus. TFD (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Short description edit
I have removed the word "militant" from the short description as it does not appear to be supported by the content of the article. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Department of Justice has classified Antifa violence as "domestic terrorism"
From the DOJ itself: "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly." This belongs in the lead and is significant. It comes from the highest law enforcement agency in the United States. I am not sure why this article is trying to obscure this fact.Sy9045 (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because, as the US Government sinks further into tyranny, the reliability of the source becomes worse? Where is the link? Are there any sources in other countries that confirm this? Are they classifying Black Lives Matter a terrorist group as well? What does other "similar" groups mean? Surely anti-fascism is a movement or a philosophy - not a group. Nfitz (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Google doesn't seem to be aware of that quote. Link? O3000 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Google is hiding it of course. Here is the statement from Attorney General Barr. Katabatic03 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't make unfounded conspiracy nonsense here. O3000 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose adding this to the lead. Attorney General Barr's statement merely expresses his opinion, which does not carry the weight of law. The U.S. government has not classified Antifa as "domestic terrorists", nor is there any legal authority to do so. All of this is described in detail, with citations to reliable sources, in Section 6.1 of the article space. None of this is significant enough to rise to the level of the lead. We should wait for the Trump administration to actually do something about Antifa besides blustering to score political points in an election year. NedFausa (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of being divisive, we could compromise and say in the article that Barr has deemed it a terrorist organization, and that he ordered the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces to treat Antifa as such. Katabatic03 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting Barr's statement: The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly. He does not "deem" Antifa a terrorist organization. As for the task forces, here's what he stated: To identify criminal organizers and instigators, and to coordinate federal resources with our state and local partners, federal law enforcement is using our existing network of 56 regional FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF). He says nothing about ordering the JTTF to treat Antifa as a terrorist organization. I recommend you stop putting words in the attorney general's mouth. NedFausa (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Barr's opinion is of course bullshit, because Antifa is not an organization. It's the idea of being opposed to fascism. The trump administration trying to declare antifascists "domestic terrorists" (which will never happen besides the neonazi GOP making empty threats) is open admission that the United States is officially a fascist state. Something the rest of us normal people have known for years. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the personal opinion of William Barr, not a DOJ classification. It says more about the type of people Donald Trump surrounds himself with than it does about antifa. Incidentally, the determination of whether an action is an act of domestic terrorism is made by the courts not by the Attorney General, according to the U.S. constitution. We can of revisit the matter when and if the due process clause is repealed. TFD (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding this to the lead, as dealt with better in 6.1. We should avoid misleading words like "classify" or even "deem", and be clear that Barr's comment refers to the specific violence of recent days and not to "antifa" in general. In the appropriate section, we should also be clear he referred to "Antifa and other similar [un-named] groups". Particularly in relation to the lead, we should also be wary of recentism; we need to give the dust time to settle before even thinking about changing the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing sections
We should probably start collapsing the various edit requests mistakenly asserting that the U.S. has declared Antifa a “terrorist organization”, if not downright archiving them. It’s making this page difficult to read. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, an edit notice or consensus note would likely be helpful in avoiding at least some of these comments in the future. I doubt this is going to subside anytime soon. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an FAQ box at the top of this talk page to which this could be added, though I don't know if anyone ever notices it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Disputed addition of FBI report
I dispute the addition today to Section 6.1 by administrator of a leaked FBI report. This newly added content should be removed. The FBI report is specific to DC-area protests, which are not otherwise mentioned in Section 6.1. Including it serves nicely to make Trump, Barr, and O'Brien look venal, but does so dishonestly. NedFausa (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This new content appears immediately following statements by President Trump and National Security Advisor O'Brien blaming antifa, among others, for nationwide violence. Neither Trump nor O'Brien had blamed antifa in particular for violence in Washington, D.C. Yet here we have introduced an FBI report exclusively about the DC-area violence as if in rebuttal to Trump and O'Brien. That implication is bogus and violates WP:SYNTH.
 * also includes: The report did state that members of a far-right group on social media had "called for far-right provocateurs to attack federal agents, use automatic weapons against protesters". This sentence, which does not mention antifa, is entirely irrelevant.
 * Finally, inserts "Nevertheless" before Barr's statement and Trump's tweet as if either the attorney general or the president, or possibly both, knew of the FBI report beforehand and were disingenuously expressing themselves in spite of it.


 * In an effort to be accommodating, I've cut the material you've objected to in bullet points #2 and #3 (although I do think it is relevant). But bullet point #1 clearly belongs. The text clearly references "the FBI's Washington Field Office" and "D.C.-area protests" so I don't see how any reader could be confused into thinking that it's necessarily applies nationwide. If we are going to include (at length) the broad-brush claims of Trump and administration officials, then it makes obvious sense to include the well-sourced mention of the FBI report. If Trump, Barr, etc. had explicitly said that "antifa" was not involved in DC, then maybe we would omit the text here.  But they made very broad statements blaming antifa for violence. To omit text that (as the source reflects) at least partially undermines this assertion would not serve NPOV. Neutralitytalk 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For what is worth it, I agree and think that Neutrality's argument is reasonable. While there is no mention of antifa in that quote, I think it may still be warranted and worth adding, for it is related to antifa insofar as the main body discusses hoaxes and other attempts by the far-right to undermine antifa.--Davide King (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * so you admit that your intention is to "at least partially undermine" the statements of Trump, Barr, and O'Brien? That is appalling. I am sometimes ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. NedFausa (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : Please don't mischaracterize the words of others or personalize disputes. As I indicated above, the text, as supported by the reliable source, does undermine the administration's claim. It has nothing to do with "my intentions" but about being faithful to the source material, which says (link: "Trump wants to designate antifa a terrorist organization, despite lack of authority and evidence of wrongdoing" and refers to the FBI being unable "to substantiate antifa involvement in the violence." Neutralitytalk 17:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ned, that is actually pretty neutral, given the sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's a fine piece of 2+2=Eleventy right there. Guy (help!) 21:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that makes perfect sense to me. Guy (help!) 21:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

June 4 Barr quote
I undid the addition of the quote: diff. My rationale was: "undue and unfiltered comment by an involved gov official". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Adding for clarity: by "rationale", I meant the edit summary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is your rationale within quotation marks because it's taken verbatim from a Wikipedia policy or guideline? If so, I'd appreciate a wikilink. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that was my edit summary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. In that case, please provide a wikilink to the Wikipedia policy or guideline upon which you base your rationale. NedFausa (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see this is going to be like pulling teeth. You've linked me to a body of text consisting of 833 words. Could you possibly be a tad more specific? Like, for example, pointing out the part that applies to undue and unfiltered comments by an involved gov official. I'd really appreciate your help with this. So far our discussion has been pretty one-sided. NedFausa (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote was added by another editor, and I reverted, providing what I thought was a clear edit summary, and, upon request, the associated policy. The onus in this case is on them to explain why this material belongs in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote was added by .--Davide King (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

After added the reliably sourced content in question, I inserted a 3-word claim of evidence, increasing the direct quotation attributed to United States Attorney General William Barr from 28 to 31 words. then removed it. Previously in that same paragraph, a total of 16 words, in three separate quotations, were attributed to the same AG Barr. No editor objected to that content as being undue and unfiltered comment by an involved gov official. Yet has used that peculiar rationale to justify his removal of Barr's latest statement, which is entirely germane to the paragraph from which  purged it. This new content adds value and perspective to the preceding sentence, which describes an FBI report stating there was no evidence of Antifa involvement in the violent May 31 D.C.-area protests. Following that uncontradicted assertion with Barr's claim of evidence is fully justified by WP:NPOV. I request consensus to restore Barr's June 4 statement.

NedFausa (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While I think it should be mentioned, it should be paraphrased and sourced to a secondary source. When you present an opinion without any commentary, it makes it appear as if it is definitive. It's likely that Barr is exaggerating because there just aren't that many antifa members out there. TFD (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Are you saying that ABC News is not a secondary source? NedFausa (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A direct quote is always a primary source, wherever it is taken from. The ABC article does not just quote the AG but comments on it. If you wait a couple of days, the media will explain the degree of credibility that Barr's comments have received. But even today, they point out that the only people arrested for planning violence were far right. TFD (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would a paraphrase, sourced to ABC News and/or to Reuters, with a minimal 9-word direct quotation work for you?
 * On June 4, however, Barr said he had evidence that antifa, other extremist groups, and individuals of assorted political leanings were "involved in instigating and participating in the violent activity."
 * NedFausa (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm mildly surprised that this became a source of controversy. I think it's useful to include a mention of what Barr said yesterday so as to make clear that the administration's efforts to connect the protests and riots to antifa have been persistent and that Barr's initial comments weren't a one-off. Barr's comments were widely reported: see also Reuters, Fox, Guardian. I've no objection to rephrasing the sentence to avoid direct quotation, or expanding or contracting the extent quoted, if anyone feels strongly that that's preferable. I'm genuinely puzzled by your invocation of WP:UNDUE: are you saying that Barr's remarks on behalf of the DoJ and federal government are a statement of an insignificant minority viewpoint? (To be fair, they doubtless do reflect the views of a minority, but the minority that runs the country is surely a significant one. Perhaps the policy needs to be revised to offer a solution to that problem.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Umbrella term" etc
I don't think this edit gets it quite right. I don't think you can have an umbrella term for one thing – "umbrella term" implies multiple things fall under the umbrella. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I agree, and have removed "umbrella term" from the lead. NedFausa (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure Arms & Hearts did not mean removing this. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please let speak for himself. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, describing this is a single movement (singular) is misleading when the same phrase on the page tells "comprising autonomous activist groups that aim to achieve their political objectives". My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not misleading. A single movement encompasses many groups. Abolitionism in the United States comprised scores of groups, and the Civil rights movement had hundreds. Antifa in the United States is a singular movement. By contrast, Antifa worldwide consists of multiple movements. NedFausa (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, according to PBS, for example, ("What is Antifa?"), this is an " umbrella term for far-left-leaning movements that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations. . "Movements". My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from the lead, our article refers to Antifa USA as a movement 19 times. Not once do we mention Antifa "movements" (plural) in the United States. Our sources likewise adhere to the singular. For example, ADL refers to "the anti-fascist protest movement known as antifa." (Emphasis added.) Are you proposing that, contrary to the preponderance of reliable sources, we pluralize all 19 occurrences of "movement"? NedFausa (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's worth taking steps to avoid giving the impression of a monolithic movement, but would also note that it's not incoherent (though it might seem old-hat) to speak of a movement of movements. WP:REFERS is also worth bearing in mind here: whenever possible we should prefer ledes like "Antifa is xyz" to "Antifa is a term referring to xyz", though it's also possible that this is an exception to that rule. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Leading statement in section on activities
The statement "In August 2017, antifa counter-protesters at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia "certainly used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists"" is a correct and direct quote however it picks and chooses a specific part of the paragraph in the source material. It should either be removed or should be coupled with the rest of the paragraph in the source ending "Other counterprotesters included nonviolent clergy members."


 * Not sure who made this comment but I think I agree.BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the hyperbolic "certainly" and attributed the direct quotation. However, I disagree that the sentence should be removed. It must be read in context of the paragraph as a whole, which presents a narrative that is, if anything, overbalanced in favor of making Antifa look heroic. NedFausa (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Description of logo/flag in lead
We already mention anarchism and communism in the lead, for a start. And there's nothing in in WP:LEAD which justifies the pretty pointy mention of them again by describing the logo and flag. This really shouldn't be worth arguing about, let alone making what looks like an attack on another editor in an edit summary. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * if you think my saying that I'm not a communist or an anarchist is original research I'm not at all sure you understand our policies. It was also clearly a comment on the reason why the previous removal was reverted, ie "Reinstating info which has been in the lede for a long time but which an editor whose talk page declares an allegiance to Anarchism deleted". You didn't even mention my actual reason, which was that it doesn't qualify for WP:LEAD and is too pointy. Nor did you have the courtesy to post here justifying its inclusion, or do you not understand that verifiability isn't sufficient for inclusion?  Doug Weller  talk 15:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your full rational was I'm certainly not an anarchist or communist and I don't think this belongs in the lead, it's too pointy. The majority focusing on your personal experiences which is not super helpful as you know. The vauge I don't think this belongs or something about pointy are equally not very helpful. Perhaps you are to close to the subject? You are already edit warring on the article which is not a good look for an admin and I suggest you stop now. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This got caught in an edit conflict: Ithought that "It was also clearly a comment on the reason why the previous removal was reverted," was clearly not a reason for my edit, I don't know how I could have explained that so that you could understand it. Have you ever read WP:LEAD? Thanks for the suggestion but I'm not edit-warring, just trying to fix something that hadn't been noticed in the past. Doug Weller  talk 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is under 1RR and you made two reverts. Have you read WP:1RR, because it doesn't look like it now does it? PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. Boscaswell, the user in question, was referring to me to attack me and it was not the first time. Anyway, I also gave the same reason as argued by Doug Weller. Now PackMecEng reinsertated and moved it at the end, so at least it does not read as being too pointy, but that does not mean it is lead worthy.--Davide King (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think it is to much for the lead would you rather move it to the history section or the like? PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably the history section. Doug Weller  talk 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, you seem to have missed how the same apply to Bascaswell; this is not a valid reason either and is actually even worse because it is a personal attack against me (second time) and contains false information (both of me being an anarchist and that I removed it from the lead when it was not even there in the first place). By the way, that is already mentioned in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We already say [b]oth the name antifa and the logo are derived from the German Antifa movement in the lead; anything else related to this can go in the man body. We also have two pics that make the same point. Either way, my main issue was the way the phrase was structured, making it overly long and too pointy; now you moved it in a more appropriate paragraph and without making it either too long or pointy, which is better.--Davide King (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

One reason to oppose that addition to the lead, besides being undue or as argued by Doug Weller, is that the edit was done to prove a point in relation to this comment by Boscaswell. It basically was a point to prove that antifa is far-left because the flag's colours of black and red are used to represent anarchism and communism, therefore antifa is far-left.--Davide King (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

'Militant' in the lede
'Militant' is now contested in the short summary.

My edit on this topic was reverted by citing WP:ONUS and denying a prior consensus on its inclusion.

That can actually be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_4#Militant_description_in_lede

It seems fairly uncontroversial, providing a multiplicity of sources meeting WP:VERIFIABILITY, some discussion, with a final request for objections, returning confirmatory feedback. A consensus should be sought to remove it if it is now contested. Watchman21 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the current version of the lead (after the edit by JzG), "Activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against people whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.". JzG did not exclude it. Should it be there? First, this suppose to be a summary of the body of the page. Is it? After looking at Activities section, I am not sure. Did they actually assault or killed someone, which would result in criminal cases? If they do it systematically (sources?), then the description in the lead was correct. But I do not see it. Hence I believe phrase above must be either excluded from the lead or re-worded. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus refers to its inclusion in the WP:LEADSENTENCE.
 * At the time it was already mentioned (several times it seems) in the body of the lede. Watchman21 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems well supported by RS. Also was discussed previously to some extent here. It is how a lot of RS describe them so we should just follow the sources. PackMecEng (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, it's been a consistent feature of the short summation for years, without much controversy. Watchman21 (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see certain claims, but if they did it, where the criminal cases against them? My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The CNN article says, "Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across." It doesn't say antifa is militant. The problem I have with the term is that it can mean different things. As the Wikipedia article correctly notes, "Militance may or may not include physical violence, armed combat, terrorism, and the like." The article on al Qaeda uses the term militant as a euphemism for terrorist. It's a word we should avoid unless it is clear from the context what it means. TFD (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is simple. One should make fair summary of content in the Activities section of this page. That phrase in the lead above does not do it at all. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see much ambiguity or discrepancy on its common usage or definition. At least not enough to prohibit its use in an encyclopedic text.
 * Oxford: "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause"
 * Cambridge: "active, determined, and often willing to use force"
 * Collins: "aggressive or vigorous, esp. in the support of a cause"
 * MacMillan: "using extreme and sometimes violent methods to achieve political or social change"
 * Wikipedia: "vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"
 * Your wikipedia quote is an etiological laundry list (ie. speculation on mechanisms by which militancy can arise).
 * That means you can't really refer to it as evidence that the term is ambiguous. Watchman21 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's ambiguous in the sense that it may mean that they use violent methods or it could mean they don't. If your objective is to convey the message that they are violent while maintaining plausible deniability, then its the phrase to use. It's like when Trump says that Ted Cruz looks like the Zodiac killer, then says he was just making an observation not making a claim. As editors we should ensure that articles are clear and unambiguous and not try to imply information that is not reliably sourced. Now you may believe that antifa are left-wing fascists funded by George Soros. But we cannot say or imply that without reliable sources supporting it. TFD (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See above for multiple RS using the term as something that defines Antifa. I mean sometimes they use violent methods and sometimes they do not. Heck the rest of the lead lists violent and non-violent things they engage in so again I am not sure why this would be controversial? PackMecEng (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , so some sources call them militant at least some of the time. The question is, do those sources routinely use the term? What's the balance of sources? I think it's hard to unambiguously establish anything other than generally leftist (and even that is tricky). Guy (help!) 21:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If ideas like 'tendency' are too ambiguous for academic work, you'd also need to throw out induction, agency, modal operations, aesthetics, preferences, counterfactuals, the wave function (probably) and many other things in which deterministic certainty is unnecessary or impossible.
 * That's clearly not true for the public at large or among academics. Watchman21 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, writing show always be unambiguous and we should not take advantage of ambiguity to present information we know to be unsupported by reliable sources. That's the difference between encyclopedic and alarmist, polemical writing. TFD (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have a brief read through the other articles on wikipedia. Do you think every statement on this website should be expounded to some measure of statistical confidence? Watchman21 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , depends if they are WP:LABELs and whether there is broad consensus over it. Most RS on climate change deniers will use some variant of climate change denier whenever they describe them. Here, a lot of sources seem to discuss the movement without using anything that could be parsed as synonymous. The secret is always to try to falsify your claim and find sources that contradict militant.
 * Most of the sources I can find point out that the majority of Antifa protesters are peaceful. ADL, for example, scarcely a leftist source - but then, [https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-antifa-in-america-militant-anti-fascism-isn-t-terrorism-it-s-self-defense-1.7425726 Haaretz says "militant anti-fascism". I think the best thing is to set your searches to look only for sources prior to May 1 this year.
 * Perhaps the best course is to say that they are often characterised as militant. That's easy to agree with. Guy (help!) 21:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are the quotes concerning peaceful protest in the ADL source:
 * Quote 1 sets antifa apart from the ranks of peaceful demonstrators and discusses their militancy.
 * Most people who show up to counter or oppose white supremacist public events are peaceful demonstrators, but when antifa show up, as they frequently do, they can increase the chances that an event may turn violent.
 * Quote 2 establishes a semantical boundary between antifa and the 'majority of peaceful individuals'.
 * Another concern is the misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries. It is critical to understand how antifa fit within the larger counter-protest efforts. Doing so allows law enforcement to focus their resources on the minority who engage in violence without curtailing the civil rights of the majority of peaceful individuals who just want their voices to be heard.
 * Quote 3 illustrates antifa militancy again. It's unclear whether some antifa followers could be counted among the ranks of peaceful 'counter-protestors'. Bearing quote 2 in mind this seems questionable. And at the very least it's unquantifiable.
 * In Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists, antifa activists have aggressively confronted what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups. While most counter-protestors tend to be peaceful, there have been several instances where encounters between antifa and the far-right have turned violent.
 * The article actually appears to be a critique setting out to disparage antifa. Watchman21 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know. The group seems very heterogeneous. Some are militants, others not so much. Googling for Antifa AND militant using advanced search finds 472,000 results ($DEITY alone knows how many usable and unique) versus 23,000,000 for antifa NOT militant. So on a strictly numerical Google-based nose count, fewer than 2% of sources that talk about Antifa use the term. I don't know how meaningful that is. Yes, one can quote-mine RS and find articles that call them this, but in the same RS there are more that do not. Do we have any actual books ont he movement? Guy (help!) 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We could quote everyone's favorite Antifa book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray. Page 62 describes historical Antifa in Italy as the militant antifa organizing model or page 196-200 that talks about militant Antifa like the presence of militant antifa could make others less likely to organize against the far right. PackMecEng (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think we both know those quotes don't label the entire movement as militant, which is the question here.
 * Often described as militant: accurate.
 * A disparate group of people, including militants: accurate.
 * A militant movement: contentious, and contradicted by sources that go out of their way to point out that many protesters are peaceful.
 * It's not A or B and nothing else. There are many values of C that we have not yet explored. Guy (help!) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I could get behind a wording that does not label the whole group as such. I agree that not everyone involved or every cell is militant, but I think a not insignificant portion are. PackMecEng (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can find a statistical source (preferably from an accredited journal) I think that may have more traction than a simple tally off a google search. Watchman21 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not looking for "traction". I am trying to work out whether it is acceptable to say, in Wiki-voice, that this is a militant group, when a very large majority of sources don't use the word. See above for my suggestion. Guy (help!) 21:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to appraise linguistic usage, a basic numerical tally won't be much use. It'll be skewed by stylistic and pragmatic differences between your sources (and various other factors) that you first need to correct for. Watchman21 (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, the term militant is ambiguous and the meaning is normally conveyed through context. A Trotskyist group within the Labour Pary for example called itself Militant. By that they meant they had strong views on social issues and the only law-breaking was refusing to pay the poll tax. OTOH, al Qaeda is militant because they fund insurgencies and terrorist attacks. Readers understand that Militant does not engage in terrorism, while al Qaeda's militancy goes beyond refusing to pay taxes. If no reliable sources say that antifa is a terrorist group, we should not imply that it is. It doesn't make sense anyway to mislead readers about groups we oppose, because that makes readers question everything we say about them. Incidentally Trump supporters have injured numerous people at their rallies, but we don't call them militants. TFD (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a lot of WP:OR and whataboutism there. PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is rare case when I agree with TFD: "militant" can mean a lot of different things, from outright terrorists to "militant atheists". This is just a label to avoid. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." As for whataboutism, it doesn't matter what you are deliberately attempting to misrepresent the sources or genuinely believe that you are following policy and guidelines. I explained why you are not. Specifically, the word you want to enter is open to interpretation and hence does not clearly reflect the sources. TFD (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so much actually. Please see the multitude of sources above that directly contradict your unsourced assertions. We follow RS around here and that is how a lot of RS describe them. Again my arguments are based on policy and RS, yours are not. PackMecEng (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did you write "Sounds like a lot of WP:OR" when OR is about what is in the article not discussions on the talk page? TFD (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you were doing original research and if we were to apply what you are suggesting to the article it would not fly because of that. Yes, technically speaking OR does not apply to talk pages, but the purpose of talk pages is to generate content for the article. So if that is the goal OR is less than helpful since it cannot be used for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I get it, you are determined to include "militant" with absolutely no equivocation whatsoever. I oppose that. I support including "militant" with equivocation, because that is my reading of the sources. It is completely normal to count search hits when deciding whether a term should be hedged or not in the lead of a Wikipedia article, because we need to know if a WP:LABEL is the consensus view, a majority view, a minority view, or a fringe view. You can find a RS for all kinds of labels that would fall into "thing RS said once" category. In other words, by saying a thing in Wiki-voice, are we ourselves making the judgment?
 * Since something like "often described as militant" is unquestionably accurate, but "militant" without equivocation is obviously contentious, I'd suggest you might want to bend slightly on this because in an "A or B only" scenario you probably don't get what you want, whereas if we include some value of C - a qualified statement - you basically do. We call this "compromise", and it's something Wikipedia used to do before everything became tribal. Guy (help!) 08:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Any idea what that means and please phrase your reply without using OR? TFD (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All you've done here is provide examples in which the proposition of the term is stretched to the semantical fringes.
 * It looks misused (or perhaps even used figuratively) in the case of the Militant Trotskyists. That's not a criterion for exclusion, unless we consider the term 'Democratic' no longer meaningful because the DPRK uses it more creatively than we're used to. Nor is it tenable to reject a term because its proposition can be expressed to varying degrees, with or without context, otherwise you'd be ablating most of contemporary English.
 * If you want to show that the term is not meaningful without context, what you need is a systematic review on common contemporary usage. That's pointless if every word reference we've looked at so far conveys the same basic proposition. Watchman21 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is pretty obvious to most people that "militant" is a term that changes meaning in context, for example if if is used as a noun ("anti-fascists militants") or as an adjective, and if it is used as an adjective on what word is qualifying. I don't object to the word "militant" in the lead, but it matters how we use it. For example, antifa could legitimately be called "militant anti-fascists" or as using "militant tactics", but I would object to them being called "militant left-wingers". I'm also not sure what the word "militant" adds to the lead that's not already there; nobody seems to have explained that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Militant" tells nothing. This is just a label to avoid. What are their actual deeds? Assaults? Terrorism acts? Convictions of their members? Peaceful demonstration? Whatever they actually do, this should be described in the body of the page and summarized in the lead. Also, can someone please explain what is the difference between Anti-Racist Action and Antifa? My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right"
I would like to discuss this wording again as when I did last time, it did not got any response. I think we should make clear that antifa's actions are indeed directed against right-wing extremists and not merely against anyone they think or believe to be. For example, that wording may be true for the German Antifa which seems to be subscribing to the social fascist theory and may consider fascist not only the far-right, but it doesn't seem to be true for this antifa which includes social democrats. Considering the hoaxes perpetrated against antifa and how the far-right and white supremacists pretend to be antifa, I think it would be helpful to clarify that wording. For instance,, wrote: I don't find a problem with the source. The ADL article says, "Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life." While that could be re-worded in a neutral tone, the essence is correct: antifa counter-demonstrate far right demonstrations and argue with the far right online. I note too that the ADL calls the objects of harassment "right-wing extremists," while this articles refers to them as those whom antifa identify as such. We should accept the ADL description.--Davide King (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that in a way it's casting doubt on their judgment, but it's also clearly neutral per WP:NPOV. Won't this have some WP:BLP implications, since for example Tucker Carlson is mentioned in this article as a target of their direct action, and he's not a right-wing extremist? --Pudeo (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment. Of course there are going to be instances like these, where antifa activists, real or pretenders, involve direct action against people who are neither fascist nor racist, but those seem to be isolated; and while it should be considered, in that specific case it seems to be related to the antifa group Smash Racism D.C. and racist is included in the lead, not just right-wing extremist. Considering the name of the group and Carlson's views on race, I don't think it would have those implications. I'm not arguing that anyone attacked by antifa is a right-wing extremist (antifa is not an organization and individuals have pretended to be part of it to cause negative reactions towards antifa, so we would probably never known whether those who attacked someone that sources describe as not being fascist, racist or otherwise an extremist were really antifa or a pretender, or something else) but we should make clear when sources refer to those targeted as correctly identified by antifa as such. Either way, I think we can have a better wording to reflect that their targets are most of the time indeed right-wing extremists or racists, without implying that there may be rare exceptions. In my comment back in November 2019, I highlighted how in the main body those targeted were indeed far-right or sources have described as being racist or extremist when discussing it, for example the ADL calling the objects of harassment indeed right-wing extremists.--Davide King (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly it should be stated as 'whom ANTIFA consider fascist, extreme right wing etc etc.' Views on what is fascist are completely subjective - often in the west - a mundane middle ground policy, business or politician is labelled as fascist by ANTIFA aficionados - despite the label being illogical.Reaper7 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Except sources clearly discussed the targeted views and that often times it matches with that of antifa:
 * [...] February 2017 Berkeley protests against alt-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos
 * "far-right group Patriot Prayer's" and "far-right activist Joey Gibson"
 * [...] 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 "certainly used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists"
 * [...] Berkeley protest on August 27, 2017 [...] to confront alt-right demonstrators
 * [...] February 2019 [...] Stone Mountain, Georgia as a white supremacist, neo-confederate rally planned [...] was cancelled
 * Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists [not those whom antifa identify as such] both online and in real life
 * --Davide King (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. Doctors treat patients, but sometimes they mistreat them. Police uphold the law, but sometimes they break it. Note that Carlson is publisher of the The Daily Caller which publishes articles by by far right personalities. TFD (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support 's proposal. It seems to me to stray into MOS:SCAREQUOTES and WP:WEASEL territory to say "those whom they consider". As per TFD, we don't say "the police arrest those they consider to be criminals" (even though sometimes the police arrest non-criminals). We don't say Anti-communism is "a political movement and ideology opposed to people it considers to be communist". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There was a past discussions that covered this here which made the point that several RS identify cases where they misidentify people. Which is why a clarifier is needed, as noted above it could also have BLP implications. Something to the effect of well they attacked so and so, clearly they must be one of X bad group. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no mention of that in the main body and I think and ' above comments stand still. Maybe we could simply add that sources agree with most, many, whatever antifa's identifications, but that there have been cases where they misidentified people; even in the latter cases, was it really antifa or was it a far-right in disguise to give the movement bad publicity, or neither of the two? Something to the effect of well they attacked so and so, clearly they must be one of X bad group seems to be your own assumation, but I agree with The Four Deuces' statement I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. All actions listed in Notable actions include some far-right or something to that effect; the only exception may be Carlson, but that was related to racism, not specifically to fascism or right-wing extremism; and Carlson's view on race have been controversial. Also, as pointed out by The Four Deuces, Carlson is publisher of the The Daily Caller which publishes articles by by far right personalities.--Davide King (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But sources do take note when they screw up, which appears to be often. For example attacking Bernie supporters, attacking a Jewish man, and 2 Mexican-American Marines. I think it is important to note that who they attack appears to be largely subjective and the consequences of those attacks have real impact on the innocent victims. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still believe and ' comments apply; accidents happen. Why do you claim who they attack appears to be largely subjective? Why would not those be the exception rather than the norm as you seem to be implying? You wrote that sources do take note when they screw up, which appears to be often but if that was true, especially the often part, surely that would be reflected in the main body? It is not though; and I can only assume good faith and say that those are considered undue. The non-organisational nature of the movement, the oftentimes use of alleged and the fact that the far-right and others have pretended to be antifa or promoted hoaxes about antifa makes it more difficult. However, many sources also confirm antifa's identifications; you can see that in how many incidents in Notable actions include far-right or similar qualifications used by sources rather than merely being identified as such by antifa. Anyway, I hope Bobfrombrockley, The Four Deuces and others can reply back too to get more input and feedback.--Davide King (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah not really. I mean I gave RS supporting that part if you think it is undue for the body well okay, that is not really relevant to this discussion though. Until then I suppose we should stick with the long standing consensus version. I am not seeing any compelling arguments to change are you? PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah not really what? I did not say I think it is undue but rather that, assuming good faith, the reason why it is not included is probably because it is considered undue. As you can see from the main body, we do not cite every incident involving antifa and this was already discussed many times for why several incidents were left out and so on. Well, I think and  gave some compelling arguments which I believe warrant some discussion. There is also evidence of individuals pretending to be antifa and of hoaxes, some of which are discussed in the article, so I think that should be considered, but you do not seem to consider that at all and seem to believe most of the time antifa misidentifies people.--Davide King (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great find a source that relates people pretending to be Antifa to the sources I gave. I do not think that is a thing for those, so nothing to consider. Also I have to ask are you going to ping them in every post? PackMecEng (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure, it's subjective. They should first check on the central register of fascists, to make sure the person they are targeting is a genuine Nazi. Guy (help!) 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So we have three examples of antifa actively attacking people they mistakenly thought were far right and one example where they protested someone who is a friend of the far right but probably not a member. But there are according to the Wikipedia article 200 antifa groups, each of which have numerous members and they each have attended many demonstrations. So really we are saying that since they are only 99.9% correct, we need a qualification. It seems like a red herring to me. Does anyone question that white supremacists, anti-Semites and racists are far right? Normally we report what reliable sources say without our own editorial comment. TFD (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How about their numerous attacks on the press or left wing groups that disagree with them? RS seem to document it frequently enough to be something to worth a distinction. PackMecEng (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a policy against original research. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." The ADL does not reach the same conclusion as you, that antifa carries out numerous attacks on the press and left wing groups. You need a reliable source that says that. We don't put in the lead of Police officer that they frequently shoot innocent people because although it happens it is not a typical function they perform. TFD (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I agree about that. None of the given sources use such wording nor do they dispute that antifa is engaging against fascists, racists and those on the far-right, so the wording should reflect this rather than somehow implying antifa just goes attacking anyone who disagree with them. AOL includes this:
 * ""In our research, we determine someone to be a fascist, Alt Right, White Nationalist, etc. based on which groups they are a part of and endorse," said a group member. "Nazis, fascists, white nationalists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes are specific categories, even if they overlap or are subsets or each other. Our main focus is on groups and individuals which endorse, or work directly in alliance with, white supremacists and white separatists. We try to be very clear and precise with how we use these terms.""


 * And yes,, I do not see why I should not ping at least once users when I mention them in my comments so that they can get a notification and be able to reply or correct me if I wrote anything wrong or that they disagree with.--Davide King (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD I gave sources above but sure here is a source for attacking police and the press. Also please read and internalize WP:OTHERSTUFF. What happens in the lead of another, unrelated article does not matter here. If you want to take up that fight over there, well go right ahead. Davide the difference is you are just repeating that I agree with them and pinging them over and over. Not really making a statement or asking for clarification, more seems like calling for backup. But eh was just curious which it was. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, forgive me for English not being my first language and not being a trained debater; I am just not good at those things and I believe other users can explain my point better than I could, which they did; and also because Bobfrombrockley did not reply to yours and other objections, so I am curious to hear that. However, you claiming I am not really making a statement is misleading if not outright false as I literally wrote in the above comment None of the given sources use such wording nor do they dispute that antifa is engaging against fascists, racists and those on the far-right, so the wording should reflect this rather than somehow implying antifa just goes attacking anyone who disagree with them. and linking a quote.--Davide King (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, English is technically my second language as well. When I said not really making a statement I was more referring to not commenting on statements they made pass agreeing with them. If I misread you on that, my mistake. PackMecEng (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is okay and thanks for clarifying. I just think Bobfrombrockley and The Four Deuces can probably give you a more informed and better reply. I do not consider myself to be a good enough talker and debater on talk page, but I still try to do what I can help and hopefully give a contribute. I will try and write that of course antifa engages against people whom they identify as such, but I do not think there is no need to state that, or that it can be worded a bit differently without implying antifa engages and attacks against anyone who disagree with them (I am not necessarily saying that currently it implies that but that it may been seen or read as implying that). Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body, I am not sure that wording is supported by the main body as the great majority of actions listed in Notable actions had indeed to do with the far-right and racists; so until that is changed and reflected in the main body, I do not think or believe it is appropriate to have that wording in the lead. Finally, I believe that hoaxes, false reports of antifa's involvement, far-right pretenders and so on need to be considered and weighted in; do we have confirmation that antifa really did mislabel them, that antifa was indeed involved? If so, are they notable and/or weighted enough? Or are they undue and the exception to the rule? I do not think a wording change would imply antifa were 100% correct or that there were no errors.--Davide King (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One source that is used to support the far-left claim also reads: Antifa groups resist far-right movements such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They monitor and track the activities of local fascists and expose them to their neighbours and employers. They also support migrants and refugees and pressure venues to cancel white power events. No mention of allegations or that those whom antifa is engaging with are not really far-right or racists.--Davide King (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We only have According to the Los Angeles Times, they have engaged in "mob violence, attacking a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis" in the main body (again, those Trump supporters may not be white supremacists or Nazis for the Los Angeles Times, but they may be considered racists and right-wing enough for other sources), a little too little for the lead to support the current wording. Only a minority of sources seem to use a qualifier; the rest pointly state they are fighting fascists, racists and the far-right, period. Indeed, only the Anti-Defamation League states Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as "Nazi" events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature (this seems to be because, as reported in the same source, Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump, yet many sources would consider them still racist or right-wing enough to fit the far-right mold; in other words, antifa is not attacking centrist or centre-left people just for not being left-wing enough; they are overwhelmingly engaging very right-wing people where the difference from right-wing and far-right or racist is much smaller) but also that antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life without any perceived or other qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A couple of comments: 1) As notes, this was discussed one year ago, but with a rather different emphasis. The issue then was a lead that said "label". There was a consensus to change this to the more neutral "identify", but it was not an enthusiastic consensus. I think it is worth re-visiting. 2) Of course there are documented examples of mis-identification. If they are noteworthy instances (e.g. if there is, it would be fine to mention these examples in the relevant section of the article. (See WP:NOTEWORTHY, which says whether something is enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies, i.e. is there significant RS coverage of the incidents, meaning a single source would not suggest noteworthiness.) Similarly, of course there are documented examples of media and others mis-identifying perpetrators of violence as "antifa", and so on. For this to go in the lead, I think we would need to see that the weight of reliable sources mentioning this as part of their general descriptions of the topic of the article. My take on the sources is that these incidents are untypical and exceptional, so including in the lead would give undue weight and violate our neutrality policy. It is true that, strictly speaking, What happens in the lead of another, unrelated article does not matter here, but I think it helps to think through the logic of our policies to ask if an article about, say, Fossil Hunters would state in the lead that sometimes they find things that aren't fossils or that non-fossil hunters are on occasion mistaken for fossil hunters: such instances would obviously be atypical of fossil hunters and so might be in the body of the article if widely commented on but not in the lead. 3) I think it is good practice to ping people you mention as has done, and bad practice to describe other editors' reasonable comments as "fiddlesticks". Let's keep it civil and avoid the ad hom. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The emphasis was on using that word in the lead to avoid WP:LABEL basically, they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it. You think they are undue and that is fine but at this point I have shown several RS pointing out their failings in that area, hard to pull the undue card at this point isn't it? Again WP:OTHERSTUFF does apply, what happens in unrelated articles has no bearing on what happens here. The examples given do not even apply to this situation so I am not sure why you would even want to use them? Finally fiddlesticks is similar to "well darn", fairly minor to warrant civility caution or calling it ad hominem. Don't do that. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Concurring with the above, the ADL source states:
 * [Antifa] can also target law enforcement with both verbal and physical assaults because they believe the police are providing cover for white supremacists. They will sometimes chant against fascism and against law enforcement in the same breath.
 * It's probably pointless arguing WP:UNDUE if a key source exposits antifa targeting fascists-by-proxy. Watchman21 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The main body only has two sources mentioning antifa sometimes (not often) misidentifying (the Los Angeles Times and the ADL), so your statement that they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it is not supported by the main body. Neither of you replied to my argument that the given sources do not seem to support that wording, for they do not add a qualifier like we do (which seems to be a truism) and in the lead only the ADL mentions the misidentification (again, in the case the ADL is talking about they did not confuse a leftist or centrist for white supremacists but Trump supporters which other sources have described as a part of them being racist and right-wing populists which often times overlap with the far-right). Nor you replied to my argument that the wording may indeed imply that antifa is going against anyone who disagree with them, including centrist and other leftists, when that is not supported either by the main body right now. We have only the Los Angeles Times in the main body.

Why not simply remove that wording and adding although sometimes there have been instances were antifa was mistaken (duh!), although I am not sure if this is lead worthy (the main body does seem to be enough to support the claim in the lead) and I agree with and  arguments that any reasonable reader would [not] assume that they were 100% accurate while it is far more likely, considering the controversial nature, that a reader may assume they attack anyone who they deem as fascist, racist, or on the far-right and are often mistaken, when this is not supported by the main body. If there are documented examples of mis-identification [...] [and] are noteworthy instances, they should be added to the main body after a discussion and consensus; until then, no matter how you may imply they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it, that is not supported by the main body right now and is undue, misleading and a truism.--Davide King (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Per, I note too that the ADL calls the objects of harassment "right-wing extremists," while this articles refers to them as those whom antifa identify as such. We should accept the ADL description. Since the phrasing is talking about [a]ctivists engag[ing] in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment, we should indeed accept the ADL description which is specifically about this and not about whether antifa is good or bad at identifying them, which is discussed later and as such can be described later, either in the lead or in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not going to be tenable. The ADL clearly describe systematic targeting of police by antifa. That cannot be disparaged as an isolated incident or a 'one-off' example of misidentification, because it's a direct allusion to the movement's modus operandi. The article also uses similar terminology to the status quo:
 * In Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists, antifa activists have aggressively confronted what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups. Watchman21 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We make no mention of the police in the lead. The quote you cited still reads that [i]n Charlottesville and at many subsequent events held by white supremacists or right-wing extremists, not those whom antifa identifies/d as being white supremacists or right-wing extremists; the qualifer is used later only for authoritarian movements and groups but we do not say they harrass authoritarian movements and groups, we say people [identified] as fascist, racist, or on the far-right; so clearly antifa is engaging against white supremacists or right-wing extremists, not merely what [antifa] believe[s] to be authoritarian movements and groups. and  can probably give you a better answer as I believe them to be more informed and I am curious to hear their response to some of the objections you two raised. I still believe we can work towards a better wording without implying that they are not an authority on identifying any of those groups and in fact have proven pretty bad at it which is not supported by the main body. Because that is what it may imply and we should be careful about it.--Davide King (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Authoritarian groups' is a pragmatic allusion to the fascists and the far-right in the same statement. The existing lede is likely a re-ordering of that statement for brevity. It would be pointless explicating it any other way given how clearly antifa's mission statement is explained in the rest of the article.
 * If you contrive the term to mean something other than 'fascists' and 'white supremacists', then you're giving evidence in support of the proposition that antifa's attacks are less discriminate than their mission statement, and arguing (inadvertently) for the lede to remain as it is.
 * What other authoritarian groups would they be targeting? The police? Watchman21 (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For one, the ADL calls the object of harrassment—which is exactly what the lead phrasing is discussing—right-wing extremists while we refer to them as those whom antifa identify as such. Why should not we accept this ADL description? As this first noted by, I hope that can be clarified. If correct identification by antifa is actually much higher than misidentifcation, I do not see why we should add a truism like that. Even for those two examples of misidentification, do we have sources specifically about the incident which may actually argues against misidentification? Trump supporters and Trump himself may have been described as being authoritarian, far-right, racist and right-wing populist, so I do not see how that is a misidentification by antifa; it is a misidentification only for the Nazi and white supremacist claim which is what the ADL and the Los Angeles Times seem to imply (the Los Angeles Times also use sometimes which could be used to imply that antifa's identifications are more correct than wrong and so it makes no sense to have a qualifier in the lead that may imply the reverse is true). You are also ignoring all the other given sources for the claim which make no such qualifier. If we can use news sources to support the far-left claim as you did, I do not see why all the other news sources which make no use of such qualifier should be discarded in favour of the ADL.--Davide King (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or worse, keeping the sources which make no such qualifier to support the qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This comment is a bit muddled. Most of it just ignores the dialectic we've covered, as if it never happened. So I won't repeat the points here. I'd be very happy to go over anything you don't understand on my talk page. Watchman21 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why I hope and  can reply back too and probably express better my same points; or maybe your rebuttals convinced them and so the discussion would be over but let us wait until then. Of the six references used to support the wording, only the ADL uses it. Even then, the ADL also still clearly uses, without any qualifier and refers to right-wing extremists as the subject of antifa's harassment which is the topic of the sentence. All those sources may support the [a]ctivists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment wording but not the people whom they identify qualifier because they do not dispute antifa's claims.--Davide King (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 3 mentions of right-wing extremists in the article. The second and third aren't relevant to your point. The first talks about the presence of antifa at events held by right-wing extremists and is part of the very same statement that supports the lede in its present form. You'll need something other than that to prove what you need to prove. Watchman21 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the ADL's article? No, it does not support that very statement because it does not support the people whom they identify qualifier; again, of the six sources given, only the ADL may be used to support that when it says what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups (all six sources should contain a statement similar to the ADL to support that qualifier); and yet, the ADL also refers to right-wing extremists as right-wing extremists without any qualifier. So to me it seems that the six sources support [a]ctivists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against fascists, racists and those on the far-right.
 * In Ideology, there was the wording and is united by opposition to perceived right-wing extremism and white supremacy and I boldly removed the bolded part for the exact same reason I think we should remove people whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right from the lead, i.e. because given sources do not actually support the qualifier claim as I also argued in the edit summary which I report below for clarity:
 * [N]either source provide support for "perceived" claim; the given quote in second ref reads "common cause in opposing right-wing extremists and white supremacists", period; the BBC says "Critics argue the media tends to excuse violence by Antifa militants just because they are fighting white supremacists and their odious ideology. [...] However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy."
 * I do not see why we should have that qualifier when only the ADL uses a wording that may support it.--Davide King (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

, I agree with this edit and your rationale; and since you are editing right now, I would really appreciate if you could express your opinion about this discussion, so we can get more viewpoints. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of time, but I think it's a given that Antifa focusses on right-wing extremists and that they are anti-fascist. This isn't the same thing as some weird militia groups who think they are defending their constitutional rights when they clearly haven't a clue and where we can say what they "perceive as their constitutional rights". And sure, I know what some people think that fascism is left-wing but we certainly aren't going to say anything that would suggest that they aren't anti-fascist because fascism is left-wing, that would really be going down a rabbit hole. Oh hell, I just notices that Watchman is talking about "their mission statement", that sort of comment suggesting that there's some official body and unified group won't get us anywhere. But then I grew up in the middle of the civil rights movement and have a bit of knowledge about how anarchic movements can be (note I'm not talking about anarchism, just disorganisation). Anyway, it's a fact that the movement opposes fascists, Nazis, white supremacists. That bits of it may target someone who doesn't quite fit those labels isn't surprising but says little about the overall movement. If we say they "focus on" we aren't saying that they exclusively target, so I don't think we need to get too worried about the Tucker Carlson issue. Ok, that's all, I've a huge watchlist to get through and an online Pilates class coming up soon.  Doug Weller  talk 11:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comments. I think that was exactly what an IP was referring to when it wrote here the qualifier reads like something an alt right youtuber would write, i.e. that against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right is just a more neutral wording of a right-wing talking point that sees antifa as attacking anyone who disagree with them, basically saying antifa is not really going after fascists, racists and the far-right. This claim is not supported by sources; mistakes happens, but that does not mean antifa is not focus[ing] on right-wing extremists and that they are [not really] anti-fascist as you wrote, that is a given fact supported by sources.
 * Considering the controversy, I believe we need to be extra careful in not implying that antifa does not actually oppose fascists, Nazis, white supremacists (quoting you) as it claims to be. If this was not enough, I reiterate my belief that the given six sources do not actually support that qualifier wording (they do not say that the cited events and protests were against alleged far-right et all) and thus against fascists, racists and those on the far-right is perfectly fine and actually supported by sources. If you believe this wording may imply that antifa is always correct (it does not), how does not the same thing also apply to the current wording that is even more damaging as it may be read as implying the whole point of antifa is a farce because they do not really target fascists, racists and those on the far-right, just those whom they identify as such?
 * As pointed out by Doug Weller, [t]his isn't the same thing as some weird militia groups who think they are defending their constitutional rights when they clearly haven't a clue and where we can say what they "perceive as their constitutional rights" and is why the far-left and the far-right are not the same thing just because they may employ similar tactics like using violence against each other.--Davide King (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Doug, Davide and TFD. It isn't complicated. The existence of one or two specific single-source examples of possible antifa activists making possible mistakes in their identification is not enough to skew the lead away from the norm towards exceptions. Nor is it grounds for violating WP neutrality principles and abandoning WP:ALLEGED. By all means include noteworthy mistaken identity examples in the body, but the lead should say what the weight of the sources say. If the weight of sources said antifa have a track record of regularly getting it wrong, it'd be easy to show that, which nobody has done. Five editors seem to have contributed to this discussion, with three taking this same line (that we should delete the "people whom they identify as") and two taking a different line (that we should keep and perhaps strengthen the scare-quoting by saying antifa are bad at identifying extreme right-wingers), so there is no consensus for change yet, which means we should probably stick with the week consensus from one year ago for "identified" unless other editors join. The police issue is a separate issue, and if any editor believes the weight of sources say that antifa activists target the police as well as the far right I'd suggest we open a new talk section for that as this talk page is hard enough to follow as it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that [b]y all means include noteworthy mistaken identity examples in the body, but the lead should say what the weight of the sources say., could you please verify that of the six given sources, only the ADL may be used to support that qualifier wording, when it says what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups, as it seems to be to me? Yet, the ADL references several actions by antifa and clearly describe events as being held by right-wing extremists and white supremacists without any qualifier, so it is not so strong and seems to confirm the Los Angeles Times wording that antifa may misidentify only sometimes. Because if this is true, then I believe that would move the discussion much closer to removal, for the onus would be on those supporting the current wording in providing sources that explicity use the qualifier and for why they are better than, or to be preferred to, those who do not.--Davide King (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it should read 'those they identify' as far right, fascist etc etc. What one considers far right or fascist is always subjective - especially in 2020 and especially with an predominantly unstructured semi anarchic group like ANTIFA.Reaper7 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works by verifiably and reliable sources; clearly there are sources who state plainly antifa is engaging against fascists, racists ad the far-right, not allegely or those identified as such. Indeed, both the ADL and the Los Angeles Times seem to imply misidentification is a minority, not a majority; and as you can see by the incidents we list in Notable actions, sources do not say those event were held by individuals alleged being fascists, racists or on the far-right; they say they were held by right-wing extremists and white supremacists, period.
 * The ADL calls the object of antifa's harrassment right-wing extremists, not alleged right-wing extremists, or right-wing extremists according to antifa, or identified as such. If my claim that all the other five sources do not use the qualifier is true, it is original research and synthesis; and that qualifier should be indeed removed. Finally, I repeat that it is a truism; of course antifa identifies them and they may well be wrong; this does not seem to be the majority of cases and you also do not seem to consider, with all the hoaxes and false news about antifa's involvement, that many of those misidentification may well have be done by an individual who is not even part of antifa; and and 's comment that we do not use the qualifier for anti-communists and I do not think we should in either case. The qualifier should be used only when a majority of sources explicity make it when describing antifa. This does not seem to be the case.--Davide King (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Incoming...
has a piece in Breitbart ranting about this article and naming several editors. I did love the first comment when I read it: "Wiki is about as reliable as the mainstream media". Yes, petal, that's very much the point. Guy (help!) 09:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article also has evidence that you were canvassed to this article through Facebook, and removed "militant" per the request of the person in Facebook. Naughty. --Pudeo (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , no it does not. It has an assertion, but not evidence. It was on my watchlist already having edited the article previously, and as you see above, I am not opposed to including the word, but I am not convinced it should be asserted as fact in Wiki-voice. Thanks for playing, though. Guy (help!) 13:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice to see TDA can be relied upon to still be shitposting anonymously from the shadows, and that Breitbart (beacon of the liberal media) gives him a platform. He almost had a point on the Gamergate article, as it was filled with SPA pushing an agenda, but it wasn't one sided; just as this article isn't. Koncorde (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , also amusing that wanting to qualify a single word counts as some kind of evil agenda. But whatevs. Guy (help!) 15:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Focus on predominantly
The word appears 14 times in the above Summary of lead sentence sources on antifa political affiliation, but is dwarfed by the overlong discussion. Please, can someone help me understand the present consensus relating solely to this word? At the moment, it is included in the lead's first sentence: Antifa is a predominantly left-wing, anti-fascist political activist movement in the United States…. However, it has been repeatedly removed and restored, all seemingly without consensus. One aspect of the debate involves whether to describe Antifa as "left-wing" or "far-left". I am not interested in that controversy, and wish to focus exclusively on predominantly. contends there are no quantitative sources to warrant using that adverb, especially since there is no evidence that a substantive minority of Antifa members are not left-wing. disagrees, arguing that "although some anarchists consider themselves left-wing and some sources consider anarchism in general to be left-wing, most anarchists reject the association with the left and see themselves as neither left nor right." Thus predominantly left-wing is appropriate. also favors predominantly left-wing, which he believes "does not exclude far-left nor its more moderate, admittedly centre-left minority." , though, says "this discussion is a joke," since predominantly left-wing "could be interpreted as including some right wing elements." Boscaswell's comment may be facetious, but in my opinion it's dead-on. In any case, I see no clear consensus for using predominantly in the lead. I request that the word be removed until definitive agreement is reached. NedFausa (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a big deal to me on whether to include or exclude predominantly (I thought that was the status quo when it was changed to far-left without consensus yet); my main issue is with using only far-left. One proposal would be to simply remove any mention of left-wing and far-left (as it was the consensus in the first discussion) and simply say anti-fascist, considering that later in the lead we already say that [i]ndividuals involved in the movement tend to [...] subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism so this may be enough and does not imply the whole movement or every single individual is left-wing or far-left.--Davide King (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * why don’t we all agree that the lede should be amended to read: “antifa is an organisation dedicated to group activities such enjoying a nice cup of tea while knitting and chatting about anti-fascism.” and thereby carry on failing to accept that with the two flags of anarchism and communism at the forefront of their logo, that is what they are about.  No more, no less than revolution, with any violence being put down to others getting in the way.  Further, I reject the partiality of any edit or suggestion made by Davide King, whose user page makes clear his allegiance to anarchism.  As such, I believe that he should stand aside completely from this article and talk page.  There is a concerted effort being made by antifa apologists to have their militant and violent tendencies ignored and for them to be considered as warm and cuddly anti-fascists.  To do so would be grossly wrong, as the two flags of their logo makes abundantly clear.  Boscaswell   talk  04:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because antifa is not even a organisation! You accuse me of bias and anarchism (the third time!), which is a personal attack; and yet, you cannot even get basic facts straight. Maybe you are the who is biased, or do you think, to quote Bastiat, do you not also belong to the human race? Or do you believe that you are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind and thus do not have any bias? To claim that a person's POV makes them incapable of serving the neutrality goal of Wikipedia is to make the false claim that some people are inherently neutral. Such a person does not exist. EG: centrism is an ideology. Finally, you are spreading even false information because that claim on my userpage is intended as a joke and a pun to Religion: None (atheism) since anarchism is the philosophy most opposed to dogma and it does not say I am an anarchist; and even if I were, you are the only user who is making such accusations which amount to personal attacks. That is why I am constantly pinging other users in discussions so that they can correct me, etc. and have the most viewpoints.--Davide King (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this was also a personal attack against, and  who had doubts about the use of militant. Clearly, they must be antifa; for it cannot possibly be that their rationale is based on an interpretation of our guidelines, right? If there is someone who should stand aside completely from this article and talk page (as you wrote), it is you, who has made personal attacks against me three times and now even unfounded attacks against all those other users too, who surely must be antifa apologists! Everyone but you is biased in favour on antifa.--Davide King (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are also basically saying that antifa is far-left because the flag's colours of black and red are used to represent anarchism and communism, therefore antifa is far-left (it is up to reliable sources to say that; and there is no real agreement between them other than left). To not go off-topic, I suggest you to look at the top of this page to check all previous discussions which had no consensus for using far-left. So this makes all your claims even more absurd.--Davide King (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , citation needed. Just because we don#'t say "Antifa are a bunch of radical far-left terrorists" doesn't mean we're trying to pretend they are something they are not.
 * As always the problem is that Antifa is not one thing. It's a loose and heterogeneous affiliation of individuals, as far as I can tell. You can say the Proud Boys are far-right because it's a single group with a single leader, but you can't say that about antifa because it's neither of those things. Reports suggest that it includes libertarians, mainstream liberals, anarchists and more.
 * Of course part of the problem here is that the "left" of US politics, the Democratic Party, is actually centre-right by global standards, so what appears far to the left on the US scale may well actually be mainstream or centrist globally. Guy (help!) 08:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to the point that predominantly left-wing could be interpreted as including some right wing elements, I do not see how that would be possible when in the lead we also clearly write individuals subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies. It seems to be a strawman. I have no issue removing predominantly though.--Davide King (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , we should go back to the sources I reckon. Guy (help!) 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views[26] and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, and socialism.[27][34] Both the name antifa and the logo with two flags representing anarchism and communism are derived from the German Antifa movement.[35] 128.76.189.210 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)