Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 19

Better source needed tag for first paragraph in 2018–2019 section
In June 2020, I have tagged this paragraph:

As I wrote in the tag, The whole paragraph needs more and better sources than Vanity Fair [generally reliable for popular culture] and the New York Post [There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available] to establish weight and due. Even Vanity Fair admits why wasn't anyone covering that? So unless we get more reliable sources other than those two, it is probably undue. In its place, we may add the Willem von Spronsen incident as it is mentioned in "Anti-fascists linked to zero murders in the US in 25 years", if maybe it is due now?

Davide King (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support deletion as per proposal. I have no view on adding von Spronsen, which seems like it should be discussed separately. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

, I see you removed this as undue, so I wonder if this would fit too. Davide King (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've taken it out for now. It was tagged for ages.  The Vanity Fair ref only mentions it in a parenthetical aside which plainly casts doubt on it (in context it presents it as just a claim / framing made by Cernovich's supporters); the only other source is the New York Post, which is a low-quality tabloid and which describes it as something involving one person; note the first Post ref doesn't even mention Antifa - it looks like the fact that he supported Antifa sort of became part of the narrative later but wasn't a major part of the specific incident.  No other reporting presents this as a significant part of Antifa's history, so devoting an entire paragraph to (basically) just the Post doesn't make sense. I removed this as well, which is just a single claim by an officer which doesn't seem to have gotten any other coverage - not really a notable action.  This section should be more for, like...  major confrontations, protests, or incidents that received significant mainstream attention.  It shouldn't become a dumping ground for every single time anyone who supports Antifa does anything, is accused of anything, or the like and gets minimal coverage - based on coverage, are these things really equal in weight to the Unite the Right rally or the Berkeley protest? I'm also eying the 'names and photographs' bit, which only has a single source and just seems at first glance to be far more minor than the rest of the section. EDIT: I also took out a paragraph cited to this - it looked good at first glance, but if you scroll to the bottom you'll see that it was published in a WP:NEWSBLOG, and its author (a student at the school) is certainly not a professional.  Several things about it made me suspicious even before I noticed that (it cites tweets by people plainly affiliated with Patriot Prayer for key points, but even more than that, it actually misstates them, eg. the tweet is careful to only state that the tires were slashed and not by who, while the blogpost's author infers it was Antifa - if it were a news article we might assume they did the research, but this is a blog post that was only bumped to a different part of the site when the blog closed.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Best removed. I cannot find any mention of it in mainstream media other than the New York Post. There is no consensus whether this source is reliable, per Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Even if the publication is reliable, the story lacks weight for inclusion. In any case, I don't think that the publication is rs for determining if someone is a member of antifa. The story also lacks completeness in that it does not mention Campbell's side of the story. He says his leg was broken in two places by a police officer and that he plead guilty as part of a plea deal. TFD (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Now mentioned at Left-wing fascism
as being referred to by Trump in his Mount Rushmore speech. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , wtf? Facism is right-wing, not left. How does that page exist? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disappointed in BeyondMyKen who added that there. It's both a case of massive RECENTISM and largely unrelated to the actual term, meaning, or intent. It's just a slur rather than an attempt to codify a political cause (and most sources decry his depiction in that way). Needs wholesale rewriting if it was to even remain there. Koncorde (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be okay to make a one sentence mention of it there, but that addition was too much. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed. That was about 30% of the article, none of the sources identified the things he was complaining about as being objectively left-fascism, only one went into it beyond a passing mention, and that do discount it. Trump has no expertise on this, his characterisation of Joe Biden and the DNC as "radical left" displays a widely discussed lack of understanding of what those words mean. So: recentism, plus BLP, because it makes him look like an angry delusional idiot. And you're right, we should not be doing this. Trump floods the zone, it is his superpower and pretty much his sole power. "Trump says crazy thing" dominates every news cycle - but we're not supposed to be a news source. We're supposed to be more analytical than that. Guy (help!) 16:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's a very silly addition IMO, and I reverted it. Guy (help!) 16:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Doug Weller  talk 16:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been restored by two other others, including myself.Guy and Doug, I love ya both, you do great things for the project, and at least 95% of the time you're right, but you're both wrong here.  Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia, it's a popular encyclopedia. RECENTISM -- neither a policy nor a guideline, I'll remind you all -- is just a way of holding our noses until the smell is so bad that we're forced to deal with it.  When academic usages get picked up by the general public we cannot simply raise our pinkies and say "well, that's not how we define it", we must deal with it.  We can certainly frame them as being outside the normal academic usage, but the thing exists, and we do our readers a distinct disservice by remaining pure, innocent and chaste in our white robes and ignoring it.  Trump said what he said, the whole goddamn world heard what he said, and we cannot pretend not to have heard it.  Re-frame it if needed, but that stuff absolutely belongs in that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or - and bear with me here - it was just a random aside in an extended stream-of-consciousness spiel that will never be mentioned or covered elsewhere ever again, making it WP:UNDUE. We don't know which - maybe he will make this a recurring theme and the media will pick up on it and discuss it extensively, maybe it's a random quip of no significance, so (when it's not clear) we wait and see.  That is what WP:RECENTISM is about.  If something is glaringly obviously important, of course we add it immediately, but "Trump used these words in passing" isn't obviously relevant to that article at all. --Aquillion (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the Trump stuff it’s actually a serious article. But I removed the Trump stuff. It’s Undue and he’s not an expert on the subject (to say the least). Just because he said it doesn’t mean it should be included. He also suggested people inject bleach as protection against coronovirus, but we’re not gonna put that into our articles on bleach are we?  Volunteer Marek  05:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a FYI Bleach. PackMecEng (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(Ec) Oh crap, i see that somebody DID include the Trump stuff in the bleach article. Wow.  Volunteer Marek  05:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this covers stuff like that well. PackMecEng (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and restored the material. Please take it to the article talk page and make a argument there. Get a consensus on the article talk page, not here, and you can move forward.  I won't participate, because I think you're all being extremely short-sighted about this.  He's the freakin' President of the United States, still the most powerful country in the world, at least for the time being, and when he declaims about politics we cannot ignore it just because he's an idiot.  You all should think a little harder about what our purpose is with regard to the reader, you're selling them short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We should ALL probably go over there if we wish to discuss it.  Volunteer Marek   05:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "we cannot ignore it just because he's an idiot" What makes Trump a reliable source on the subject matter? Why should Wikipedia serve as his mouthpiece? Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes Trump a reliable source on what he thinks "far-left fascism" is. The material is not written in Wikipedia's voice, Trump is quoted as Trump. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What Trump thinks is not relevant to almost 100% of the topics that he might ramble on about. It might be funny to read, but it isn't encyclopedic any more than going to the Alaska article and stating that Russia can be seen from Sarah Palins window and other inanity low IQ people come up with. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Koncorde sums it up nicely. We don't need to add every bit of insane rambling he makes to these articles. For one thing, we'd hardly get anything else done. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The transparent bias of this page makes a mockery of Wikipedia's legacy - edit logs show obvious partisan interference, page needs to be amended
Removing "violent" and "far" left is a curious discrepancy. Considering the myriad reports from the Attorney General of the United States, intelligence communities, local Police Departments, and the widespread bipartisan reporting from mainstream publications, it is clear that this article is no longer trying to inform readers. Where are mentions of the Floyd riots? Of Portland? Of the US governments statements about Antifa? There are arrest records of admitted Antifa members for violent acts. At this point, continuing to deceive readers by omitting established facts is transparently political.

This page appears to be doing nothing more than running interference and intentionally obscuring the groups history. I have seen edit logs of wikipedia editors justifying the removal of unflattering labels by using fallacious semantics over what is considered "authoritative" sourcing. I've also seen this logic applied selectively. Publications that are newsguard verified are labelled "untrustworthy" - where is the methodology in this process? By what metric are Wikipedia editors gauging the reliability of news? Are editors personally investigating sources to determine their accuracy? Its clear that isn't happening.

Editors who are politically or emotionally compromised - or biased, should take note of the responsibility of this position. Students across the world use Wikipedia when writing essays, and yet I fear that trend will begin to wane in the face of manipulative editors with an ax to grind. Years ago in my University, one of my Psych professors told the class that Wikipedia was not a reliable reference point for learning of various topics, and warned against using it even with just casual assignments not in APA format. She specifically referenced rogue editors.

It will become increasingly difficult to AstroTurf this page, especially as more and more violent Antifa activities continue across the country. Its not too late to change course. If this is not corrected, you run the risk of being late to the party, and revealing an ugly practice of manipulating viewers with egregious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.180.183 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources to verify any of your claims? Or examples from the edit logs that you are referring to? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems so, ever since President Trump claimed ANTIFA will now be designated a domestic terrorist organisation, this article has been edited several times to remove or hide words such as militant and violent, I assume by left-wing activists or simple critics of Trump. It is of course near impossible to designate ANTIFA, a movement, as a terrorist organisation, but I feel like the fear of Trump drawing headlines to the movement has encouraged left-wing users to edit this article and remove key information. For example, the article previously read is a militant, far-left, movement, seeking to achieve their goals through non-violent and direct action (this may be slightly off but is closest to what I can recall). But now the Wikipedia article portrays ANTIFA in a completely different light. Azaan H 09:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Biased and ambiguous statement.
" Conspiracy theories about antifa which tend to inaccurately portray antifa as a single organization with leaders and secret sources of funding have been spread by right-wing activists, media organisations and politicians including Trump administration officials. "

I raise a number of complaints with this sentence:

1. The claim that 'conspiracy theories' have been spread by right-wing activists, media organisations, and politicians is not well sustained by the citation; which is an opinion article on a tabloid website.

2. Antifa is a single organistion. Is it not?

3. 'Secret sources of funding' is vague and requires explanation.

4. I disagree with the use of the term 'Conspiracy theory' for people who have genuine worries about this organisation; I would have it at 'claims have been raised', rather than 'conspiracy theories have been spread'.

5. 'Which tend to inaccurately portray'. This can be changed to 'which portray', and no meaning would be lost (except the biased implication!).

Remember this is Wikipedia. Politics has ZERO place here, as tempting as it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggines (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The so-called tabloid website I assume you are referring to is actually The Guardian, a generally reliable source which you are basically disputing; you are disputing what a reliable source is saying. I am also not sure that is an opinion piece, it is in World News, is it not? You write The claim that 'conspiracy theories' have been spread by right-wing activists, media organisations, and politicians is not well sustained by the citation but it is actually sustained when it says Antifa conspiracy theories are common amongst rightwing politicians, media and activists. And it is indeed not a single organisation; it says there is no actual antifa organization for Trump to define in this way. Put simply: antifa does not really exist as a distinct entity. It also clearly states An antisemitic conspiracy theory that the billionaire financier George Soros funds antifa also has widespread currency on the right, including among influential Trump-world figures. So you are basically disputing the source.--Davide King (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article cited is not an opinion piece: you can tell this from the orange highlight above the word "news" in the page header. If it were an opinion piece the highlight would appear above "opinion". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks! That was what I thought too, but thanks for confirming it.--Davide King (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Davide King and Arms & Hearts. I will add that the claims about the funding sources are vague because that is the nature of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theorists may not agree among themselves and often use coded language, such as blaming "(((George Soros)))." TFD (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , they are going to be so pissed when Soros dies and the left keeps going unchanged. Guy (help!) 09:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not as mad as you when CHAZ was dismantled. Azaan H 09:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this would be better addressed going through all list items:
 * 1. I would agree with most of what has been said apart from "The Guardian" being a tabloid. It would be more accurate for the article to state what a newspaper has said, rather then just take it as fact. I doubt the entire part/paragraph belongs in the intro anyway.
 * 2. No it is not an organisation.
 * 3. See 1 - I doubt the entire part belongs in the intro anyway. If it requires further expansion then it would be better suited to its own section rather than the intro.
 * 4. I agree, but it might be difficult getting others to.
 * 5. Agreed. It does make it look like an opinion piece as you have stated.--Hypernator (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body and that is a summary of the Hoaxes section.--Davide King (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see that, and I do agree now. Could it not be reworded differently to make it more in line with the idea that this is related to what a journalist is saying, rather than "fact"? (By the way, thank you for the time you have obviously put into this subject as a whole.)--Hypernator (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the Guardian is politically aligned, and writes opinion articles as well as reporting news. The specific citation was a speculative/opinion article not a news article or an encyclopedic style article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggines (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , all media sources are biased. The Guardian has a well-founded reputation for factual accuracy. This is a news report, not an opinion piece. There is nothing wrong with using that source to support that content. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that I may not have researched the idea that The Guardian is a tabloid. Unfortunately it seems to be another word that is somewhat vague. I am inclined agree with you that it looks like an opinion piece. I think that the one thing you said that is in error is suggesting that it is an organisation. The fact that it does not appear to be an organisation is why I am seeing more than one issue in the article.--Hypernator (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Guardian isn't a tabloid, it's amongst the most respectable news organisations in the UK. Yes it's biased, they all are, but it's reliable. It's not an opinion piece, it's news reporting. This won't go anywhere. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, The Guardian is different to the likes of The Sun and The Mirror. That is originally why I stated specifically that The Guardian was not a tabloid. Unfortunately the Wiki pages create a level of ambiguity as to what "tabloid" is. It appears that "tabloid journalism" as a definition would not be true for The Guardian.--Hypernator (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's now printed physically in the tabloid format - that is to say, it's printed with smaller paper. The old shorthand distinction between tabloids and broadsheets doesn't really hold any more. It's a generally reliable source, and fine for these assertions. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Have added two more sources to avoid any doubt (although this is in the body so we should not put too much emphasis on sourcing the lead so long as it follows the body). BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not use media sources as citations.--Siggines (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it should. But, this is not the place for such statements. Go argue at WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2020
Move periods and commas inside quotation marks -- many are incorrectly placed outside of the quotes. OpenSourceAdvocate56 (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LQ that is going to vary from quote to quote. The punctuation does not belong inside the quotes in all instances. If there are specific instances you think are incorrect, please bring them up here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2020
I request that the first line of this article defining Antifa as an "anti-factious" group be retracted. This is due to the S.Res.279 - A resolution calling for the designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. 116th Congress (2019-2020)demeaing the group a United States terrorist group. The definition is thereby inaccurate and misleading. I am happy to provide more evidence and supporting docuem=ntation on this accusation. "Antifa is an anarchical communist movement whose goal is to use communist violence and intimidation to terrorize American citizens[and] disengage them from the political process. While they do this under the cover of anti-fasizm the reality is that the Antifa defines the entire American political system regardless of party affiliation as racism". - Kyle Shideler, Director/Senior Analyst for Homeland Security & Counterterrorism, stated in his testimony before the U.S Senate on August 4, 2020.  Heloo 2020 (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't use an edit request template for requested changes unless you have first discussed on the talk page and obtained consensus. TFD (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the point of edit request templates? You also do not need consensus to purpose an edit. PackMecEng (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See Edit requests. You should only make edit requests that are uncontroversial or where there is consensus for the change. In any case Shideler works for a far right conspiracist organization that has been called a hate group by the SPLC. Not a reliable sources.TFD (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah didn't see the anti-Muslim hate group designation, good catch. Though that is not very relevant to this article. Also the org does not appear to be the source just a quote from his testimony to congress. Though I agree at this point it should not go in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The non-binding resolution was co-sponsored by two senators, I believe a third supported it and it has gone to the Senate Justice Committee to die. It has received almost no media coverage. Incidentally despite the preamble it doesn't call for antifa to be labelled as a domestic terrorist organization, but "groups and organizations across the country who act under the banner of Antifa." TFD (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * groups and organizations across the country who act under the banner of Antifa isn't that basically the same thing? PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kind of like saying any demonstration where people are displaying peace symbols, originally called an ND for nuclear disarmament, can be tarred with the same brush. O3000 (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My read of that phrase is anyone that calls themselves Antifa are considered part of Antifa. Especially considering it is a distributed movement with no real requirements. So to make the distinction that is it not referring to Antifa but groups and organizations across the country who act under the banner of Antifa strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Like saying we are not calling Antifa terrorists just those that identify as Antifa. Though I think I might be pulling this off topic at this point! Back on the original question, I do not think there is sufficient weight to add the quote. PackMecEng (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So, if an actual terrorist group says the belong to the nuclear disarmement movement and wears the symbols of that movement, are all other people who do the same terrorists? In any case, the bill hasn't passed. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think that groups and organizations refers to individuals unless they are members of those groups and organizations. So if you oppose fascism, you're not a terrorist unless you join a group that does so. TFD (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This should be closed as a "no". That was merely a resolution by two or three senators, will never go any further than that, and received no coverage. Congresspeople introduce resolutions all the time. Very few of them are noteworthy enough to mention. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2020
2601:182:4301:DCB0:3576:43F2:3826:DD41 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Antifa is a designated terrorist group in the United States as of 2020.
 * ❌ Nope. That's just one of the things Trump said he would do, but can't do. He lied to you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of this page. You are incorrect. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Perceived vs State Designated
In the opening paragraph describing Antifa in the USA, I believe requires a more balanced informative description, thus avoiding the current sense of ‘activist rhetoric‘. This could be created by the use of qualifying words and ‘positions’. Right up front a distinction should be drawn between people and organizations who are perceived by Antifa activists to be far right wing, etc. versus those designated by USA law or the police, State security services, etc. as far right wing, neo-Nazi, white supermacist, etc. rather than tacking it onto the end of the paragraph.

I suggest the following version:

“Antifa political activists engage in combatting those whom they identify as belonging to the far-right, and are thus perceived to be fascist and racist. These organizations or people are often labeled as neo-Nazis or white supremacist. The activists use a variety of tactics including protest, digital activism and militancy. However, damage to property, physical violence and harassment are also sometimes used.”

(*Please note, references would need to be reinserted) IDW acolyte (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to the point of tedium. FDW777 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed quite a bit, but that doesn't mean any consensus has been reached. I don't think the intro in its current form has been discussed sufficiently. The issue here isn't whether law enforcement generalize Antifa activism (violent or non-violent) as being against fascists and racists (as opposed to perceived members of the far-right), but rather whether reliable sources generalize Antifa activism as being against fascists and racists. User:Davide King edited the lead to its current form, and I thanked this user for this edit because it was better than what was previously in the lead. That being said, I don't think it's perfect; it still has issues with original research.
 * To be perfectly clear, my main issue is that the article generalizes Antifa's "digital activism and militancy" as being "against fascists and racists". This would be perfectly acceptable if reliable sources supported this generalization, but they don't. The only way to reach this generalization is through an unacceptable synthesis of different reliable sources (i.e. original research). Let's take a look at each article that that sentence cites. First, the Wired article; the closest it gets to replicating the article's generalization is this: "Anonymous and spinoff groups like LulzFinancial certainly seem to be on Team Antifa, doxxing scores of far-right agitators." I'm assuming this is where the "digital activism" part comes in, but it's quite a stretch to say that this sentence is generalizing the actions of Antifa as a whole; rather, it's generalizing the actions of Anonymous and LulzFinancial, who the article says appear to be on the side of Antifa. It certainly doesn't work as a source for the "fascists and racists" claim. The BBC article says that "Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence." It also states that Antifa "focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy," but it at no point generalizes Antifa's "militancy", "digital activism", or any of the other cited methods of action as being against fascists and racists.
 * The War on the Rocks article does explicitly describe Antifa as "a highly decentralized movement of anti-racists who seek to combat neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and far-right extremists whom Antifa's followers consider 'fascist'". It does not generalize their actions (like the listed "digital activism" and "militancy") as being against these groups, as the lead currently does. It simply states that these are their intended targets. (I should note that in the War on the Rocks article, the use of "who they seek to combat" appears to reflect a refusal on the writer's part to state with certainty that Antifa's targets are members of these groups. Conversely, in the Wikipedia article, "whom they seek to combat" does not serve that same purpose at all.)
 * In its current form, the sentence seems to synthesize Antifa members' activities and the notion that they "seek to combat neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and far-right extremists whom Antifa's followers consider 'fascist'" into a generalization that their digital activism and militancy is against these groups. This is not a generalization that is supported by the given sources, and so this part of the lead should be changed. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest a text which better represents the cited sources? Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While Hadger's point might be valid, it is a separate issue to the point originally made. The issue repeatedly raised, and that consensus is against, is the addition of "perceived" before fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, or a similar change to the same effect. FDW777 (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the order of the points could be swapped around to better fit what War on the Rocks said: "Antifa political activists seek to combat fascists and racists, such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists, by engaging in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy." I think this reads better too. Crossroads -talk- 19:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * See ADL, "Who are Antifa?" "Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life." TFD (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is most certainly not against the addition of "perceived" here or a similar change. See this recent discussion on this issue. For a while, the discussion was dominated by people who were against the addition of perceived, but they were relying on the reasoning that reliable sources support the generalization of Antifa's targets as fascists and racists, which was demonstrated to be incorrect by multiple people in the discussion (namely myself and User:AmbivalentUnequivocality). This point is based on Wikipedia policy and has not been properly rebutted.

As for the ADL source, saying that they "focus on harassing right wing extremists" is another statement of Antifa's intent. It does not actually state whether or not these are the targets of their extremism. In fact, the ADL declines to generalize the targets of Antifa's activism as fascists, and instead explicitly states that Antifa has harassed people who aren't extremists while casting doubt on Antifa's ability to correctly identify Nazi events: "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. In Berkeley, for example, some antifa were captured on video harassing Trump supporters with no known extremist connections.  Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as 'Nazi' events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature." (Emphasis added.)

I support changing the sentence to User:Crossroads's proposal, as it is a much better representation of what reliable sources say about the targets of Antifa's activism. It acknowledges that those who identify with Antifa intend to combat fascists, racists, and other far-right extremists (as reliable sources also acknowledge) without generalizing these groups as being their targets (a convention that reliable sources follow). (Personally, I think the "perceived" wording is the best since RSes use similar language as demonstrated in the linked discussion, but I find Crossroads's proposal to be a good compromise that is consistent with RSes.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comments. Regarding your issue that the article generalizes Antifa's "digital activism and militancy" as being "against fascists and racists, that was not my intention; I just thought it was a non-issue (I did change to including and adding a comma, so maybe it clarifies that) and my main concern was making sure that antifa is against actual fascists, without implying they are always correct. Their notable actions in the main body include labels such as white supremacists, alt-right, or other far-right groups. So we would need that any mislabel action has been notable enough to be included there.
 * As for the ADL's statement, Colin Clarke and Michael Kenney argues that this reflects many Antifa supporters' belief that Trump is a fascist demagogue who threatens the existence of America's pluralistic, multi-racial democracy. This factor helps explain why such Antifa supporters are so quick to label the president's 'Make America Great Again' supporters as fascists — and why Trump is so quick to label Antifa as a terrorist organization.
 * Also, the ADL's statement that Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as 'Nazi' events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature seems to be more an indictment that they were not Nazi or white supremacists, not that they may have included far-right sympathisers or far-rightists that are not Nazi or white supremacists. Some forms of right-wing populism are considered far-right or right-wing to far-right, so I would not be surprised if antifa went to right-wing rallies because they also included far-right sympathisers. Trump himself can be considered far-right in the far-right-wing populist European tradition, so there is more nuance and overlap. Davide King (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @: Thanks for the response! Sorry if it came off like I was assuming bad faith -- I genuinely appreciate your efforts to improve the lead, and I do think that the edit for which I thanked you is an improvement over what it was before.
 * I'm not sure the "including" part helps with the issue at hand. The sentence still says that the targets of the activities mentioned (digital activism and militancy) are fascists and racists. This is not a generalization made by the given reliable sources. To address your first quote from the ADL article, this does clarify Antifa's beliefs (that Trump and his supporters are fascists), but the article itself does not state that Trump supporters are fascists, nor does it generalize the targets of Antifa's activism as being fascists. As for the discussion of whether Trump is far-right, or whether his rallies include far-right people, this seems to me to be irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not reliable sources generalize the targets of Antifa's digital activism and militancy as fascists, racists, white supremacists, far-right extremists, etc. The ADL article declines to do this, but it does provide an example of instance where it says the targets weren't Nazis, white supremacists, or extremists; not only does the article at no point generalize the targets of Antifa's digital activism and militancy as fascists or racists, it also provides examples of instances where the writers conclude that the targets of their harassment were not extremists. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think I saw your point now. It can be reworded to This may sometimes involve digital activism,[13] harassment, militancy,[8] physical violence and property damage against those whom they identify as belonging to the far-right.[14][15][16][17] which is what I did here. I think this also addresses the generalisation issue by incorporating digital activism and militancy in the sometimes sentence. Davide King (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I made this edit; I don't see any reason not to put "seeking to combat" ahead of who is combatted, since we need to go by the sources and that is precisely how War on the Rocks phrases it. Crossroads -talk- 14:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am fine by that, thank you for your efforts. ː-) Davide King (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and, thank you for your work here. The updates you made to the lead resolve the issues I had with it. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I made this edit; I don't see any reason not to put "seeking to combat" ahead of who is combatted, since we need to go by the sources and that is precisely how War on the Rocks phrases it. Crossroads -talk- 14:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am fine by that, thank you for your efforts. ː-) Davide King (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and, thank you for your work here. The updates you made to the lead resolve the issues I had with it. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)