Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 21

Comparing apples to oranges
Quote: "A June 2020 study[49] of 893 domestic terrorism incidents since 1994 found only one death that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists (that of the anti-fascist perpetrator himself) while 335 deaths were attributed to right-wing perpetrators" There are several problems with this statement in this article: 1. The term "Antifa" wasn't even in use until 2017, so comparing deaths since 1994 is intentionally skewing the data 2. I noticed several people are arguing that Michael Forest Reinoehl was not Antifa because he wasn't an official member. Well, then by that criteria, NOBODY is a member of Antifa. Also, that criteria isn't applied the other way - few of these "right wing perpetrators" had an official member card for the right wing causes they are linked to. 3. You are comparing a very narrow left wing group Antifa to the entirety of the Right Wing groups all added together. It looks like the only reason for having this statement in the article is to improve Antifa's image in the public. At a minimum, it should have some better context.96.241.129.33 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * We aren't comparing anything. I suggest you direct your complaints to the people who wrote the study and the secondary references that reported on it, such as The Guardian who managed to mention antifa 10 times (11, including a photo caption) while reporting on the study. FDW777 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You can suggest whatever you want, but this page is for discussion of edits to Wikipedia, not the study or The Guardian. And the article and the study at least have more context than that snippet. I am simply making that suggestion here as a courtesy before I attempt to edit a contentious article that is protected. And why would it be the least bit relevant how many times an article about Antifa mentions Antifa? 96.241.129.33 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The article isn't about antifa, it's about the study. And you can make as many edit requests as you like, if they don't have consensus the changes won't be made. FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Anti-fascists existed before 2017. See Anti-Racist Action. TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think points 1 and 2 are relevant here, as Wikipedia isn't in the business of doing original research into whether The Guardian's comparison of the datasets is fair, and point 2 is inconsequential to the article's coverage of the CSIS study. That being said, point number 3 is interesting to me because The Guardian's article actually does distinguish between left-wing violence and anti-fascist violence (the latter being a subset of the former), whereas this Wikipedia article mentions no such distinction. In particular, the section "Academics and scholars" directly contrasts right-wing violence with anti-fascist violence, without any mention of the study's broader exploration of left-wing violence. In its current form, it's easy for readers to see this and think that the study only explored anti-fascist terrorist attacks, or that the study used "anti-fascist violence" as a stand-in for all left-wing violence, when this is not the case.
 * I made what I hope to be some less contentious changes to the study's coverage in the "Academics and scholars" section. In particular, the statement that it found "zero deaths linked to antifa" is false and inconsistent with The Guardian's reporting (should be "murders"), and I don't believe this section provided an adequate explanation of what the study was. I believe that we should add the further context of the distinction between left-wing and anti-fascist violence to fix issues with the Wikipedia article's coverage of the study being somewhat misleading, but I have not made that change because I imagine it might be more contentious. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the death was a reference to the 2019 Tacoma attack, but the perpetrator was not antifa and it was not an anti-fascist attack. Also, I have not seen any academic sources that categorize antifa terrorism as left-wing terrorism. That could be because there have been no antifa terrorist attacks, but also it doesn't fit the definition. TFD (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The CSIS article referenced in the lead describes the perpetrator of the Tacoma attack as "a self-proclaimed Antifa", and the Guardian article calls it an "anti-fascist attack". The Guardian article extrapolates information on antifa/anti-fascist attacks (it uses the words "antifa" and "anti-fascist" interchangeably; see the top photo's caption) using the CSIS study's data on left-wing terrorism. We should provide that context. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Van Spronsen wrote "i am antifa" and "i am not affiliated with any organization, i have disaffiliated from any organizations who disagree with my choice of tactics." The object of attack was not fascists, but ICE. The Guardian is not usually the terms interchangeably, but precisely. Van Spronson was an anti-fascist who said he was antifa. TFD (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which of my points are you contesting here with regards to the article's coverage of the CSIS attacks? I don't see how original research into the perpetrator's words are of any relevance to this particular issue. I (perhaps incorrectly) believe that you're contesting my issue with the "zero deaths linked to antifa" wording, but keeping that wording based on an editor's analysis of the perpetrator's words when the Guardian article never makes a "zero deaths" claim (only zero murders) would be pure original research. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that excluding him because he said he was not a member of any organization is OR, while including him because he said he was antifa is perfectly fine. I don't really see that this discussion can be productive. TFD (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The words and identification of the Tacoma perpetrator are completely irrelevant to my original comment in this section. You brought up words in which he describes his identification, I engaged that argument, and then I realized that was a mistake on my part, because a discussion of the self-identification of the perpetrator is completely irrelevant to the changes I wanted to see made to the article. I'm still not entirely clear on what your point is, so I asked what it had to do with my original comment. I think this discussion would be a lot more productive if I could get an answer to that question, so that I know exactly what you and I disagree about as far as edits to the article go.
 * With that said: excluding him from what, exactly? And including him in what? What I care about is accurately reporting the findings of the Guardian's analysis. It states that the CSIS's database included zero murders linked to antifa, zero murders linked to anti-fascism, and one death from an anti-fascist attack (that of the perpetrator). It does not state that the database included zero deaths linked to antifa. You could perhaps argue that the Guardian found zero deaths from antifa attacks because you don't believe the Tacoma attack was an antifa attack, or that the Guardian found zero deaths from antifa attacks because it never explicitly said there were any deaths caused by antifa attacks, or some combination of those two arguments. But writing that the Guardian found "zero deaths linked to antifa" in the Wikipedia article based on these arguments would be original research. (And for that matter, I'll grant that the Guardian's article does not use antifa and anti-fascist interchangeably, in which case the Guardian article doesn't report a death from an antifa attack, either, and I have neither a good argument nor any desire for the Wikipedia article to say that the Guardian reports a death from an antifa attack.) Fortunately, the Wikipedia article correctly reflects the Guardian article's reports on deaths/murders attributed to antifa/anti-fascists, thanks to 's edit. But I figured it's worth explaining my reasoning. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "antifa" is not the name of an organization. It is simply shorthand for "anti-fascist" and has come into common use only in recent years, but that does not suggest it has a different meaning than it did 20 years ago. And because the sentence counts one antifa death that includes only the perpetrator, so should the number of deaths from right-wing attacks also include the perpetrators (335, versus 329 victims). That makes for full apples to apples. soibangla (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I just noticed 's recent edit, which also makes it apples to apples, so that's fine. But note that it doesn't include the guy who got shot in Tacoma. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Davide King -- I would like to ask that you at least partially self-revert your recent edits to the article regarding the CSIS research. The lead in its current state misrepresents the study and the Guardian's coverage of it; the "0 deaths" number refers to how many people were killed by perpetrators in antifa/anti-fascist attacks, while the "335 deaths" number refers to how many people were killed in right-wing attacks (perpetrators included). (The given number of victims of right-wing attacks is 329.) The current "no death that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists or antifa" is vague and does not adequately communicate what the Guardian article communicates; it should be made clear that the 0 number refers to people killed by the perpetrators, and the 329 number should be used to avoid misrepresentation of the data. The 329 number in the "Academics and scholars section" should also be changed to 335, with the "killed" wording appropriately changed.

Further, I do not believe that some of the quotes from the Guardian article belong in this article. In particular, the inclusion of the "California-based organizer and anti-fascist activist"'s quote is certainly not due for inclusion in the article and comes off as coatrack-y. And I believe that the addition of Beirich and Jones' quotes side-by-side only intensifies the issue I raised earlier, where it is inadvertently implied that the study treats antifa attacks and left-wing violence interchangeably. Additionally, the Seth Jones quote is of no relevance to this article, as it comments solely on left-wing violence overall and not antifa in particular (again raising coatrack issues).

I would also like to note that, as far as I can tell from the Guardian's article and the abstract linked in the article (click "politically motivated attacks and plots"), the CSIS research itself did not find zero antifa/antifascist-linked killings (admittedly, this error was present in some of my edits). Rather, the Guardian found zero antifa/antifascist-linked killings in its analysis of the CSIS's dataset of terrorism incidents. This is why it's important for us to give more context to the research, including that it focused on left-wing violence as a whole (among other categories of violence, including right-wing violence); currently, we're presenting the Guardian's analysis of the CSIS's database as the analysis of CSIS itself, which is inaccurate. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , where did the CSIS research itself did not find zero antifa/antifascist-linked killings? If you are referring to them stating [b]ased on a CSIS data set of 893 terrorist incidents in the United States between January 1994 and May 2020, attacks from left-wing perpetrators like Antifa made up a tiny percentage of overall terrorist attacks and casualties, my impression was that the casualties were referring to left-wing terrorism, not antifa, i.e. the 21 deaths reported as "left-wing violence" cince 2010. The Guardian reports only the death of Willem von Spronsen and that Mark Pitcavage said he knew of only one killing, 27 years ago, that might potentially be classified as connected to anti-fascist activism: the shooting of a racist skinhead, Eric Banks, by an anti-racist skinhead, John Bair, in Portland, Oregon, in 1993, i.e. over 25 years ago. Davide King (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The cited CSIS article does draw conclusions on "left-wing perpetrators like Antifa". But as far as I can tell, the CSIS does not explicitly conclude that there were zero antifa/antifascist-linked killings. My understanding is that through their own extensive research, they provided a database of terrorism attacks placed into various categories (left-wing violence, right-wing violence, and a few more). Then the Guardian, through their own analysis of the database, concluded that the database only contained one death linked to anti-fascist attacks (that of a perpetrator) and zero murders linked to antifa or anti-fascism. (Note that the abstract linked in the Guardian article makes no mention of antifa or anti-fascist terrorism.) I think we should make it more clear that the database came from the CSIS, while analysis of deaths and murders linked to antifa and anti-fascism came from the Guardian. (Relevant quote from the Guardian article: "The database was assembled by researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a centrist thinktank, and reviewed by the Guardian.") Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the quotes, I do not see why they are undue. We can improve the wording without implying "that the study treats antifa attacks and left-wing violence interchangeably". I think they are especially relevant because The Guardian itself and those quoted discuss the false equivalence that is portrayed in the reactions of the Trump administrations, etc. As for the activist, we report former antifa organizer Scott Crow and I think it is fine to have an antifa view of the George Floyd protests vis-à-vis the Trump et al. view of 'antifa violence'. Davide King (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you may be attributing to edits that I actually made. I think the original edit was fully apples to apples, and the recent change Davide King made is also fully apples to apples, although it refers only to victims, per this discussion. soibangla (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, your original edit was fully apples to apples. I was referring to this edit, although has since edited the article so that it's no longer a concern. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * antifa is not short-hand for anti-fascist, it is a sub-set. antifa wear black, donned face masks before COVIC-19, wave black and red flags, communicate with one another and organize counter-demonstrations. They are a group of people acting with a common purpose under a common name, which is what a group is. There are probably dozens of them in the U.S. There are probably tens of thousands of people who consider themselves anti-fascists. And there were millions of people who participated in the ongoing demonstrations. It is not a monolith controlled by Joe Biden and George Soros as portrayed by Trump and Fox News. TFD (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Special interest group opinions
I feel that the article should not be a platform to exhibit the opinion of special interest groups. For example, the recently added extremely POV opinion Heidi Beirich, a co-founder of the special interest group Global Project Against Hate and Extremism: "argued that "Antifa is not going around murdering people like rightwing extremists are. It's a false equivalence.". That's her opinion. Even though it was properly cited, what good does her opinion do for encyclopedia? Graywalls (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , first, I would not dismiss those as "extremely POV" opinions. They are Heidi Beirich, a co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism; and Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert who led the creation of the CSIS's database. So just because you do not like their opinions, that does not mean their expertness should be dismissed out of hand or even as "special interest group" opinion. Second, they are properly discussed in "Public reactions" and you also did not provide the full quote, which I included, i.e. "I've at times been critical of antifa for getting into fights with Nazis at rallies and that kind of violence, but I can't think of one case in which an antifa person was accused of murder". Third, the SLPC's comment that antifa members "have been involved in skirmishes and property crimes, but the threat of lethal violence pales in comparison to that posed by far-right extremists" has been cited by NBC News' "Florida 'antifa hunter' sentenced to three years after threatening Black political candidate, activist". Finally, it seems like you removed that in retailation for me removing "2020 trump supporter murder" [sic] section which does not warrant its own section (it should have been in "2018–2019"; it is badly written (several are uncapitalised, etc.); it includes yellow source New York Post; he has also stated "he was not a 'member' of antifa, but supported the ideology" so we cannot merely state "a self-described Antifa member", or favour one statement over the other; I see no consensus yet on the talk page other than waiting; and it would be better to discuss there first, gaining consensus and working together for how to word it, where and how to put it, etc., yet you put it anyway, despite the discussion on the talk page was still on going and there was some agreement to wait and discuss it further before doing what you did. Davide King (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we can have Conservative writers such as L. Brent Bozell III labeled Black Lives Matter as "antifa". [...] During the nationwide protests against the killing of George Floyd in May and June 2020, Attorney General William Barr blamed the violence on "anarchic and far left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics" and described the actions of "Antifa and other similar groups" as "domestic terrorism", echoing similar statements by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien. In Twitter posts and other statements, Trump blamed "ANTIFA and the Radical Left" for violence and repeatedly pledged that the federal government would designate antifa as a "Terrorist Organization" and so on, I do not see why we cannot have a comment that is also critical and another by a counter-terrorism expert as part of "Public opinions", especially when they are part of a 2020 study and have been reported in and reviewed by The Guardian; and also another that while arguing "the threat of lethal violence pales in comparison to that posed by far-right extremists", it states that antifa members "have been involved in skirmishes and property crimes". So much for being "extremely POV" opinions. Davide King (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's perfectly reasonable to include context regarding the survey and counterpoints to O'Brien, Trump, et al. FDW777 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Torch Network redirects
Torch Antifa, Torch Antifa Network, Torch Network and Torch Network Antifa redirect here but aren't mentioned anywhere in the article. At one point the article was full of such mentions, then in 2017 most were removed, leaving only a single mention citing this Mother Jones piece (see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 1). I'm not sure when or why that remaining mention was removed, but given the absence of any discussion of the network the redirects aren't helping anybody out. Should we add a mention, citing Mother Jones or something else, or should the redirects go to RfD? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is a good point. I agree it should be either re-added, perhaps in "Background", or the redirect should go to RfD. What is your opinion about it? Do you think it would be good to re-add them? Since I am here, I would also like to point that we have a hidden note stating Plenty more in this source, referring to So I wonder if we have added that already and if there is more useful information that is missing. Finally, I did add  to "Further reading" and I wonder if anyone read it and if you have any proposal on how incorporate and use it in the main body to add more, relevant information about antifa. Davide King (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the redirects should probably be deleted, but always prefer to draw attention to them before nominating in case anyone thinks adding a mention would improve the article. I don't know about the Cannistraro article but certainly agree that the Vysotsky book will be useful – I doubt I'll be able to get hold of a copy anytime soon but the Taylor & Francis website has the introduction available as a preview. His article "The Anarchy Police" is also very interesting but came a bit before the entry of "antifa" into mainstream use in the U.S., so probably can't be used for this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going through the talk and I am starting to wonder if this page, as well as Rose City Antifa truly have actual consensus. Here, the two of you dominate nearly a full 1/3 of authorship; with one of you having 22.2% of authorship. Graywalls (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is not the place to make such personal attacks or accusations. I have been more than willing in making compromises and let many changes of wording and other improvements rightful stay. Despite some disagreement, this is what had to say about me. Davide King (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a personal attack. I'm just pointing out I feel there's a feeling of dominance. Graywalls (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Outside of a few extremely-high-profile articles, that sort of figure is actually not particularly uncommon. Often most of the prose of an article is just written by a few editors. --Aquillion (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook only mentions Torch Antifa. Are we sure they are separate groups? TFD (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean – are we sure what are separate groups? If you mean Torch Antifa, Torch Antifa Network, Torch Network and Torch Network Antifa then no, I'm pretty sure they're different names for a single group. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I searched for information on the Torch Network when someone wanted to rewrite Anti-Racist Action to focus heavily on it. It does not have much coverage (some, but not dramatically more than many comparable groups) and should therefore probably not get much focus here.  I also got the impression that there may have been a WP:COI involved in the extent to which it was, at certain points, pushed as a central topic there, which may also have affected this page in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Going off the discussion I linked above, it seems to have been added by Claíomh Solais who's now blocked, though I can't see any indication of a COI in their case. If in other instances it was added by others I haven't been able to find them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Far-left politics
I'm guessing there's an attempt to add Antifa there. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone see more sources suggesting the government is trying to downplay white supremacists and upplay antifa?
If this is the only one, we can't use it.
 * Here are a couple that seem pertinent to your question . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , and the White House denies it, which is as close as you get these days to formal confirmation that it's true... Guy (help! - typo?) 08:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag for Academics and scholars
, please clarify the reason behind your addition of the unbalanced template. What exactly is unbalanced and what is this particular viewpoint you mentioned in your edit summary? "I don't like it" is not a good reason. Davide King (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. When someone adds one, they are supposed to set up a discussion thread, otherwise it is trolling. TFD (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that WP:Don't like it is not a valid reason for anything on Wikipedia, obviously.
 * The sub section and the larger section as a whole seems to talk about only one view point. What I mean by that is not all reactions are fairly represented. Most of the reactions in that section talk about Antifa favorably, or at least minimize it's threat. I'm not criticizing that viewpoint or reaction. That is a perfectly fine and reasonable view to have. However, there are certainly other public and mainstream reactions that may not be as favorable to Antifa and may view it or react to it negatively. Those should be better represented in that section. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , then please provide reliable sources and the phrasing you want to add. Provide an example of text, with a few reliable sources, to be added. Davide King (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ...Honestly, I was hoping that I could identify the problem and then someone else could fix it for me...I'm a bit too lazy to actually go through the trouble of fixing it myself. Tags are meant identify a problem, and warn viewers about it. And eventually someone is supposed to fix it and remove the tag. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unbalanced says This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. FDW777 (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , as correctly stated by, it needs to be discussed because the template should be justified with a valid reason. Since you are the one to added the template, it would be helpful if you could provide an example of text to be added with reliable sources. By the way, there are already negative reactions like Chomsky (despite being a left-winger himself) and others. It seems to be that the right has overwhelmingly negative views; the centre may think of antifa as misguided people whose opposition to fascism and racism is obviously a good principle (while the right may dispute they are even anti-fascists and anti-racists) but their tactics are not, etc.; and the left itself is divided as always. If you can find other academic and scholars' opinions that are not included, feel free to notify us here so we can discuss them. There are already plenty of centrist and conservative reactions in "Public reactions". Davide King (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no grounds for the tag at this time, as this article is highly active, so it's not like anything is simply unnoticed, and no sources to remedy the issue have been presented. We could probably expand on what Chomsky said a bit though; right now it just quotes him but doesn't explain what he meant. Crossroads -talk- 17:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure Chomsky actually belongs to that section. Of course he is an academic and scholar, but he is a linguistics scholar. His views on antifa are expressed in his capacity as an anarchist/left activist. Penny's response is also not that of an academic: she is a journalist who has written on the far right. I would suggest moving this material, and probably that of Kazin (who is also an academic but writing more as an activist) to a new section, entitled something along the lines of "Left perspectives". BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

My proposed compromise lead version
As I wrote here, there is no consensus on left-wing, so I was wondering if it would be fine to remove left-wing from the first sentence as we already mention it later on by stating Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism which gives more context and in my view is a compromise in that the label is used as those in favour wanted, but it is put in the proper context and not as the very first sentence as those opposed argued. Left-wing has even less consensus than all other proposal (13 omission, 10 far-left and only 5 left-wing), so it seems to be still there just because that was the status quo ante, with only the removal of militant as there was no consensus for that. My compromise version proposal seemed to be perfectly fine until correctly lamented that the closure stated for left-wing to stay in the first sentence (I thought in the lead, not in the first sentence, so my bad about that) and they were right, so I self-reverted. However, if they are consistent, they ought to support also the removal of far-left and militant as there was no consensus for either and indeed I added them myself to the lead (before the closure), despite voting for omission, because I thought it would be a fine compromise. This is the closure version. —Davide King (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not follow at all. Here is the closure. It does not say there is no consensus for that specific material. Stating "This may involve...militancy" is not the same as calling them "militant", merely that their tactics may involve militancy. While I can accept that word not being in that spot, I especially object to taking "Antifa involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents and the police has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left[7][19][20][21] and militant.[22][23][24][25]" out of the lead entirely. It is highly relevant and WP:Due. It is not in violation of the RfC because it is not in Wikipedia's voice, and while there was not a consensus about that specficially in the RfC (note: not a consensus against it), there is a consensus for it because it has been there since August 24. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS: Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. This edit should be reverted as a WP:POINTy unilateral ultimatum. We are not obligated to "compromise" in a fashion defined by one person. Even though you did add it to the lead originally, it's everyone's say now; I see no reason not to have both. In the first sentence we say they are on the left half of the political spectrum in Wikipedia's voice, and then a little later we explain that they get characterized as far-left and militant. There was significant support for far-left in the RfC, so it makes sense to have it in the lead in this attributed fashion. When even Mark Bray says about antifa, these are self-described revolutionaries. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum. They’re not interested in and don’t feel constrained by conventional norms., I see no reasonable basis for objecting to that statement. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , there was even more support for omission. Perhaps the RfC should have made more clear whether those labels should be in the lead's very first sentence or not at all. I thought it was about the whole lead, not just the first sentence. Bray does not call them far-left, that sounds like your own interpretation. [17:42, 12 September 2020] The RfC starts stating "How should the lead characterise Antifa, in Wikipedia's voice?" No mention of first sentence. [17:44, 12 September 2020] Ironically, following WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS may also mean that the removal of left-wing falls under implicit consensus as it was not reverted since at least 24 August (it was already removed). Now, of course it can be argued that the closure overturn this, but my removal of left-wing was removed only by you today and no one else seemed to object to it. —Davide King (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The closure version is what it is. And I note Rosguill's closure is based on the expanded lead including the term "militant", which you now removed: Thus, this close will reinstate "left-wing" in the first sentence, but will not do the same for "militant", noting as well that the lead has since been fleshed out to provide a more detailed description of Antifa's tactics, militant and otherwise. Crossroads -talk- 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "More support for omission" of what? The closure states, I count 13 !votes for omission and 10 !votes for "far-left", with largely the same justifications as the main two camps of the first question, with 5 !votes for left wing. That's 18 to 10 wanting some description of their position on the political spectrum in Wikipedia's voice. Crossroads -talk- 17:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just an interjection on the mathematics here. !13 for omission, !10 for far left and !5 for left is a weak 13:15 omission:description (not 10:18). Presumably the inclusion of "far left" within "left-wing" is why the closure restored "left-wing" despite the majority for ommission. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting something doesn't make it part of the RFC's consensus; there wasn't much discussion of (and therefore no clear support for) that addition. As I'm sure you're aware, the default in a no-consensus situation is that the status quo holds until a consensus is reached. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, omission has the most votes. You are also wrong about the closure, it states that it "will not do the same for 'militant'", i.e. it will not add militant, but only because "the lead has since been fleshed out [ironically, by me] to provide a more detailed description of Antifa's tactics, militant and otherwise", yet if we are to strictly follow the results as you argue, we ought to remove it, for there was no consensus in the RfC; and if we follow WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, my compromise proposal still stands, for the same 24 August version you cited already omitted left-wing in the first sentence. Davide King (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of a political label has the most votes. I did not endorse the 24 August version in its entirety; that was to show that piece you removed now was long-standing. You seem to be under the impression that it has to be one or the other, and that is not the case. Crossroads -talk- 18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The removal of left-wing was also long-standing and had the least amount of votes when considered omission, far-left and left-wing as separate things. You also cannot assume that those who supported far-left or left-wing would be fine with either (a few were, but I cannot tell whether literally everyone of those who voted for either would be; I seem to remember a few others who were clearly in favour of left-wing but not far-left; I myself would have favoured left-wing over far-left as second choice) or favour something else. Davide King (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misreading the history, the section you're defending is a new addition, which means that if someone objects to it you have to demonstrate consensus for it per WP:ONUS / WP:QUO; and Davide King has obviously objected. I'll add my objection to his - the bit you're adding seems fairly WP:UNDUE.  It summarizes a mere single sentence in the article, which hardly seems enough to justify inclusion in the lead.  And the cites for militant in particular are fairly poor - there is only one academic source; it is cited largely to passing mentions from news media.  Even far-left, which has better citations, is not presented as a universal or even widespread descriptor in the sources (part of the reason the previous RFC failed to reach a consensus.)  Beyond that the lead is already massive and goes into far more intricate depth on Antifa's ideology, methods, and background, so I'm not sure what a weasel-y "some people say" addition really adds to it. And more broadly, while you're not obliged to accept any compromise, I feel that the split nature of the recent RFC ought to make it obvious that there's a general disagreement - adding such a dramatic thing to the lead, then rejecting a compromise and claiming implicit consensus for your addition, all seems a bit WP:BOLD to the point of recklessness. Slow down a bit - no disasters will occur if the article retains its WP:QUO version for a while longer (which plainly does have implicit consensus backing it, unlike your contested addition.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. In addition, I admit I am fairly surprised there is such an issue with my compromise proposal; it looks very petty. As I wrote above, "Ironically, following WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS may also mean that the removal of left-wing falls under implicit consensus as it was not reverted since at least 24 August (it was already removed). Now, of course it can be argued that the closure overturn this, but my removal of left-wing was removed only by you today and no one else seemed to object to it." My compromise version seemed to be perfectly fine, perhaps even better than the closure. I was for omission (from the whole lead), yet I think my compromise proposal would be better. Davide King (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, to be clear, I did not add that text to the lead. I endorse it, but I did not write it or edit it in. Crossroads -talk- 18:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , my move to the lead was based on the compromise that left-wing was removed from the first sentence as that would be told later and as it was removed before my compromise addition (perhaps I should have specified that addition to the lead was a compromise on my part and I did not necessarily endorse it). I am still not sure the movement itself is necessarily left-wing, although I personally think it is. What I mean by this is what sources such as the BBC stated, i.e. that "as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy". There may well be antifa members who strive for a post-capitalist society, but the movement itself concentrates on fighting far-right ideology, or that its members are overwhelmingly left-wing, but I am unsure whether fighting far-right ideology, even by direct actions, make the movement left-wing rather than anti-fascist. Again, it seems to be left-wing because its members are overwhelmingly left-wing. Hence why I thought and still think it would be better to just use anti-fascist and use left-wing to describe the ideologies most members subscribe to. But it is not a big deal and I am fine either way. However, raised an interesting point that "the cites for militant in particular are fairly poor - there is only one academic source; it is cited largely to passing mentions from news media. Even far-left, which has better citations, is not presented as a universal or even widespread descriptor in the sources (part of the reason the previous RFC failed to reach a consensus". So clearly, there is no consensus either way (Aquillion and I reject the addition to the lead and you reject my compromise proposal) and we should simply stick to the status quo. I think that is fine. I hope the change from left-wing, anti-fascist to anti-fascist and left-wing will not cause the same issue. Davide King (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the "compromise version" is far better and much closer to the spirit of the closure than a first sentence which says left-wing, as was supported by only 5 people in the RfC. It is the members of the movement who hold to a variety of left-wing positions, rather than the movement itself which is left-wing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Rfc about weather to include Supreme Court case in lede
Should the following italicized sentence be included in the MOS:LEAD after the first amendment reference? If you would support its inclusion, but request a different source please include something akin to *Support, but with a more objective source. If you would support its inclusion, but not in the lede please include something akin to *Oppose, but only in the lede.

''In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a law that allowed the federal government to prohibit citizens from providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, the court stated “We ... do not suggest that Congress could extend the same prohibition on material support at issue here to domestic organizations” which has been understood as a hint of the courts rejection of applying terrorist status to domestic organization. '' GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support To start, the lede for this page is already lengthy and the one sentence is not big enough to make it overzealous. The sentence is notable as the strongest rebuke from the judiciary that Trump cannot do what he is being accused of. It takes precedence over legal experts' opinions since it's from the Judicial Branch itself. The cited source being an opinion piece doesn't warrant removal, as WP:RSOPINION itself notes, but rather a re-wording this is a legal expert opinion. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Clear and unambiguous violation of WP:LEAD at the present time. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the lead. Maybe something like this could go in the body if a non-opinion source unambiguously connects it to antifa. But "has been understood as a hint" looks tenuous, and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY should be followed. The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize. And I note that WP:RFCBEFORE was not followed here. There was no need to go to straight to RfC. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Crossroads, I'm under the assumption WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is not an actual policy, because it has not been vetted and that WP:RFCBEFORE is optional and also not a policy because it has not been vetted, but if I am wrong please correct me. Do you think a conversation on a talk page would be more efficient in solving this dispute? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do believe a talk page discussion (which can grow out of this RfC if it's delisted) would be more efficient. Crossroads -talk- 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose in the lead, just way too undue focus on one specific opinion - the broad aspect of the topic that this is relevant to is already summarized in the lead with However, academics, legal experts and scholars, among others, argue that antifa cannot be designated as it would be a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and there is no legal authority to designate a wholly domestic organization, which is more than sufficient and summarizes a broader swath of sources while hitting the central point. It could possibly go in the body but ideally we'd want to find a non-opinion source.  The issue with the source isn't objectivity per se, the issue is that it's an opinion piece; and the problem with it going in the lead is that it's going into hyper-specific individual case-law arguments, when the lead is supposed to be a broad summary.  Also, just as an aside - it takes precedence over legal experts' opinions since it's from the Judicial Branch itself.  This isn't true.  Caselaw is a WP:PRIMARY source; we rely on legal experts' opinions to summarize and interpret it.  So citing a bunch of legal experts saying "Trump cannot do this because XYZ" is more important, especially for the lead.  We can drill into specific arguments and caselaw in the body, but even then we would want higher-quality secondary sourcing to indicate that a particular argument or precedent is particularly relevant, and as secondary sources go one opinion piece isn't the best. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Antifa in the "Platinum Plan for Black America"
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "rm as recentism -- not clear if it's an actual plan or a PR move". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism and defense in the Introduction
Part of the second paragraph of the introduction - starting at "Antifa actions have received both criticism and praise." - and the entire third paragraph are focused on criticism and a defense of Antifa. The wording tends to drift toward describing Antifa opponents instead of containing information about the movement itself. As it stands, these paragraphs seem well suited for a Criticism section, but not for the introduction. I suggest moving them to their own section. I also suggest replacing these paragraphs in the introduction by focusing on Antifa supporters instead of the movement and avoiding references to Donald Trump comments. The following is my suggestion:

The FBI has expressed increasing concern about violence perpetrated by Antifa supporters. In congressional testimony in November 2017, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that the FBI was pursuing “a number of what we would call anarchist extremist investigations, where we have properly predicated subjects [people] who are motivated to commit violent criminal activity on kind of an Antifa ideology.” On June 4, 2020, Director Wray confirmed active FBI domestic terrorism investigations involving Antifa supporters. Later, in September 2020, he reiterated that Antifa is an "ideology, not an organization".[50]

Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/IF10839.pdf

Jared.h.wood (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is because this is a summary of Public reactions and Hoaxes. The lead is supposed to summarise the body. Perhaps we may a add one or two more sentences to summarise Activities. Incidentally, your given source says "Some memebers are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protests such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching." This is also supported by Mark Bray in main body, so a sentence like this may be added at the end of the first paragraph. Davide King (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think it is a good source and a good example of an impartial description of Antifa. I see your point about the intro summarizing the Hoaxes section below and withdraw my proposal to remove the mention of it. I maintain that the intro still seems defensive of Antifa. Your comment is an example of what I am seeing and pointing out in the introduction.  Notice how you quoted the source that talks about violence and non-violence, but you emphasized the non-violence with bold lettering.  As I read the current into, it seems to do the same; overcompensating in the attempt to emphasize the defense of negative info instead of just relating the simple information.  This is just an observation from a Wikipedia fan with a motive to make the article more credible. Jared.h.wood (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I put it in bold because I assumed, from your few comments, you hold a critical view of it and maybe were not aware of that. See, it goes both way. Also notice how it says some (not most) about violence and much (not few) about non-violence. If it sounds "defensive", that has probably more to do with you holding negative views on it because that is a summary of what reliable sources reported in the body which we summarised. Davide King (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanations and your concern that I may not be aware of the extent or existence of my critical bias. Such a situation if often the case so it is reasonable that you would assume that about a stranger. Instead, please apply a tone of respect and decorum to my posts on this talk page. If you re-read them without implied hostility, you will see that they qualify as genuine suggestions and not trolling. You are correct that my personal views disagree with and are critical of extremist elements on both the left and on the right and that I view the Antifa philosophy at more extreme than moderate.  However, I was careful to read and study source material to come to this conclusion. It would seem that my arguments are not sufficient to convey my meaning so I will let what I have said be enough.  Thank you again for responding on behalf of the administrators who have privileges for editing this article. Jared.h.wood (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , apologies if I sounded too aggressive or critical. But why should we use once source (the FBI) over all the others in the lead? I think what you want is already at Law enforcement and officials reactions. Again, your proposed suggestion seems to be a good add for the main body, but probably not for the lead; it would need to be either better worded, or with more sources to establish due weight. Also beware of false balance and false equivalence. Davide King (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Mark Bray
Here, reverted my addition to the lead, stating that "[n]either source verifies it. The Beauchamp/Vox source explicitly attributes that claim to Mark Bray, so we cannot repeat that in our own voice, and the Sacco/CRS source says 'much', not 'most.'" I have no problem with changing most to much. also stated above that "Bray is not a reliable source on characterization of antifa." So what is to be done? Bray is a Dartmouth College historian and author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, who has been described as an "antifa expert" by The Washington Post, a reliable source from which he has published several articles. Reliable sources consider him reliable; that he is "far from neutral" as argued by Graywalls (citing this Post Gazette article, how much reliable it is?), even if true, does not seem to affect his reliability. Both Bray and the Congressional Research Service agreed that "much" of antifa activities is related to nonviolent protests. Graywalls also called Bray a "political activist", but given source says "American academic and political organizer" (are "political activist" and "political organizer" the same thing?). We also have Vysotsky, Stanislav (2020). American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780367210601. Maybe it is time to use it too? Or is this academic book not "neutral" enough and too much "biased", too? —Davide King (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What does a "much" statement add to the first paragraph that is not already there? Crossroads -talk- 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding: We shouldn't give undue weight to "hanging posters, delivering speeches and marching as well as activism, flyer campaigns and community organizing". They don't end up in the news because they've been hanging posters and passing out flyers. "Protest tactics" covers that. And most sources on them focus on their activities which distinguish them from BLM and other more mainstream protestors. Crossroads -talk- 02:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , for one, you were wrong to claim "[n]either source verifies it." My addition was supported by the given sources, although it could be worded better and changed most to much. And Bray did say that "conventional activism, flyer campaigns, and community organizing, on behalf of anti-racist and anti-white nationalist causes" is the "vast majority" of what they did during the George Floyd protests. It is more a matter on whether it is lead worthy. As for your claim that "[t]hey don't end up in the news because they've been hanging posters and passing out flyers", I think WikiProject Anarchism/Referencing explains some of the issues. "And most sources on them focus on their activities which distinguish them from BLM and other more mainstream protestors." That does not mean we ought to concentrate only on those, or exclude those who do not. Again, Bray says "vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But 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." Davide King (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Even Bray himself acknowledges he's biased. "Bray describes his book as “an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent far right”." from: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/22/antifa-anti-fascist-handbook-trump-us-politics-far-right-charlottesville so his book shouldn't be used to support something that is controversial since he is way too pro-antifa. Graywalls (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That essay has no weight in anything as for appropriateness of sourcing for Wikipedia. "as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Graywalls (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see how that is "controversial" when the Congressional Research Service essentially says the same thing ("Some members are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protest such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching."). Is that "too pro-antifa", too? We only report the first part ("engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists. This may involve digital activism, harassment, physical violence and property damage against those whom they identify as belonging to the far-right."). My wording proposal can be easily fixed by changing most to much per source. Either way, I would like other users to weight in. Obviously, you and I, and Crossroads and I agree to disagree. I just think one or two more sentences in the first paragraph as summary of Activities would be an improvement. Davide King (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been explained over and over again at this talk page, Bray is a credentialled and respected expert on this subject. Factual claims made by credentialled and respected experts do not require in-text attribution, especially when they're supported by additional reliable sources, as this claim is. The idea that Bray is not a reliable source—indeed, that Bray is not an ideal source—is based on a misunderstanding of the relevant Wikipedia guideline, which is very clear that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". It's also based on a misunderstanding of how academic research works. The purpose of published research is to argue a case; the fact that Bray has reached a certain conclusion, based on his research, on this subject in no way casts any doubt on the validity of his conclusions. Serious scholarly sources do not feign neutrality, they make arguments based on evidence. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you! That is what I thought too, so I was surprised to read how Bray is biased (as if that implies they are no longer reliable; if this was applied consistently, most reliable sources are biased as centrist is an ideology, too), despite reliable sources describing him as "an expert" and quoting him extensively, even writing articles for the same reliable sources. My wording proposal is to add "Much of antifa activity involves nonviolent protests such as hanging posters, delivering speeches and marching as well as activism, flyer campaigns and community organizing on behalf of anti-racist and anti-white nationalist causes." Wording can be improved and changed, or better paraphrased, but the main point stands; much of antifa activity involves nonviolent protests and this is what they did during the George Floyd protests (that some news sources may have picked up the news of antifa violence does not imply that was the majority of what they actually did). I do not see how that wording is controversial unless one has a narrow-minded view of antifa. Davide King (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Recentism tag
, please explain your reasoning for the tag and let us discuss this. You should open a discussion on the talk page before placing those tags. What is exactly the recentism you are referring to? Notable actions stops at February 2019, so maybe the reverse is true? Davide King (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Like half the lead is about the few months May 2020 to September 2020. I had previously put the lead rewrite template, but you reverted claiming it was a misuse of the template. I am not accusing of you racism or anything like that, am assuming good faith in the first instance. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. That part of the lead is a summary of Public reactions. Davide King (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be unreasonable to try and condense the final paragraph a bit, but I'm not sure where to start. Possibly the first two sentences (During the George Floyd protests in May and June 2020, President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr blamed antifa for orchestrating the mass protests, but analysis of federal arrests did not find links to antifa.[44] There have been repeated calls from Trump, Barr and others to designate antifa as a terrorist organization which Barr has characterized as "highly organized") could be condensed into one, since they say basically the same thing, and the whole thing could be condensed into a summary of the broader topic of Antifa being blamed for stuff it wasn't responsible for - or perhaps the first sentence could be combined with the paragraph above (it is topically linked to the hoaxes sentence.)  Likewise, "attempts to get it classified as a terrorist organization, which go nowhere because of the First Amendment" could probably be condensed into one sentence.  The June 2020 study could be combined with the sentence after it rather than being mentioned specifically.  I also don't think we need to mention Barr (he is a political appointee of Trump and, therefore, his statements and positions aren't individually noteworthy enough for the lead when we're already covering Trump - it's assumed that an Attorney General will hold the same position as their president.)  We could also probably drop the back and forth between Wray and Trump (it is noteworthy as back-and-forth between two major figures in the US government, but probably not leadworthy, since it doesn't say anything about Antifa that isn't already stated elsewhere in the lead.)  Something like, very roughly:
 * ...have been multiple efforts to discredit antifa groups via hoaxes on social media, many of them false flag attacks originating from alt-right and 4chan users posing as antifa backers on Twitter.[39][40][41] Some hoaxes have been picked up and reported as fact by right-leaning media.[39][42][43] During the George Floyd protests in May and June 2020, the Trump administration blamed antifa for orchestrating the mass protests; analysis of federal arrests found no such links.


 * There have been repeated calls by the Trump administration to designate antifa as a terrorist organization, a move that academics, legal experts, and others argue would both exceed the authority of the presidency and violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Several analyses, reports and studies concluded that antifa is not a domestic or major terrorism risk, especially compared to the far more serious risks posed by far-right extremism and white supremacists.   A June 2020 study of 893 terrorism incidents in the United States since 1994 found no murder that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists or antifa, while 329 deaths were attributed to right-wing perpetrators.
 * That seems to capture most of the important points with less focus on blow-by-blow stuff. It's just a first draft, so let me know if you think I left out or mangled anything important. --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems good. Maybe all that is needed at the moment, but happy to listen to any other suggestions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's go with that for now, and remove the tag. Crossroads -talk- 21:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

FBI Director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization
I know Snopes isn’t an RS, but this article is a reprint of an Associated Press article. Seems like a big deal for our article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Bite Hi friend, I added! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And Trump on debates: "You're fired Wray!" 109.252.55.72 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

If its not an organization then why is there branches of the organization with individual members? The astroturfing on here is amazing. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , where do you get that from? Antifa has no "members" or "branches". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your joking right?Guitarguy2323 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , about wanting reliable sources and not your unsourced opinion? No, not joking. (Also, "you're", not "your"). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok so you are brainwashed got it.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, link to a reliable source to evidence your point. Otherwise, why wouldn’t anyone say to you “Ok so you are brainwashed got it.” DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you seem to be the one who is brainwashed. I can cite sources like this one. What sources do you have? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is whom not who are brainwashed. The flyers as exhibited in any pic search for one, address antifa, are they inviting ideas to these functions?  Does WP/TRUTH even exist as a policy on the site any longer?2601:46:C801:B1F0:3079:2A8E:231:192C (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2020
Please Identify Antifa as a terrorist organization and not a political movement 2603:9001:6601:8800:45D3:F859:8F0B:48D0 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. FDW777 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: since nobody has designated Antifa as a "terrorist organization", we won't pretend that anybody has. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, "organizations acting under the banner of Antifa to be designated as domestic terrorist organizations." https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6601:8800:45D3:F859:8F0B:48D0 (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * S.Res.279 is a non-binding resolution that doesn't even seem to have been voted on. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Include the recent murder in Portland OR
We should include the recent murder of a protestor by an Antifa member in Portland OR. Killdozer2021 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since nothing is confirmed, doing so would violate WP:BLPCRIME. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There already is coverage in some reliable sources like the WSJ: Police Investigating Antifa Supporter Michael Reinoehl in Portland Shooting, but for this article it won't hurt if we wait a bit more. --Pudeo (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The WSJ was the only source I could find among either print or broadcast mainstream media. Note that the WSJ article merely calls him an antifa supporter, not a member, although it says he claims to be a member. We will have to wait to see if (1) the story gets more coverage and (2) he actually is a member of antifa. They don't use the term murder either since the circumstances of the shooting are unknown. TFD (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a thing with a membership, though. There's no membership rolls, there's no dues to pay, your name doesn't go on a list somewhere.  It's a loose collection of people who self-identify with the movement based on shared ideology.  He can identify with it, he can support it, but it's not a thing of which one is a member.  -- Jayron 32 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean there are no members, just that it takes judgment to determine who is a member. Reliable sources can determine who is or is not antifa. For example, we can use a source that says antifa members showed up at a demonstration. TFD (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not members. People who associate with the movement.  Again, there is no membership.  You keep using that word wrong.  -- Jayron 32 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your position seems to lead to the consequence that no one is antifa. It would be a group without members. I would say people who claim to be antifa and go to antifa events are antifa, even if there is no member registry. Still, I agree with people above in saying there is no rush to add information in the face of uncertainty. MonsieurD (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just it, there is no formal membership because there's no formal organization. It's all self-identification. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't have membership. It's like being a fan of a TV show or that you like pepperoni on your pizza.  It's a thing you have in common with other people, in this case the philosophy of antifacism, but it doesn't have a membership anymore than being a Game of Thrones fan does.  You can be a Game of Thrones fan and that's a real group of people with shared interests, but they don't have a membership.  People really are anti-facist.  They don't need a membership to identify as such.  Not all real things are groups that have official memberships.  -- Jayron 32 15:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's my point, though. People are fixated on calling this person "a member of antifa," when that's the wrong wording IMO. If someone is a supporter of LGBT+ rights, we don't call them an "LGBT+ member." As The Four Deuces points out, we could call this person an "antifa supporter." The whole "membership" angle is a red herring, meant to try and frame antifa as a formal organization being led by powerful individuals for nefarious means. We should avoid that terminology unless explicitly used by an RS and, even then, specifically in that source's voice. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , correct: no-one is Antifa. Many people are anti-fascist, and some would define themselves as part of the anti-fascist movement, but Antifa has no corporate identity so nobody is, or is a member of, Antifa. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that makes sense. Would you also be ok with saying no one is a Boogaloo boys since there are no official books held by the movement ?MonsieurD (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think there is a difference between them though. "While boogaloo groups are often described as a part of a larger boogaloo movement, MacNab has said she does not agree with this characterization '[s]ince the majority of participants were radicalized elsewhere prior to donning a Hawaiian shirt—either in anti-government militant groups such as the Three Percenters or the militias, or in white supremacy groups—the Boogaloo shouldn't be considered an independent movement at this time'. [...] MacNab testified: 'The boogaloo movement, for example, isn't really a movement. It's a dress code, it's a way of talking, it's jargon. The people who belong to it came from other extremist groups, usually on Facebook. They might have been militia, they might have been a white supremacy [group]. They picked it up somewhere and they donned that Hawaiian shirt, and yet they're treated as a separate movement, and the problem is you're ignoring the underlying areas that they came from'." Davide King (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there are differences between them, but the fact that there is no registry or official card for a group doesn't mean the group has no members. Anyway, reliable sources should be our standard here. If they say a guy is a member of Antifa, then Wikipedia should echo this. If they don't, same thing. MonsieurD (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this reasoning is that, as this discussion bears out, the meaning of "member" in this context is always ambiguous and potentially confusing. You're right that one can be a member of a group without a formal membership, but the absence of a formal membership is both a vitally important fact about antifa and one that is often misunderstood (or deliberately misportrayed). By which I mean, given that a lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that antifa has a formal membership, we have a responsibility to make clear that that's not the case, which includes using less ambiguous and more accurate wording than the sources we cite when necessary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Didn't the murderer say he was "100% Antifa"? Killdozer2021 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLPCRIME. Suspicion is not an arrest, an arrest is not a conviction, and hyperbolic statements on social media are no substitute for reliable sources documenting the manner and extent of an individual's involvement with a group. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are Antifa groups and people can be members of them, but if someone doesn't belong to such a group, they are supporters, not members.  Doug Weller  talk 13:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is very true. If someone does actually belong to a group which itself ascribes to the philosophy of being anti-facist, it would be correct to identify them as a member of that group.  But to say one is a member of Antifa is inaccurate.  -- Jayron 32 15:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We should also keep in mind the caveat that headlines, which are often written by people other than the reporters, might say "antifa member" for brevity while the actual text makes clear that a more appropriate phrasing would be "antifa supporter", "antifa sympathizer", "member of an antifa-aligned group", etc. All of this just reflects the inherent difficulty in documenting a more-or-less leaderless disorganization. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong about this but I think at this time the police have been referring to this guy only as "a person of interest".  Volunteer Marek   17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , though it would not be surprising if the person who shot a fascist turned out to be an anti-fascist. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. Doug Weller  talk 15:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This says possible BLM supporter. . Doug Weller  talk 16:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it now okay to call recently dead people fascists without sourcing? Or are we talking about somebody other than Aaron Danielson?  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah exactly. I know this is kinda old. But are we just going to ignore the fact that an admin just referred to the man who died as a "fascist" with zero evidence? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, a wikipedia admin calling a random murdered person "a fascist". This is the absolute state of this shit page --Kasabian (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We also have "Florida 'antifa hunter' sentenced to three years after threatening Black political candidate, activist". "Antifa is a militant leftist coalition of anti-fascists that has been the subject of viral, false speculation and is a favorite target of President Donald Trump, who has threatened to designate it a terrorist organization. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate and extremist groups, has said that its members have been involved in skirmishes and property crimes, 'but the threat of lethal violence pales in comparison to that posed by far-right extremists.'" — Davide King (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We clearly cannot include attacks on others by Antifa supporters without including the opposite. Doug Weller  talk 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The suspect, who has been killed by police said, told Vice, "I am 100 percent anti-fascist. I am not a member of Antifa. I'm not a member of anything." He's probably right. From what I can tell, he wasn't a very social person. And there is no evidence that he attended antifa demonstrations. We should let reliable sources determine if he had any connection with antifa. TFD (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The New York Times: Law enforcement agents shot and killed an antifa supporter on Thursday as they moved to arrest him...“Initial reports indicate the suspect produced a firearm, threatening the lives of law enforcement officers,” the Marshals Service said in a statement. “Task force members responded to the threat and struck the suspect who was pronounced dead at the scene.”...“I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!” he posted on Instagram in June, referring to a loose collection of activists who have mobilized to oppose groups they see as fascist or racist. “I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters! Even if some of them are too ignorant to realize what antifa truly stands for. We do not want violence but we will not run from it either!”...[picture] Mr. Reinoehl, an antifa supporter, was being investigated in the killing of Aaron J. Danielson, a right-wing activist. Crossroads -talk- 15:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait and see if the news connects it to Antifa and, if so, to what extent; simply mentioning that he was a supporter isn't sufficient. Would we eg. list every time someone registered as a respective party member commits a crime on Democratic Party (United States) or Republican Party (United States)?  What matters is the extent to which the sources connect it directly to this topic (especially as a motivation, or if they present it directly as an antifa activity, ie. something that antifa as a group committed to or endorsed) rather than just mentioning or quoting the identification in passing. Right now, by my reading, the sources are only mentioning it in passing, so it doesn't belong here.  --Aquillion (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, "wait and see" generally seems like a good approach. We're not obligated to be up-to-the-minute, and we can take the time for journalists to do their thing, interviewing friends and family and so forth, providing a fuller picture than potentially hyperbolic statements on social media. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP just follows higher standards than regular WP:V, but it doesn't require absolute correctness, but requires sources that are considered solidly reliable. As said here, Antifa is highly active on Facebook, but each member operating anonymously; so therefore it would be unrealistic to get any confirmation of antifa from sources within that organization. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/23/what-antifa-and-what-does-movement-want/593867001/ If a source that is considered reliable confirms the subject said he's 100% antifa, it's not a matter of BLP, because it wouldn't be defaming the subject. It's a BLP issue if the source says the "subject allegedly said.. he's antifa" or "it's believed that he's antifa"... it's not a BLP issue if it can be credibly established that the subject said it. I don't see why it can't be included as long as we keep it to things that are known for certain as reported by the source, and not say what's not directly supported. It can be said that Jay was killed as a result of gun shots fired by Michael, a self-identified antifa. Graywalls (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the subject also said "I am 100% anti-fascist," Reinoehl said in the Vice interview. "I'm not a member of Antifa. I'm not a member of anything." Why ignore that? Davide King (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

why not use the wording that is already used in the page? "Individuals involved in the movement" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:C5E4:FFE4:B763:6626 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, Mark Bray is quoted as saying "they generally have about five to 15 members in a given city" https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-antifa-minneapolis-protests/2020/05/31/4f66c7a6-a36a-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:C5E4:FFE4:B763:6626 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Change from left to far-left
Pretty self explanatory, not a single person identifying with thus group can be conserved left-wing. They are far left extremists Anonymous 124563295 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources needed. Also, not a group.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Much more than that is needed, a new RFC would be needed to overturn the consensus from Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20. FDW777 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal. As for Reliable sources, the Ideology section of this article makes the case with sources that Antifa is Far-left politics. Here are relevant sourced quotes demonstrating this:












 * All of these quotes together with the sources give ample justification to change the opening sentence of the article from "is an anti-fascist action and left-wing political movement" to "far-left political movement". Furthermore, the end of the opening sentence states, "both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform".  Acting outside the established system is the very definition of far-left and far-right. Jared.h.wood (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can agree as much as you like, it won't be changed unless the previous RFC is overturned, which means a new RFC. FDW777 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , notice how it says some scholars and news media, not most. I have yet to find a quote of Bray stating antifa is far-left. We have American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism by Stanislav Vysotsky, does it says it is far-left? The final ref does not outright says it is far-left, just that it leans left. Also note that far-left, unlike far-right, is an ill-defined term. What is far-left? Anything left of social democracy? Anything left than the mainstream communist party? For Republicans, establishment Democrats are far-left. I also disagree that "[a]cting outside the established system is the very definition of far-left." I thought that was left-wing, which is for a change of system, like old liberals were on the left and opposed the aristocracy and the old-established order, so it is only far-left because since the 1970s the spectrum moved to the right and the United States really has no socialist or social-democratic party, but I digress. Either way, we would need another RfC to do that. Davide King (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so? Knowledge and biased are not mutually exclusive. An avid fan is probably knowledgeable on their subject, but their characterization or opinion about the subject would at the minimum have implicit bias. He's categorized as a political activist here: and apparently far from neutral: Bray is not a reliable source on characterization of antifa.


 * "Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of mostly far-left activists."


 * "The object of the president’s ire is known as the “Antifa” — shorthand for “anti-fascist” — movement, a decentralised group of far-left activists who advocate using violence to combat white supremacists and neo-Nazis...." Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what is your point exactly? Many of reliable sources we have at Perennial sources are centrist or are biased in some way; that does not affects their report or reliability, hence they are reliable sources. You say "Bray is not a reliable source on characterization of antifa." But he has been described as an "expert" of the movement by reliable sources as we report in the article. The BBC, among other sources, also used left-wing (rather than far-left), so there is no consistency or agreement among sources other than "lean left." Your given source also says "mostly far-left activists. They include anarchists, but also communists and a few social democrats. What sets them apart is their willingness to use violence - in self-defence, they say." Either way, if you favour far-left, that requires another RfC. See also this comment by stating that "I'll add my objection to his - the bit you're adding seems fairly WP:UNDUE.  It summarizes a mere single sentence in the article, which hardly seems enough to justify inclusion in the lead.  And the cites for militant in particular are fairly poor - there is only one academic source; it is cited largely to passing mentions from news media.  Even far-left, which has better citations, is not presented as a universal or even widespread descriptor in the sources (part of the reason the previous RFC failed to reach a consensus.)" Note that both given sources say "far-left activists." They are describing the activists views, not the movement, even if you think there is no difference. — Davide King (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Only sources (mostly news related) that have been repeatedly asked pop up on the perennial. Fox News appears as reliable, but the current consensus is that they're not reliable on political matters. A book or journal doesn't mean it's more neutral. Books can extend through the entire spectrum between Breitbart and Indymedia.org Expertise does not mean neutral. You poll a panel of master mechanics and there still will be a drastic divide between domestic vs import, Chevy vs Ford even if they can each be considered expert on general automotive topics. "I haven't heard Bray say they're far left" is not a strong argument. Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought reliability was more important and that other sources could be used to balance that. Regarding the far-left thing, Sacco, Lisa N. (June 9, 2020). "Are Antifa Members Domestic Terrorists? Background on Antifa and Federal Classification of Their Actions InFocus IF10839" says that "[i]ts tenets can echo the principles of anarchism, socialism, and communism. Members do not necessarily adhere to just the tenants of these philosophies, however. Among many other things, they may also support environmentalism, the rights of indigenous populations, and gay rights." No mention of left-wing or far-left. Davide King (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Antifa
Several federal arrests have been linked to Antifa, stop spreading misinformation Lostboy74 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , citation needed. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction on Antifa being linked to no deaths
Newsweek has correlated numerous murders directly to Antifa, and it should be noted that Antifa was primarily responsible for the construction of Chaz, where a teenager was gunned down in his car. 173.59.11.121 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * An op-ed written by Andy Ngo? Seriously?? FDW777 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How about non-Andy Ngo then, or are you going to strawman your way out of being a responsible archiver for this one too? 173.59.11.121 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the gift that keeps on giving. WP:DAILYMAIL. FDW777 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks kid, I try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.59.11.121 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. So maybe third time’s the charm? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no need to ridicule new users. We all had to start somewhere. There are people who insert radical disreputable sources from the left side too. Graywalls (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The author of that link is Andy Ngo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo
 * Andy Ngo " is an American conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur, best known for covering street protests in Portland, Oregon. He is editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website."  Wiki describes him a right wing provocateur. But honestly he doesn't seem to be as bad as social media exaggerates but making claims and accusing Antifa needs huge evidence. Many don't think Antifa has anything to do with it and the evidence provided can be real or fake.Vamlos (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Antifa actions have received both criticism and praise."
In the lead, we have "Antifa actions have received both criticism and praise." I think I have added/written that myself, but I believe it should be reworded, expanded a bit to clarify more, like "Antifa actions have received criticism from both the left and right" and then perhaps discuss that there are also more "sympathetic" accounts or "defence", especially when antifa is compared to right-wing extremism and white supremacy, see historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat's comment, rather than just say "praise". So how do you suggest to reword this? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase itself is meaningless. Literally every entity, person, organization, and idea in history "has received both criticism and praise".  If we have notable specific and widespread examples of either, then mention them in the lead, (by examples, I don't mean who is criticising, but rather the sort of repeated sustained reasons why the movement is criticized), but I don't find it necessary merely to note that "Some undetermined number of people have said nice things, and some undetermined number of people have said bad things".  It's so meaningless as to not bear even saying.  -- Jayron 32 12:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. We have a Public reactions section, surely that should be summarised in the lead? And the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Davide King (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We should mention notable examples of criticism and praise in the lead. Saying the sentences "They received both criticism and praise" as a phrase is pointless.  It's like saying "So and so was born and lived on earth".  It's a basic statement of existence and carries no useful information.  -- Jayron 32 13:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you must have missed my point because that is exactly my point! We should expand and clarify that. Davide King (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, in my first reply, I agreed with your main point, and then when you said "I disagree" you confused me. You shouldn't disagree with something when I reinforce your point.  -- Jayron 32 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, my bad for causing confusion and misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying we should not have any of that in the lead, while you were referring only to the current wording, which I agree with you is meaningless, hence my opening of this discussion to improve and clarify that. Davide King (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

,, , , , , , any suggestion on how to reword it and clarify that into something meaningful? Davide King (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it would be improved with a very brief summary of what they've been criticized/praised for. FDW777 (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, but I do not know yet exactly as to phrase it, so I wish if any of you could come up with a proposed wording as has done here. That is why I am asking and opened this thread. Davide King (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , makes sense. And by whom. Being criticized by fascists is kind of the point, after all. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I boldly reworded it myself since no one else proposed how to word it. It now reads "Antifa actions have received criticism from both the left and right.[29][30] Those on the left criticize antifa for its willingness to adopt violent direct actions and for being counterproductive[30] or backfiring by embolding the right and their allies[11] while those of the right characterize it as a domestic terrorist organization or use antifa as a catch-all term for all left-leaning or liberal protest actions.[31] Some scholars argue that antifa is a legitimate response to the rise of the far-right[32] and that antifa's violence such as milkshaking is not equivalent to right-wing violence.[11] Scholars tend to reject the equivalence between antifa and white supremacism.[33]" Feel free to propose suggestion. One possible change may be from "characterize" to "mischaracterize". Davide King (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , not a huge fan of the bit about terrorism, since that claim is so very obviously specious. Also not a big fan of Politico as a source. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , hence my suggestion to say "mischaracterize", although this is already discussed in the next paragraph, that is why I used "characterize" in the first place. How would you rephrase it? And what are the issues with the Politico source? "Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source." Davide King (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , more biased than I'd like, certainly. As I say, not a huge fan, and I would be looking for a better source if one is available. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , is "Trump, social media, right-wing news stir up antifa scares" by the Associated Press better? Davide King (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , definitely, thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Include the murder of Aaron Danielson
This article is an excellent PR page for Antifa, as it completely whitewashes all their crimes and ignores facts that the gatekeeping mod doesn't like. It states that no murder was attributable to Antifa since 1994, but we literally just had one recently. A self-proclaimed supporter of Antifa admitted to killing a conservative activist in Portland.

And before that one obsessive mod comes here and says "AnTiFa iS aN iDeOlOgY, nOt a GrOup", I would like to point out that incels are also based around an ideology instead of a group. Just because Antifa claims to be antifascist, does not mean that is all there is to their ideology. They have attacked people simply for being Trump voters, and they have caused rioting even when white nationalists are not present. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/politics/live-coverage-of-trumps-inauguration/black-bloc-style-tactics-seen-as-chaos-erupts-in-downtown-d-c/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choochootrain1 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * So far you're 2/2 for providing references that don't mention antifa. FDW777 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777 The Black Bloc adhere to the Antifa ideology, dude. Nice try though. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/antifa-fashion.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choochootrain1 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:SYN, and I suggest you read raven paradox. FDW777 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you are not going to listen to reason, so I will just leave the ADL's page for antifa so that others can see. Here they are rightly called out for violent attacks against non-fascists, something Wikipedia is apparently unwilling to do. https://www.adl.org/antifa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choochootrain1 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The article mentions violence in the first sentence. TFD (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To be fair, there is ample WP:RS saying Aaron Danielson was believed to be killed by a self-proclaimed “antifa supporter” e.g. this BBC article and this New York Times article. I don’t think it’s WP:EXAMPLEFARM to reference it given the event’s notability. Not sure why it’s not in this article. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve added it. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This was being discussed in a thread above. Which is one reason I hate it when people resurrect month-old threads, discussions get fragmented, and folks like DeCausa here miss out on it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No I read it. The reason not to include it seems out of date. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted. Also I don't think the phrasing used in the source, that antifa were prominent in BLM protests, is accurate since there are at most a few hundred antifa compared with 10s of millions of protesters. And they have received little if any media coverage. TFD (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The ADL page linked above (Who are Antifa?) actually refers to Danielson's killing. Quote: Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there has been one suspected antifa-related murder, which took place on August 29, 2020, in Portland, Oregon. The words "antifa-related murder" are hyperlinked to from last week, so this seems to be a very recent addition to the ADL page. --Andreas  JN 466 23:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do no hold a definitive position yet and I am willing to change my mind based on the strength of arguments and sources provided; however, note that the ADL also says suspected, not just antifa-related murder. So I agree with the view in the above thread that it is probably better to wait and see sources give stronger and more definitive wording, or perhaps when the investigation is over, especially if the investigation concludes that the killing of Reinohel was a murder or extrajudicial killing. Davide King (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reinoehl will never have his day in court, and sources reflect that in their wording – what is established is that he was the "prime suspect", "charged with homicide", "appeared to have confessed" to the killing in a video interview, etc. – but they do seem to mention it now as a killing linked to antifa. Here is a primer on antifa published by CBS News a few days ago: . It says: In at least one instance, a person self-identifying as an antifa supporter has been linked to a deadly attack at a protest. Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was considered a prime suspect in the August 2020 killing of 39-year-old Aaron "Jay" Danielson, a right-wing activist who was shot during heated demonstrations in Portland. Reinoehl was later shot to death by federal authorities as they moved to arrest him. I think a mention along those lines would improve the article. Andreas JN 466 09:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see your point. While I believe we should wait still, what wording do you propose to add and in which section? Could you give an example, using the talk quote template, of one or more sentences that you propose adding, with sources and a note on where do you suggest to put it? In the lead? In the Academics and scholars section, which already includes Levin and LaFree, so it may make sense to add their more recent comments there? Or where else do you suggest? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

, I think where had it was the right place. As for the wording, I'd suggest something like this to start with: "The August 2020 killing of Aaron Danielson in Portland by Michael Reinoehl, a self-identified antifa supporter, marked the first time antifa was linked to a deadly attack. Reinoehl was himself was shot a few days later by U.S. Marshals; his killing is currently under investigation."

Sources for the first sentence:
 * Vox article by Daniel Byman
 * OC Register article quoting Brian Levin
 * CBS News primer: "What is antifa?"

Other sources available:
 * Voice of America article quoting Levin and LaFree (Sept. 1, i.e. two days before Reinoehl was charged with homicide)
 * NPR quoting Brian Levin
 * ADL: "Who are Antifa?"
 * Guardian article

Source for the second sentence:
 * New York Times investigation

A brief mention in the lead might be called for, given how prominent the case has become. I suspect it is slightly jarring for many readers that our lead currently ends with "... found no murder that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists or antifa" when the Danielson case, happening a few weeks ago just after the end of the study period, is so fresh in everyone's mind. This said, I wouldn't want to end the lead with something like "However, a deadly attack by a self-identified antifa supporter did take place in Portland in August 2020.", so we could put the sentence "A June 2020 study ..." and the mention of Danielson before the passage "There have been repeated calls ..."

Something like this might work ... I'm sure there'd be lots of edits at first around an insertion like that, with the wording changing rapidly, and eventually it would settle down. --Andreas JN 466 11:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to handle it is to remove the "no murder" from the lead, and instead of putting the Danielson murder in the lead, to leave it just in the body. One murder among all people who are opposed to fascism is not a significant number of events, and does not rise to being a prominent point in the lead, but a sentence or few in the body is about right.  -- Jayron 32 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that makes sense. The lead currently says June 2020, so in my view it already makes it clear that the "no murder" thing applies only until that date, if that is the issue. So that readers may find it "jarring" is besides the point; the date makes it clear the study was before the murder; the murder is not mentioned in the body yet, so they should not be surprised if they do not find it in the lead either; and finally, it is obviously not our fault that there has not been yet a follow-up study. Indeed, that could more easily settle the dispute, if there had been one. As an example, LaFree stated "the case could potentially be included in the university's Global Terrorism Database as the first act of terror linked to antifa." Well, has it been added already? Davide King (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your proposals. I think they are fine and legitimate. However, I believe it would be better to report Levin and LaFree's comments at Academics and scholars rather than elsewhere. I think made a compelling argument here that in this case I use for why it would not make sense to list it there. "The only connection we have though is that Reinoehl said both he was 100% antifa and not a member. But he has no known association with antifa members or attendance at an antifa meeting or demonstration and was not with antifa members when he allegedly carried out his attack." I am also unsure whether self-identification is enough; again, from what I have read, sources have provided no verification of him being an actual member such as being part of a local antifa group and seem to base their "antifa supporter" wording on his self-identification more than anything. As noted by, "[h]is self-proclaimed antifa affiliation needs verification. Only thing we know for certain is [...] media says he says he's 100% antifa." Davide King (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , as far as I am concerned, where the mention is made is up to the people who've worked on this article. 's suggestion works for me as well. The other comment you cite though about Reinoehl's self-identification, along with similar comments in the other section above, doesn't hold water for me; it seems like special pleading. It's not just superficial journalists tying this event to antifa: it's the very scholars we cite as experts in this article – LaFree, Levin, the ADL – who are making this linkage, along with Byman, another academic expert, and the New York Times, who surely can be held to have gone to quite extraordinary investigative lengths in their reporting on Reinoehl. I think it's time to face the facts: Danielson's killing is and will remain part of antifa's history, whether it's mentioned here or not – and it's bound to reflect better on Wikipedia, and do more good in terms of a return to society's lost middle ground, if it is reflected here sooner rather than later. That's my opinion. Regards, --Andreas JN 466 14:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that "being against fascism" is seen as "not the middle ground". Are you suggesting that being a centrist means "being okay with a little bit of fascism?"  That doesn't seem to me to be a very moderate position.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Does thinking that the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart was bad and a result of political extremism mean that one is a fascist? As I've said before multiple times on this talk page, we need to not conflate "antifa" and "anti-fascism" - there is a reason they have separate articles. An ideology whose followers engage in violent direct action, and who are "self-described revolutionaries" with "no allegiance to liberal democracy" is not in the political middle by any reasonable definition. Antifa can call themselves whatever, but negativity about antifa is not negativity about anti-fascism any more than negativity about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is negativity about democracy.
 * Back to Davide King's comment about Reinohl being "not a member", I don't see why that is relevant. Isn't it brought up over and over again that "antifa" as such has no membership anyway? That argument could be used to exclude any mention of political violence forever, even while the article continues to say that antifa has never been linked to violence even though newer sources on antifa itself (Levin, ADL, etc.) are starting to say otherwise. Ultimately I think it goes back to what those extremism experts are saying, and we need to follow their lead.
 * To be clear, I only thought we should wait on doing an RfC because it may go easier after the election. I do not actually think waiting is better in and of itself. I suggest that any proposed wording source itself especially to Levin and ADL, and maybe the Global Terrorism Database if the case does get added there. How Reinohl was killed can also be mentioned. Crossroads -talk- 17:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the moderate position here, to my mind, is exemplified by The New York Times, Levin, LaFree, Byman, the ADL, CBS, NPR, etc., all of whom feel that Danielson's killing was tied or linked to antifa, that his killer was an antifa supporter or antifa activist, etc. This argument about whether Reinoehl was an antifa supporter or not is not happening in any mainstream sources. I am saying that by avoiding mention of the event, this article is not mainstream or centered in the "middle ground". --Andreas JN 466 17:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Moreover, it has long been my conviction that biased reporting breeds and encourages an opposite bias. All those readers who notice the glaring absence of Danielson's killing in this article will thereby become more, not less, receptive to right-wing conspiracy theories. It's like a recruiting tool. It breeds further polarization. I think it's neutral reporting that encourages people to relax, leave the extremist wings on the right and left behind, and find their home in the middle. That is actually what I meant by a "return to the middle ground". --Andreas JN 466 17:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's is very strange for you to vehemently argue with someone who agrees with you. When I said that the article should include some information on Danielson's murder, what I actually meant by that was that the article should include some information on Danielson's murder.  I'm sorry if that was confusing to you.  You don't need to convince me of something I already agreed with you on once.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought we were in agreement, until you asked me whether I was "suggesting that being a centrist meant 'being okay with a little bit of fascism'." :)) --Andreas JN 466 17:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have done this for now; please, let me know what you think. Also, I would not be opposed to add at Academics and scholars something liks this. In September 2020, when the investigation to the suspected killing of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl was still ongoing, Levin noted that if Reinoehl was implicated, it would mark the first case in recent history of an antifa supporter being charged with homicide; and LaFree said "the case could potentially be included in the university's Global Terrorism Database as the first act of terror linked to antifa." We may also summarises Levin's quote that it was "an outlier but also a bellwether. [...] You have a perfect storm in this country with a polarized population, a presidential election, a global pandemic that is frustrating and devastating people, and disinformation and conspiracy theories spreading on social media. The biggest threat is still, far-right white supremacist groups. But you also see that Facebook has become fertile soil for the mushrooming of small groups and lone actors." Davide King (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that per weight we should consider what the ADL article "Who are Antifa?" says. I think we could have saved a lot of discussion by waiting a couple of weeks for reliable sources to mention the killing in an article about antifa rather than in passing about the killing. Not only is that policy but we cannot fairly explain it's significance. The ADL article, as quoted above says, "Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there has been one suspected antifa-related murder, which took place on August 29, 2020, in Portland, Oregon." So I recommend we use similar wording. While the suspected killer will never go on trial, I expect in due course we will have more information. TFD (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that makes more sense. The "passing mention" is also why I opposed using far-left, in addition to the fact that far-left is not as clearly defined as far-right and "passive mentions" do not help clarifying that. It makes sense to use the ADL's wording, but how do you suggest to paraphrase that and where should we mention it? Davide King (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If and when there is enough statement to tie this guy to antifa, then we should include it at that time. Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. But we have to reconsider the statement: "A June 2020 study of 893 terrorism incidents in the United States since 1994 found no murder that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists or antifa while 329 deaths were attributed to right-wing perpetrators." We could go with the ADL approach: "While there have been hundreds of murders by far right groups in the last few decades, in only one case was an allegation made against a possible antifa supporter. Whether or not he had any connection with antifa is still unknown." Or we could just take it out. Or we could change antifa to proved antifa members. TFD (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have done this. Let me know what you think. Davide King (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good edit, which I followed up with this. It more closely matches the source, and makes the same point more concisely. We can't really go wrong by adhering closely to the source on such a hot-button issue, and it forestalls complaints on the talk page. Crossroads -talk- 04:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That sub-section is entirely scandal and my preference would be to omit it. It's a comparison between broad group (right/far-right) vs specific narrow group (antifa, as opposed to left/far-left/anarchist etc) Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The civil rights organization subsection? We don't eliminate material solely because it may reflect badly (i.e. "scandal"). It's not tabloid gossip, it's by a highly qualified civil rights organizaion. At this point we have to state something about that matter, and it contextualizes it. And I see a consensus in favor of it now. Crossroads -talk- 16:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Note new CSIS report: --Andreas  JN 466 03:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have reflected this in the Academics and scholars section but I am still unsure on whether the killing itself should be also listed in the Notable actions section. As noted by ("if they present it directly as an antifa activity, ie. something that antifa as a group committed to or endorsed) rather than just mentioning or quoting the identification in passing"),  (to paraphrase, since I can not find the actual illuminating quote, he was not killed at an antifa protest or as part of an antifa activity) and  ("They were not committing any crime related to Antifa activity. If the argument is that any crime committed by a self-declared antifa member is notable & appropriate for inclusion here, I'd say I have a nice bridge to sell you."), do reliable sources treat it as an "antifa action" or "merely as something that one supporter is accused of"? Davide King (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my view those mentions we have now are sufficient. Well done. --Andreas JN 466 14:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Local occurrences
, I am wondering why you removed my addition of incident by known antifa members. There's no Antifa article for Austin on Wikipedia, so this would be the proper place. Similar occurrences of Antifa's primary opponent is retained at Proud_Boys. It would be useful to have such examples for both sides to have a balanced picture of things of this nature. Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what information in a random other article has to do with this one. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, what makes the inclusion criteria different here? Crime committed by KNOWN antifa is of relevance here and my addition was solidly referenced. Graywalls (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC), any thoughts?
 * Having a reference is not the only requirement. It also needs to have a consensus that the information is relevant to the article.  A random property crime in a middling American city is hardly worth putting in this article.  Also, if there is a problem with a different article, bring it up on the talk page of that article.  At this talk page, we discuss the text of this article.  Wikipedia is a big place, the fact that something does or does not exist in any other random article at Wikipedia means nothing for any other article.  Discuss the relevance to this article.  My objection is a parochial, relatively minor crime in a middling city is not particularly important to note in this article.  You, obviously, disagree.  Lets now both see where consensus lies by seeing what others have to say.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't agree with you that this was minor. "A 27-year-old woman was charged with riot and felony burglary of a building. A 22-year-old man was charged with criminal mischief and felony burglary of a building. A 23-year-old woman was charged with felony burglary of a building." of whom confirmed to be ANIFA MEMBERS by authorities. Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This seems like a non-notable incident only tangentially related to this article. They were not committing any crime related to Antifa activity. If the argument is that any crime committed by a self-declared antifa member is notable & appropriate for inclusion here, I'd say I have a nice bridge to sell you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , You obviously did not look at the source at all. "In a news release Saturday afternoon, the Travis County district attorney’s office said the three people arrested are known members of a local anti-government group that is “a self-identified communist/socialist ANTIFA group.”" far from "self-proclaimed" you're claiming. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you're arguing here. "Self-identified" and "Self-proclaimed" are the same thing. They are members of said group. Nothing has been stated that they acted on behalf of said group in participating in this crime, meaning there's no clear connection between this crime and antifa activities. Otherwise any crime committed by any antifa member would have to be included in this article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources specifically included the emphasis on them being antifa. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If a member of the Proud Boys knocked over a liquor store, not to support the Proud Boys but just because they needed the money, would that be worthy of including in their article? It doesn't matter if the reliable source points out that they're a member, it's still a trivial incident not directly related to the Proud Boys article. If, instead, the member had assaulted a minority as part of their Proud Boys membership, that would be worth including in the article.
 * Likewise, if an antifa member attacked a cop or looted a shop during an antifa protest, that would be worth including here. This? This ain't it. These are three people who were in a crowd which was looting a Target for no clear reason. Nothing in the articles say why the crowd was mobbing the Target, so there's nothing to cite this was an antifa action. Just saying "but they were antifa members" doesn't do it. As best I can determine from the provided source, there was a crowd that got unruly, some looting occurred and three of the people arrested had antifa ties. That's... not enough to make this something to include in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * seems to be the most complete report. --Andreas JN 466 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 17. The Red Guards (USA) are not part of antifa. They are an ostensibly left-wing group whose main activity is harassing left-wing groups, who suspect they are police informants. TFD (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fairly straight forward they consider themselves Antifa. The fact that they might belong to other far-left groups does not change that. PackMecEng (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it straightforward they consider themselves antifa? TFD (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * RELIABLE SOURCE identifies them as ANTIFA MEMBERS., Graywalls (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still irrelevant if the activity was not in support of their group. Furthermore, antifa is not a group with a membership.  It's a set of ideologies.  The main point, however, is that a random crime committed by someone who follows an antifa-related ideology is not relevant to this article.  The crime was not related to the ideology in any way, it was not done in support of antifa-related ideology, and it has no connection to antifa-related ideology in any way except that people who happen to hold that ideology committed it.  That is a most tenuous connection and has no relation to the ideology itself. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are reliable sources that they are antifa. We just have claims by politicians. The ADL defines antifa as "a loose collection of groups, networks and individuals who believe in active, aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements." We seem to be broadening the definition so that soon Biden and Pelosi will be antifa. TFD (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Individuals", " law enforcement" and "Trump administration".
These phrases seem overly formal to me, almost robotic, and the latter vague. I suggest using the more concise and natural words "people" and "police", and specifying which actual people we mean by "Trump administration" (there are hundreds, the vast majority uninvolved in what they're now broadly attached to here). Of course, quotes are exempt from this proposal. Take it or leave it? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that in most cases we should do this. However, in a few cases the formal language may be preferable. For example, saying that antifa is made up of groups and individuals. In that example individual implies people who are not members of a group. Using the word people wouldn't read well. TFD (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, fair enough. It's not a bad word, just overused lately where better and plainer will do. Like "random" for "unexpected" or "arbitrary". Or "conspiracy theory" for "lie". Or "terrorist" for...take your pick! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)