Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 24

Images
removed the images, with no explanation other then to gain consensus a strange and completely random reason. The images both of the black block and of ICE deportations both relate to sections of either of Antifa black block tactics or Antifa protesting against ICE deportations. So does anybody have anything to add to the images? Vallee01 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are the one adding the images, so the onus is on you. I think original research applies to images too, or at least we should be careful they are about, or relevant to, the topic. You have also been reverted by too, so it was not just me. Let us follow BRD. I do not really have an opinion on this and I would like to hear what other users think too. Davide King (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the other image was a completely different image and also not an anti-fascist image, that revert has nothing to do with current images. Both have anti-fascist symbols and both are directly related to the text. One based onto anti-fascist black block tactics with the image of an antifa black block, the other image relating to ICE deportations with the image being a antifa protest. Vallee01 (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That still does not seem to answer ' concerns that "this photo seems to be from the DisruptJ20 action, which isn't generally considered to have had anything to do with antifa and isn't mentioned in this article". Are these new images you added relevant to antifa, or only to anarchism? This one is "[a]narchist anti-fascist black bloc demo in support of Liebig 34" but there is no mention of Liebig 34, "an anarchist squat in the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg district of Berlin", in the article; so it is not relevant to an article about the American antifa. Davide King (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * File:AnarchistProBikeDemo.jpg is clearly irrelevant to this article, at it's from Leipzig, Germany (I'd remove the Cologne image that's still in the article for the same reason). File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg would seem a reasonable addition to me, since the banner says Antifa Anarchist Bloc. FDW777 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg is a good addition, and thank Vallee01 for uploading and adding it. A banner that says antifa on it is clearly relevant and there's no doubt it's from the U.S. (I had to look up "FTTP" though, my grasp of anarchist lingo isn't what it used to be). There might conceivably be some scope for an historical image of German or other non-U.S. anti-fascists in the Background section, but I can't see any basis for a contemporary non-U.S. image like File:AnarchistProBikeDemo.jpg (it could be a good addition to Antifa (Germany) though). To the extent that File:Antifa 2008 Köln.jpg really just serves to illustrate the flag design it's not as bad, but could perhaps be replaced with the less clear File:Boston George Floyd Protest, Washington St. 4.jpg with File:2017.03.04 Pro-Trump Rallies Washington, DC USA 00360 (33211221516).jpg. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, the image of German antifa isn't a good addition for antifa in the united states. Vallee01 (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Cologne image, I assume (possibly wrongly) it's an image that's been in the article a long time, from when less free images were available to illustrate the US movement. But since File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg contains the logo, I would consider it preferable to replace the Cologne image with that one, or if there's similar images available they can be considered too. Replacing the non-US images with US images where possible seems sensible to me. FDW777 (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference between black bloc protests and antifa is extremely hard to tell the difference, in fact the difference is non-existent. The difference being if people bring antifa flags it is portrayed by the media as antifa, if not they are portrayed usually as anarchists, therefor it is difficult for us to find what images fit. This image as an example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mobili/32093935610/in/album-72157677976251391/, licensed freely has antifa flags however is protesting the election of Donald Trump, therefor is it a good image? I don't know, I think it is however. Vallee01 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the largest banner in that photo is for the Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council (MACC). The second-largest is for No Borders No Nations (with 1312, in the top left corner, the numerical representation of A.C.A.B (All Cops Are Bastards). The banner that says "Make racists afraid again" uses the three arrows that the Iron Front used in the 1930s, and they were decidedly NOT antifa at the time. I can't quite figure out the banner on the left, but I don't see anything at all that says "antifa". Vexations (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed Vexations but there is clearly an anti-fascist flag clear within the frame, the black representing anarchism and the red socialism. Three arrows as in the iron front is an explicitly anti-fascist logo and is used by antifa groups for that purpose. That's the issue the difference between black bloc protests and antifa protests are nearly identical, there is no clear definition of what is an antifa protest is, I think the consensus we are going off here is "Do they have antifa flags?" Which is unclear as in anarchist antifa flags are also present so they follow the same principle, anarchist protests almost always have antifa flags and symbols present but that doesn't make it an antifa protest, everyone there supports the ideology antifa but they may be protesting for some other reason. "Make racists afraid again" also is an explicitly anti-fascist saying, anarchists use it but again it's impossible to tell the difference between the two because they are the same. Vallee01 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , not everything anti-fascist is antifa. The Iron Front was antifascist, but they were not antifa.The two flag logo, the red flag in front of the back flag, an adaptation of the original two flags (representing socialism and communism) comes from the Antifaschistisches Infoblatt (since 1987, see https://www.antifainfoblatt.de/ausgabe/aib-2 for an example). It has since been adopted, with variations, by various groups in all kinds of combinations. In the photo mentioned above, they have placed the red flag in the foreground, and lack the ring bearing the saying "antifascist action" that one would typically associate with antifa. It is original research to say "here's a photo of antifa". We see a number of different groups, one which may be No Borders No Nations (that's a thing)  or something using a logo that looks like something antifa uses sometimes. Vexations (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the current discussion, "antifa" stands for anti-fascist action, antifa usually means a specific kind of militant anarchist anti fascists. The three arrows is an anti-fascist symbol, it is mostly used as a symbol of antifa organizations but also see use by other unrelated organization, indeed three arrows is not a explicitly antifa symbol, however it is an anti fascist logo. It is also combined with other anarchists banners and anti fascist flags. The original Antifashite Aktion flag was used by the German Communist party in the 1930s. The two flags representing simply state communism. The new logo was created by Greek anarchist and changed the flag to black. Modern antifa organizations in the US are almost explicitly completely anarchist I have access through my university IUPUI, if you would like me to give you access to the PDF ask. It is an anarchist protest nobody has an issue with that, all images are anarchist there are no objections under that ground, that is undeniable the image is from DisruptJ20. The issue to the image is that it is unclear if it is an anarchist or anti-fascist protest. It IS an anarchist protest it was organized by the [NYC Anarchist Coordination Council], and on there banners there it is actually written. We just need to make clear if it was an antifa or anarchist protest, despite having antifa symbols the protest may have not been organized for explicit anti fascist purposes. Vallee01 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is current agreement that File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg, is a good addition and indeed is due to the fact it states "anarchist antifa block", and they are protesting against ICE, therefor it is a positive addition to add it. The protest in Leipzig currently been stated to be a negative addition due to the fact this is an article of antifa in the United States, therefor are we in agreement on File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg? Vallee01 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to establish consensus on something, it would be helpful if you could articulate it more clearly. I thought you were proposing that "https://www.flickr.com/photos/mobili/32093935610/in/album-72157677976251391/ is a good image". You didn't make explicit WHAT it is a good image of, but from the context, I assumed you meant "black block". Let me make it very clear: You do not have consensus for that. Now you're proposing something else, "agreement on File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg", but what exactly are we supposed to agree on?
 * Thanks for the offer to send copies of paywalled articles, but I don't need it; I have legitimate access. Vexations (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer to send copies of paywalled articles, but I don't need it; I have legitimate access. Vexations (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I stated clearly that File:Inauguration Approach Frankling Park.jpg might be a good representation of a Black Block, and there is no consensus on this. Currently you have put in your opinion and I don't really know what it is, and I think it is a good representation for sections on Black Block or DisruptJ20 however I don't think the image fits here, so I agree with you on that. It was simply to demonstrate the difficulty in showing the difference between Black block protests, anarchist protests and Antifa protests as they often hard to tell apart.


 * In the discussion multiple users has stated File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg is a good representation of antifa anti deportations and Abolish ICE protests, this isn't a "proposing something else" this is the main focus of the discussion. Stated clearly at the start of the discussion this isn't new. "Antifa protesting against ICE deportations." if you look at the diff the main image is clearly File:Anarchist anti deportation protest.jpg. The current discussion of the black block was a possible alternative. Users like stated "But since File:Anarchist anti deportation protest.jpg contains the logo, I would consider it preferable to replace the Cologne image with that one." Other users like  stated "I agree that File:Anarchist anti deportation protest.jpg is a good addition, and thank Vallee01 for uploading and adding it. A banner that says antifa on it is clearly relevant and there's no doubt it's from the U.S." Users like  haven't voiced an opinion however it is clear it is a positive change.
 * If you have points to the contrary please share them. However wouldn't you state it is a good representation of antifa anti deportations? I mean it is a banner of Antifa flags with antifa slogans with text reading "Abolish ICE" so I think we can all agree it is a positive addition. The discussion of the image was on stated at the start of the talk, however let me state it again: The image is supposed to demonstrate an antifa protest against deportations, on a section about antifa opposition to deportations. The image is currently on the article something I believe is a positive change. Vallee01 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , it would help if you included the caption that you are proposing. In your diff the caption was: Antifa banner against ICE deportations. Is that still what you're proposing? I'd leave out ICE, because it's not mentioned. I think the photo was taken during the protest covered in this article: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/02/18/supporters-of-refugees-and-immigrants-march-through-minneapolis so it would be appropriate to describe the event as a protest against deportations and the banner as representing the anarchist bloc within antifa, protesting deportations, the police (FTP and ACAB) and prisons (FTTP). Vexations (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The protest was largely about abolishing ICE, however I agree that there is no need to have text on the image, it is generally unnecessary. Vallee01 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using an article more than 3 years told to describe Antifa supporters
3 years can be a long time in the life of a social movement, especially given the upheaval in American society during that time. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? If we can show there has been changes, we can use those older sources to show how the perception and/or reality of the movement has changed. But we'd need new sources that show such a change first. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, three years can feel like a long time, but it's all subjective. I can't see any reason to exclude sources because they're a few years old. Bacondrum (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it’s case by case. A high quality scholarly source or informed in-depth account would remain good, but a hastily put together clickbaity ill-informed “explainer” published in 2017 because antifa suddenly became newsworthy should be replaced by now with more informed and more expert-driven accounts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I looked for recent stories about antifa and they were mostly like this one from CBS. Little has changed in three years so we can keep the article updated by adding what little has happened in three years. I think they are dormant. The Rose City antifa website has had about a dozen articles in the past year and there is little coverage of recent antifa activity in reliable sources. In reporting the November 15 Sacramento MAGA demonstrations, mainstream media reported that antifa and other counter-demonstrators showed up, but I could only count three black bloc protestors in youtube videos. So the change is probably that their membership has declined from a few hundred to a few dozen, although it might be even smaller than that. We need however reliable sources to say that, and that may take time. TFD (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

History And Ideology
This text lifted from Antifa (Germany) belongs among the first paragraphs of the article, which obscures (deliberately?) the origins and dominant ideology of the movement:

The antifa movement has existed in different eras and incarnations, dating back to Antifaschistische Aktion, from which the moniker antifa came from. It was set up by the then-Stalinist Communist Party of Germany (KPD) during the late history of the Weimar Republic.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Got a citation for that claim? Bacondrum (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

After the forced dissolution in the wake of Machtergreifung in 1933, the movement went underground.[4] In the postwar era, Antifaschistische Aktion inspired a variety of different movements, groups and individuals in Germany as well as other countries which widely adopted variants of its aesthetics and some of its tactics. Known as the wider antifa movement, the contemporary antifa groups have no direct organisational connection to Antifaschistische Aktion.[5] text from Antifa (Germany) c.f. for references. Jaredscribe (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Federal_Office_for_the_Protection_of_the_Constitution states that the underlying goal of the antifa movement is "the struggle against the liberal democratic basic order" and capitalism.[2] C.f. Antifa (Germany) Jaredscribe (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Have any references mentioned this in connection with the American incarnation? FDW777 (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Objection: demanding the obvious. However, due to the real existence of WP:Systemic bias and this very article's obviously NON-WP:Neutral_point_of_view, I will just assume the objection is overruled and answer anyway, because I must. The "references that mention this in connection with the American incarnation", is YOUR OWN ARTICLE, which I AM NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT, second paragraph. Makes the same claim in other words, that "many individuals hold anti-capitalist and anti-state views". And cites "the historian" Mark Bray's "Anti-fascist Handbook" to reference that claim. Other commentators  I also witness to confirm this claim, although it would be more accurate to expand the claim to "Many individuals and affinity groups hold anti-capitalist and anti-state views." I can prove this, if necessary, but so can you. If you want to. Bray's own book has the Antifaschistische_Aktion logo on the front, and his is the primary source that you've referenced. This group was a Stalinist front operating in Germany in the 30s for the KPD. Y'all are the advanced editors and, and every other editor who reads this in silent complicity. I'm just a lowly newb who does not have permission to edit this article. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * So you're saying "No, references haven't mentioned this in connection with the American incarnation"? Good, then it's of no relevance to this article then. FDW777 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to add some clarity. Nobody is suggesting individuals within the antifa movement do not hold anti-capitalist and anti-state views, the references say that which is why this article says that. But that does not mean this article needs to mention that the Stalinist Communist Party of Germany set up an entirely different organisation which formed 90 years ago. Which references say this is in any way relevant to this movement? FDW777 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I'm saying that the citations found in this very article mention this in connection with the American incarnation, and I cited one that is found in the lead. There are others that could be cited as well.  The request for citations of material that is well-sourced and easily available strikes me as tendentious.  But I gave a citation and an answer anyway.  The refusal to understand it is one thing, the deliberate misquote of it is another.  You have committed a straw man fallacy.  This editing behavior leads me to the opinion that you are not in good faith.  Ad nauseam request for citations, refusal to respond to the citations given, mischaracterizing the opposing argument.   I will continue to WP:Assume good faith for other editors of this article.Jaredscribe (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "due to the real existence of WP:Systemic bias and this very article's obviously NON-WP:Neutral_point_of_view"..."YOUR OWN ARTICLE, which I AM NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT"..."reads this in silent complicity" What? Are you attacking us? All I asked for is a citation for a claim. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. This page is for discussing article content not other editors. No one is interested in addressing any of your concerns while being subject to personal attacks. Bacondrum (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Allegation that this article violates WP:NPOV does not constitute a personal attack. Pointing out the very real difference in privelege between us does not amount to a personal attack. I'm a newb, restricted from editing this page, whereas you,, not only can edit the page but apparently know everyone there is to know ("noone is interested") and have administrative power or access to block me from wikipedia, as you threatened on my user page.  Just like your accusations against me, my accusation against you pertains to editing behavior on wikipedia.  Both are impersonal accusations, and in that sense valid.  But mine is better evidenced.  Yours is a red herring.  My original claim stands, unless you can address it on the merits. Jaredscribe (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , your bolded section is the very definition of not assuming good faith. Your very first sentence in this talk was assuming bad faith, when you accused editors here of deliberately obscuring the origins. Within a few exchanges you ended up red hot. I understand you're feeling frustrated by not being able to edit a handful of WP's 6 million articles, but hostility towards other editors is not going to make them anxious to work with you. For the record, we don't use Wikipedia articles as sources for other articles, per WP:CIRCULAR. —valereee (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If there is a citation, there should be no difficultly in simply providing it now. Other than attempts to cite other Wikipedia article, the only citation I can see is where you claim the formation of the Antifaschistische Aktion in Germany ~90 years ago is somehow relevant to the American antifa movement because Bray's book has the logo of the former on the front This is a spurious argument, since Bray's book is not solely about the American antifa movement. That you cannot actually provide a reference confirming the relevance of the KBD to the American antifa movement proves beyond any doubt the former is not relevant to an article on the latter. FDW777 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * User talk:Acroterion is probably of relevance, where Jaredscribe launches into personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith simply because I reverted their attempt to add a link in a "See also" section that was already linked in the article. FDW777 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Bray's context quotes
removed "Bray adds that '[i]t's important to understand that antifa politics, and antifa's methods, are designed to stop white supremacists, fascists, and neo-Nazis as easily as possible.' For Bray, '[t]he vast majority of their activities are nonviolent. They function in some ways like private investigators; they track neo-Nazi organizing across multiple social-media platforms.' In regard to doxing, Bray says that it is about 'telling people that they have a Nazi living down the street, or telling employers that they're employing white supremacists', adding that 'after Charlottesville, a lot of the repercussions that these khaki-wearing, tiki-torch white supremacists faced were their employers firing them and their families repudiating what they do.'" All of this was removed and dismissed as "not needed. excessive details." This reads more as them not liking scholars providing context or their analyses and conclusions. They already previously dismissed Bray as "biased" and not a "reliable source", even though this was discussed at length and explained by, who also thanked me for my addition. Incidentally, they also forgot to remove doxing from the lead as that was added here to the lead by because of my addition about doxing. All of this can be better worded and paraphrased but I do not see how removal fixed or improved anything. Davide King (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

included "Antifa is a response to fascist violence" as one of the four points reliable sources make (for context, the others are "Antifa is not an officially organized group", "Antifa is willing to commit crime, some violent" and "It is a fallacy to compare Antifa violence to white extremist violence"). I do not think the article clarifies or explains this enough. Bray was a start for that. Davide King (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you removed "doxing" from the lead, it's a well-documented practice. I don't even think that most Antifa activists would deny it. (ps: my addition has nothing to do with your recent edits – I noticed "doxing" was absent from the lead while reading an article from the New Yorker). Regarding Bray, it's true that he is biased towards the left (he even describes himself as a "political organizer"), but it could be easily balanced by quoting more scholars rather than keeping on basing the entire WP article on his book (Bray is mentioned 21 times in the article, 4 times in the /ideology/ section alone). Alcaios (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's removed because it's been removed from the article. The lead summarises the article. This section appears to be objecting to the removal of the text from the article, which if restored would presumably result in it being restored to the lead as well. FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , exactly. I actually support the addition of Bray and hence of doxing to the lead. You are free to re-add my edits, including doxing to lead, if you agree with me., other than Bray, now removed, the only other mention of doxing was actually describing how antifa activists wear masks to avoid getting doxed. See "Antifa activists wear masks to hide their 'identity from protestors on the other side (who might dox people they disagree with) or from police and cameras' and for philosophical reasons such as the beliefs that 'hierarchies are bad and that remaining anonymous helps keep one's ego in check.'" Davide King (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can easily find sources that mention doxing among antifas (obviously, it is not restricted to antifascists: the far-right also doxes antifas). Besides Bray, the New Yorker article I mentioned takes the example of Rose City Antifa: The network focusses much of its energy on Internet activism: doing research online, identifying proponents of bigotry, and then publicly exposing—or “doxing”—them. Rose City Antifa spent part of its early years doxing people involved with Volksfront, an international racist gang headquartered in Portland. (...) Rose City Antifa doesn’t disclose how many members it has, but Sophie estimated that doxing investigations take up about a hundred hours per week. (...) Whenever people deemed worthy of doxing hold gatherings in public spaces, antifascists undertake to shut them down. Alcaios (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that article was discussed here, when I added it at Further reading. wrote: "Having read through it, I found it a tedious exercise in both-sidesism at best, and a very wilful and dangerous exoneration of the far right at worst. That's neither here nor there if we're citing it (and I think we should, especially on the wildfires conspiracy theory), but I don't think it belongs in the further reading section." Other users' comments are welcome. What do you actually propose as edit? Davide King (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I read that article when it came out, and I don't remember it being like that at all. And I just skimmed it again. Did we read the same article? The journalist who wrote it was literally in Portland in the streets with antifa, so he knows what he's talking about. And the New Yorker is decidedly not right-wing. Crossroads -talk- 06:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, that is what I thought too. I hope can clarify that. The article is this, right? Perhaps they were referring to the paragraph about Gibson? Davide King (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Um those blow-by-blow is literally what encyclopedia is not meant to be. What are you trying to say . It's been mentioned elsewhere Bray source is not neutral. While that doesn't preclude it from use, the editorial decision to include a bunch of "Bray said.. Bray said... Bray thinks... Bray this..." is a neutrality and due weight concern. Graywalls (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , all sources are biased; what matters is whether they are reliable and Bray is. Bray, an actual expert of the movement per reliable sources, certainly holds more weight than non-expert journalists who propose opinions. I can agree that the wording is not perfect but you are essentially saying we should not use Bray when, alongside Vysotsky, he is part of the scholarly literature, which defines the topic. Davide King (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironically, we do not need to attribute it to him, since he is an actual expert, but we do so because we are using quotes. If we can turn quotes into paraphrased sentences, that would be better and avoid the repetition. The problem is that you are casting doubt on Bray as an actual expert and reliable source on the topic. Davide King (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow... You should read the article and make your own opinion. It's the New Yorker, not Breibart. I understand the concern about the growing white supremacist movement in the US, and I know that some people can be worried about the public image of groups who physically oppose them, but we're writing an encyclopedia... It has become very hard to work on these subjects since Trump won the 2016 election – that's a reason why I semi-retired this summer and chose to rather focus on European politics. Alcaios (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that comment of mine is relevant here. I was opposed to listing it as further reading, not citing it – we cite disagreeable sources all the time, and couldn't write an encyclopaedia otherwise, and I've added citations of the piece to the Rose City Antifa article. I was opposed to listing it as further reading because that seems rather more like an endorsement, like we're saying that we think this piece is especially valuable or insightful, which I don't think it is. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , my bad for that., what are you referring or responding to? I even wrote I agree with Crossroads, but that was based on a misunderstanding because that discussion was adding it at Further reading. It seems that, again, it is only Graywalls who opposed my edits, so do you agree to reinstate them, including "doxing" in the lead, and perhaps using The New Yorker in the body too? We actually agree on citing it and the issue was based on a misunderstand, so I apologise if I caused any further misunderstanding. Which part of The New Yorker pieace are useful for the body and which proposed edit do you suggest? Davide King (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was not directed at you – I was giving a general opinion on the polarisation of US politics. The role of both a journalist and a WP contributor is not to "exonerate" anything or to prove that the "far-right or antifa are bad", but to provide a factual description of those movements. Alcaios (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , incidentally, I did try to add more views (here) but I was reverted by Graywalls while Crossroads was more supportive and no other users expressed their thoughts. Davide King (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * reading the discussion and looking at the content that was removed, I see no reason for the removal of the doxxing claims. Bacondrum (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the problem is that the lead must follow the body and my addition about doxing was the only mention of it in the body. Can I restore it? I would note that The New Yorker seems to be writing about doxing in the context of the Torch Network (i.e. it refers to "[t]he [Torch] network" which "focusses much of its energy on Internet activism: doing research online, identifying proponents of bigotry, and then publicly exposing—or 'doxing'—them", not to the antifa movement in general, which my addition did) while Bray, whom I cited, referred to it as part of the broader movement, so it is stronger and the source itself I used stated "[d]oxing—publicly disclosing the identities of members of the fringe right—is a central tactic of antifa", not referring just to the Torch Network or Rose City Antifa as The New Yorker did. So can both edits be restored? Davide King (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10076: ... and strategies such as “doxxing,” in which one side exposes the actual identities and locations of its enemies. These tactics were all part of the digital arsenal of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Antifa as these groups waged their respective online campaigns in 2017. (...) Among these, the practice of doxxing, most common in Antifa’s Twitter feed, exposes the identities, and sometimes locations, of adversaries. // https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11978 (citing Bray): Antifa is a self-organized, vigilante group that rises to fight racism, xenophobia, and other forms of injustice across Western democracies (Bray, 2017). It seeks physical confrontations with neo-Nazis through militant tactics and doxxing (i.e., exposing the private information of neo-Nazi members on social media; Bray, 2017). Alcaios (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I support both edits being restored, I don't understand why they were removed. Bacondrum (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus building was attempted in the latest addition. Continuing to simply glaze over with Beinart says, Bray say, some other people said has just been a growing into a big gumball of opinions. Can you all support the latest addition as being an actual improvement? Graywalls (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , all I see is that you keep reverting, even as other users still found my edits useful and they have thanked me for it. We already use Beinart and Bray at History, so the problem seems to be the way it is worded, but that can be better paraphrased without reverting all of it; or perhaps you do not like what I added? Incidentally, Bray is part of the literature; Bray and Vysotsky wrote books and articles about antifa, so the article should be rewritten following these scholarly sources, whether something is due or not, etc. But you do not care about that, you only care about these additions of mine. Most of the article is like that but you keep focusing on these additions. I would note that "he said that", etc. is actually merely following attribution. So do you oppose the content or just the way it is phrased? If you oppose the way it is phrased, like your edit summary seems to imply, surely you should at least try to improve it? What do you propose? Davide King (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is an improvement, views are well cites, from an academic subject matter expert and help clarify the groups objectives, tactics and the way they are viewed by others on the left more broadly. Bacondrum (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with that addition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, now they have removed "In 2017, Beinart quoted the antifa-aligned journal It's Going Down as stating that "[s]uddenly, anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, 'you've been right all along.'" How it is not relevant when the ADL noted "though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks" and in general that it is relevant because Beinart quoted it and because it is consistent with the fact since Trump's election more mainstream and other leftists changed their minds about it? Davide King (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't see the problem with this quotation at all. It is informative and due and properly attributed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the rational of the removal. Sounds more like self promotion than something helpful to the reader describing the group as a whole. Basically since it is from a journal that is a supporter of Antifa it is the same as self promotion. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , if Beinart found it relevant and due to mention and quote it, I do not see how that is "self promotion." As I stated, it is consistent with the ADL's quote that "some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks." We are not referencing this to the actual antifa-aligned journal but to Beinart, so your whole argument is moot. Davide King (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, it seems the very model of WP:PROMO. Basically unduly promotional by a closely related source. It also seems to be a fringe view not shared with the majority of sources. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , it comes from Beinart, who has criticised antifa, so how it is promotional? It would be promotional if it came directly from the website and no other reliable sources picked it up but Beinart and The Atlantic did. That you do not like Beinart found it relevant or curious enough to quote and report is irrelevant. It is also not a fringe view when the ADL and other sources noted the same since 2016. Davide King (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am only looking at the source used to support the edit in question. Could you like the others you think could support it as well? Because right now the one used is not sufficient. Also it is looking like Beinart in general might not be either, but that can be looked at later. PackMecEng (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would be curious to hear what are reliable sources on antifa acording to you, if Beinart, who has criticised it, is not. The ADL also noted the same thing, which is what I quote below, namely that "Trump's rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the mainstream left" (cft. "some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks."), which is what I wanted to point out in my edit and which is what I believe Beinart did too in quoting them, namely that it is not just the farthest left. As we write, "some social democrats and others on the American Left, among them environmentalists, LGBT and indigenous rights advocates, also adhere to the antifa movement." Davide King (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Easy, neutral sources that are not linked to the organization. If all you have are biased sources making a statement, that statement is likely undue and fringe. It is like citing a company press release saying how great the company is. No. We do not do that here. I linked WP:PROMO for a reason. PackMecEng (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , please show me these neutral sources you are talking about. "The Atlantic is considered generally reliable." Is Beinart, who literally wrote "The Rise of the Violent Left", or The Atlantic, tied to antifa? Davide King (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , your response was somewhat related to, but wasn't in direct relationship to the previous contents. It is over a different content. I am curious as to why you chose to specifically ping those two editors. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wrote here because we discussed something you removed and I did not want to start a new thread. I pinged them because I was replying to them and I thought you were already following the discussion, so I did not want to overping. I just do not get why you continue to remove properly attributed content to reliable sources. Just stating it is undue does not make it so. Davide King (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First, verifiability with reliable sources is mandatory, but satisfying this requirement is not an entitlement for inclusion if it becomes disputed. I am not the only one to find it not necessary. I suggest you start an RfC to solicit input from those totally outside. Doing so invites people through the RfC bot. Graywalls (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

, you have restored contents under dispute saying that its cited and you don't see an issue with it, but you have not attempted to gain consensus on this disputed content. Pinging editor who removed it, and another editor who participated on this specific discussion. Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's anecdotical and perhaps POV-pushing in my opinion. The ADL is quoted as saying that some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks, then Bray "similarly argues" [sic] something that contradicts the previous sentence ([Antifa] are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum), then ABC is quoted as saying experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism (not mainstream political positions in the US as far as I know), then we have quotes from CNN and the BBC that contradict once again the theory of the junction between Antifa and the liberal Left. And finally, we learn from an Antifa journal that they [Antifa] "have been right all along". Alcaios (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is not the point. It is not saying that antifa, or its members' political views, is mainstream but that it grew so much in the 2010s and broadened its appeal beyond those on the farthest left. "By the 2000s, as the internet facilitated more transatlantic dialogue, some American activists had adopted the name antifa. But even on the militant left, the movement didn’t occupy the spotlight. To most left-wing activists during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years, deregulated global capitalism seemed like a greater threat than fascism. Trump has changed that. For antifa, the result has been explosive growth. Trump's rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the mainstream left." Perhaps the problem is that we should put that in context and paraphrase all this, too. Davide King (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going to ping people you think will support you with every edit? PackMecEng (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , stop these false insinuations and focus on the content. You had no problems when Graywalls pinged you and Alcaios; since they pinged you two, I pinged the others who have also bene involved, it is that simple. Stop thinking there is a conspiracy. Davide King (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing false about it. For example Aquillion, who you did a hidden ping on, has not commented on this page. Quit canvassing users as you did here PackMecEng (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is still nonsense, I simply made confusion with Arms & Hearts, with both usernames starting with a. Quit these nonsensical accusations and assume good faith. If I pinged Aquillion, rather than Arms & Hearts, was an honest mistake in confusing the two and thinking the former also commented. Davide King (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have pinged me 4 times in less than 5 minutes. I can assure you I watch the page and do not need a ping at every comment. Stop canvassing or it goes to a drama board. You have been asked by several people several times on several pages to stop it. If you cannot or will not, you will be asked to leave the topic area. PackMecEng (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you are not assuming good faith. I apologise, I pinged you because I used reply-link, which pings automatically and I forgot to remove it after the first time I pinged you; I have not sleep, so I was slow in realising it. Stop assuming the worse from people and making threat and false accusations. Focus on the content and issues. Davide King (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * presented like that, I see no issue with the content ('Trump's election has vitalized the Antifa movement and some on the mainstream left are now willing to support them as a tactical opposition'). But the current paragraph is confusing and does not really mean that. Alcaios (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Excuse me I was unaware of the current dispute. Anyway so I really don't see the issue with the section for starters it is completely true as stated above the difference between anarchist black blocs and antifa. The difference is non-existent all black bloc supports are inherently antifa protesters. The definition of antifa also in a very anarchistic way is almost there no is hierarchy and therefor it difficult to define it. However the most accepted definition of Anti-Fascist Action (antifa) is the "action" section as most antifa supporters support a diversity of tactics including violence, again its a vague definition but you are dealing with one of the most decentralized movements in history. The point of this is to visualize the difficulty of the difference between black blocs and antifa. The person cited as well is a complete reliable source, so don't you think it should be re-included? Vallee01 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please everyone calm down - This thread just got really heated all of a sudden, calm down peeps! We are all capable of discussing this in a civil manner, I can see no reason for anyone to be discussing anything other than content. You've all demonstrated an ability to be civil and constructive in my interactions with you, lets calm things down and focus on content, sourcing etc. Cheers guys, have a merry Xmas! Bacondrum (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, my input is neutral correct? I also am inactive in the current dispute. Vallee01 (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, talking about the argy-bargy above. Bacondrum (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Mayor of Oregon's comments
Edit dispute regarding this addition I've added to the "Activities" section of the article:

"" -
 * If the mayor of Portland, Oregon, a prominent location mentioned several times throughout the article, says its antifa it should be reported on. I'm flabbergasted as to what possible reason he'd have to lie about this, unless you could tell me one.

"" -
 * As I mentioned before, Innarone saying this at all is contextual. There is no WP:BLP violation referencing so, she said this, it's been reported on. Does the Associated Press mentioning this in a report from November 4 make it so they're trying to imply she said it on election day? No.

"" -
 * That's patently ridiculous, she said it Doug, do you rather I whitewash what she literally said? Also you're assuming supporting antifa is a bad thing, I've suggested no such thing neither in the edit history nor the text I'm adding. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller and subsequently myself reverted this change for a few reasons. I note I accidentally said 1st December in the edit summary, I meant 31st. Anyway, to summarise some key issues with the way the information was presented:
 * 1. After a night of riots in Portland, Oregon on New Year's Eve, Mayor Ted Wheeler said "radical antifa and anarchists" were responsible, who he characterized as consisting of "largely white, young and some middle-age men". According to officials, Molotov cocktails were used which caused thousands of dollars in property damage.
 * A. Lack of a date means it is unclear what year.
 * B. It is written like it is straight editorial.
 * C. Ted Wheeler has an opinion on who it was, but unclear how he is delineating what proportion they were. The significance of the event is that it took place in the same location as earlier protests, and involved the same Court House.
 * D. "According to officials" is incorrect. The statement is attributed to Law Enforcement. It is also described as "allegedly". We should not ascribe more speculation than the official statement has.
 * E. Significance of his press conference and The Hill article is about Wheelers push for stronger legislation to cover repeat offenders.
 * F. His use of "radical" and his tone is reflected by The Hills comments that "The Portland mayor's comments mark a drastic change in tone from his remarks throughout 2020"
 * G. Distinct to this, we are attempting to use a single source to represent what are contentious claims. Ideally multiple sources are preferred.
 * 2. On that basis please see this OPB article covering the same events which seems to provide a largely different weight and tone for his comments. More significantly, this is present:
 * A. Portland police said several items resembling Molotov cocktails were thrown I have no idea what this would be, apart from a Molotov, but it's interesting all the same that the alleged Molotovs are also not quite alleged to even be Molotovs but Molotov-like. Strange wording.
 * 3. Subsequently the edit introduced some comments about Sarah Iannarone.
 * A. Absence of any dates, and its position as subsequent to the NYE events makes an inference she was both part of the riot, and in fact shouting "I am Antifa" during it. This is unintentional WP:SYNTH and a BLP issue. Piping to the campaign is not clear enough.
 * B. Outside of this, it's unclear what relevance this has to the section in question or why it was presented here at all. I would also, possibly, maybe, suggest that absent the context of where and why she shouted that phrase that associating Iannarone with "radical antifa and anarchists" when she took part in a rather standard election cycle is a bit hyperbolic. Koncorde (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll tackle this bit-by-bit.
 * 1A. You can add the date, nothing stopping that from occuring, though since the section had already been going by a timeline already, and the election date was included, I assumed it was relatively easy to connect.
 * 1B. Nothing editorial with what I've written.
 * 1C. Someone as Wheeler in the position he is in is someone who should be listened to, doesn't matter if its for "" purposes when he does so, if he claims it is one way it should be stated. The text doesn't purport that its true, it simply says what the source is telling us.
 * 1D. Law enforcement are officials.
 * 1E. His explicit calling-out of antifa can make one assume his legislation is being pushed in order to tackle antifa, thus warrants mention.
 * 1G. I doubt Wheeler's statements are contentious enough to warrant several sources, his words are his words, that won't change between sources.
 * 2A. I can't comment on this.
 * 2B. I can't understand this reasoning at all, its related to antifa and Wheeler, mayor of a city long-identified with antifa in that his opponent he nearly lost to strongly associates with them, had threatened legislation to curb them. That is very relevant. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1A. The Activities section is related to broader themes. The Notable Actions section is date ordered. You added to the prior section. It is common good practice to place dates early to established the principles of who what where when.
 * 1B. The fact it is one word away from The Hills own wording makes it read as an editorial, rather than encyclopedic.
 * 1C. I don't care about his political position, but when you take an article which is about A, B, C and therefore D, and reduce it down to A and some vague commentary I do care (particularly if The Hill is providing only a single perspective).
 * 1D. "Officials" would typically indicate a member or employee of the government. The article is clear it was stated by Police. As Police have a somewhat vested interest in how they present information (given the larger context is about their budget and operational procedures) we should use where possible the language in the article.
 * 1E. Not disputing that, only that the subject matter is different to the weight you have attributed to some quotations. Per 1C, it reads like a quote mining exercise.
 * 1G. His opinion is his opinion. We use secondary sources, ideally plural, to analyse an opinion or events.
 * 2A. Worrying. It's the most egregious issue.
 * 2B. Lots of people are Anti fascist and at any point may say they are Antifa. Why does it warrant mentioning there, in that context? That you think there is a relevant content shows that you are intentionally conflating two distinct items / events and that is a BLP issue. Koncorde (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1A. As I said, you could've easily added the dates if you so cared to do so.
 * 1B. Except The Hill is not an editorial its a publication same as any other reliable source we use, nor was I sourcing an opinion piece.
 * 1C. Whether you "" or not is irrelevant, and whatever you're trying to get across is lost in the inclarity of your statement.
 * 1D. Simply say "" or even "", the point is to get the information across and that shouldn't be tied up in wording.
 * 1E. I need specifics for this, I can't answer this unless I understand what you're explicitly refeering to and to what you believe is being amplified unjustly.
 * 1G. Thus I'm using secondary sources that report on his words and the events that have occurred.
 * 2A. No, I accidentally skipped the thing you believe I'm refeering to, as you notice my reference points don't match up exactly but since we're on this track we may as well continue. Refeering to the point I missed, you're making a large stretch. By no means does the text I provided imply I intended for her partaking in the riots, my mentioning of her being in an election that has already passed is clearly meant to connect her to that, not the riots. This can easily be solved by simply moving the placement of the text to the beginning if you so insist, and it would be fitting alone. A mayoral candidate of one of the 50 largest cities in the country declared herself a member of the group, that's very notable.
 * 2B. You're ignoring there's a prominent subgroup who views antifa as not simply declaring yourself "anti fascist", whether you subscribe to the notion its all disconnected is not a part of the equation, the mayor surely doesn't and that should be represented, there's no WP:BLP issue in doing so. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1A. It would still be in the wrong section, if even relevant, warranted or due.
 * 1B. I don't think you understand what editorial means. We write encyclopedias in an encyclopedic tone, not newsprint. We do not write like a newspaper in a way that infers we are editorialising the content.
 * 1C. In short: you are reducing down the article to a few bullet-points while missing actual context and relevance. The publication is clearly ABOUT Wheeler and his opinion of the events. It is thus hardly relevant to the Activities section and is it really a "Notable action" to warrant inclusion in the subsequent section given it was (to this point) just another night in Portland? The only significance is that Wheeler decided to have a press conference about it.
 * 1D. No it is very important to say the right thing at the right time. Accurately summarising articles, not just quoting lines out of them, and presenting the actual Secondary sources analysis is the principle of reliable sourcing. If we cannot trust 1 word has been accurately summarised then we have to question the rest of the content just as much.
 * 1E. What relevance does, for example, "molotov cocktails" have over any other details in the article? Especially when said Molotovs in the same article are described as "alleged". This is again a case where a key word is removed or changed, which changes the tone or intent of the article.
 * 2A. Yes, it very much does. Please remember you read articles on wikipedia as flat text, and / or it can and may be printed or reproduced in other mediums without the benefit of links to other articles to explain the context. As a result when you purposely place two entirely unrelated events next to each other in a single paragraph you are either intentionally or unintentionally linking the two things together. Because that's what a paragraph is A paragraph is a series of related sentences developing a central idea, called the topic. The topic in the first sentence is New Years Eve Riot. Second sentence is then relevant how?
 * 2B. That isn't related to my point. I am not saying anything about what other Antifa may do. I am saying that inferring an association between Iannarone and the firebombing a courthouse is a BLP issue when you do not make it explicitly clear the two events are entirely unrelated. Koncorde (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken's edit warring has got us all locked out from editing the article. They should be indef banned from the article. Bacondrum (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I had to laugh reading the edit because of its egregious bias. The mayor of Portland says that antifa are a bunch of angry white men breaking the law, then we are told that his opponent says she is antifa. It is basically calling the mayor's opponent a violent racist misogynist. We should not make claims like that either explicitly or implicitly but can only report the conclusions made in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How on Earth am I calling her a "", this is so ridiculous, one of the reasons I never touch controversial topics usually it just devolves into stupid accusations against me like this. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You provide a description of antifa as angry white male bomb throwers, then say that Iannarone claims to be one of them. TFD (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because a common archetype exists doesn't mean its universal, I'd hope you'd recognize that. Understand I put this in a section listed as "Activities", I put, explicitly in quotations, that was what the government of the city which is addressed several times throughout the article is blanketing them as. Then I put how a mayoral candidate who nearly won identifies with that cause, its emphasizing their impact, their activities if you will.
 * You're accusing me of calling her a racist and a mysogynist, are you kidding me? My mention of an ethnic group is not meant to illicit a kneejerk political identifier, white men have been communists, fascists, libertarians, all of the above. Certainly not a universal code for, "this is a racist." MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We're saying, very clearly, you conflated a New Years Eve riot with (alleged) "molotovs" used as firebombs with a political candidate saying something over 2 months earlier (or thereabouts). If you cannot see the problem here that that is probably the reason why you repeatedly run into "stupid accusations". You simply cannot write NPOV. Koncorde (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I used a reliable source to gather than information, which I was told I was supposedly lacking, just because you gathered another source that loosely suggested they may or may not have been Molotov cocktails doesn't strikeout my editing of which I was relying on said reliable source. I've already told you why I included the mayor ad nauseum. What happened to WP:AGF, of which I've seen a lacking so far to my intentions which have tried to paint an image when I've only been trying to translate information? In my edits I saw neither you nor Doug Weller attempt to translate it differently. Why? Is this not notable? If my wording was improper can you not have attempted to form it differently. You haven't suggested to me an alternative text here either. I'm trying to provide information, not biased information, but that which has happened and which is seemingly very noteworthy. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source said "alleged". You are pushing the content. You need to argue for all the criteria to make it warranted. You have been told about serious BLP concerns. You have said you can't see them. You have edit warred even after being told about the BLP concerns where the absolute minimum is for you to AGF our concerns are valid. So, yeah. AGF at this point is stable gate horse bolted closed.
 * You appear to want us to fix your bad work rather than you recognising why your work is bad and reformulating it in a way that addresses concerns and meets all other criteria. It's not up to us to try and find value if we don't think it has any. Koncorde (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So be it then, I'm not going to bother with this further if I'm consistently hampered by those claiming I'm trying to paint a picture when I'm not. I got caught up in an instance of passion and that's a mistake, I recognize that and have said as much, but to suggest I'm only out to write slampieces is an insult to my character and the betterment I hope I've brought to the articles I've contributed towards and created. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not out to write slam pieces then acknowledge what has been said and reflect. Koncorde (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Opposition to centralised states"
The article currently states "antifa is united by opposition to right-wing extremism and white supremacy as well as opposition to centralized states". There are a few issues with this claim. First, as written, it implies that "opposition to centralised states" is a fundamental element of antifa ideology (as important as opposition to right-wing extremism etc) that is shared by all activists. However, the cited source doesn't claim that: it says "Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state", implying it is a common but not universal or inherent to the movement. Secondly, its not clear what this claim actually means, and as far as I can see neither this article nor the cite source elaborate. The way I would have interpreted the phrase used here ("opposition to centralized states") would be that they want devolution / localism, with a transfer of authority away from Federal (and possibly State) governments to more local levels. But the phrase used in the source ("oppose the very notion of a centralized state") sounds more radical, possibly implying wanting to abolition states/countries altogether. Finally, the link centralized state redirects to Sovereign state, which further implies they want to abolish all states, although that could be Wikipedia inadvertently making conclusions that aren't warranted. Now, given that antifa includes anarchists, it wouldn't surprise me that some do advocate the abolition of all countries, but I think any such claims need better sourcing and better explanation. Iapetus (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Have removed it, as it is a misreading of the source and not helpful at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather, it can be helpful to a reader seeking information about the composition of Antifa to know that "Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state' and which in the Atlantic article means it seeks  "the opposite of authoritarianism" with its central authority. Which can  mean wanting the abolition states/countries altogether, but is better left undefined here. What is not helpful  is deleting rather than editing the united by opposition to     the centralized states"  under the premise that it is not  helpful at all, rather than modifying it to say no more than what the article states, and   removing the internal link to Sovereign state. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I was overhasty. I was under the impression that this was a new addition and therefore onus was on supporters for gaining consensus but I realise now it goes back (I can't see how far) and so onus is on those seeking removal. My position: Beinart says "Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state" - note many not all; other sources say nothing about this. We already say in the lead that its heterogeneous supporters "subscrib[e] to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy, and socialism", and clearly those ideologies already take a number of different positions on the centralised state. Unless there are reliable sources saying that opposition to a centralised state is a key noteworthy feature of the US antifa movement, that out of context snippet detracts from rather than adds to our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Beinart is referring to anarchism, but the same point is quoted under "Academics and scholars", and he clearly says "many" and not "most" or "all", so I support the removal of that phrase in the location it was in. Crossroads -talk- 04:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add a section for funding sources of Antifa / Antifa sources of income, including but not limited to State actors and charities.
124.169.150.131 (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Err. Define "state actors". And do you have any sources? Koncorde (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see sources for that. And how does a tiny group of activists get state funding? Is there a website for applications? TFD (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably the website with the application forms has a .soros TLD. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Structure
This article could use some restructuring along the lines of, say, Anarchism--e.g. clear "Criticism" and "Tactics" sections, with some of the material pertaining to these (currently sprinkled throughout the article) consolidated and/or cross-referenced under these sections.

For example, the first (overview) section could use this kind of improvement. It contains details and references that go beyond the scope of an overview section, and best belong under specialized sections. E.g. "Part of the right [...] equivalence between antifa and white supremacism." doesn't really belong in the overview IMO (the overview could/should simply convey the fact that controversy exists, which can then be detailed at length under "Criticism" and/or "Reactions"). Idem for the third paragraph (re. hoaxes and terrorism accusations)--IMO it is much too verbose for an overview section (esp. as it accounts for an entire third of the section as of this comment).

Also, "Public reactions" can sometimes read like a grab-bag of references, which is perfectly fine, but should be complemented by more fleshed out "Criticism" etc. sections for an orthogonal pro/con structure. vr (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are not always appropriate. Any critique should be integrated with the main text, as it is here. The Anarchism page probably needs updated to reflect that. A separate Tactics section has its own problems, as Antifa is not an organization. That means "tactics" are going to vary from group to group, and a full section on the topic is just going to bounce all over the place.
 * I do agree that the Public Reactions section is a bit of a grab-bag, and probably needs trimmed down. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections may not always be appropriate, but virtually all other political *ism pages I (re)surveyed (Capitalism, Communism, Nationalism, Socialism, etc.), including Democracy, currently contain one such section (Populism was the exception). Since these subjects are related, some consistency would be IMO in order.
 * Re. a "Tactics" section, my motivation for suggesting it was making the content more easily "indexable" and enforcing a clearer structure (e.g. does "In regard to doxing, Bray says [...] repudiating what they do." really belong under "Movement structure", or would it be better under such a "Tactics" section, together with some fleshing out of the "physical violence" and "property damage" currently mentioned in the overview?) I agree that there are challenges to do with potential overlaps (e.g. with "Activities"), but IMO it's a worthwhile exercise.
 * Re. "Public reactions" I think the approach is fine since it's liable to evolve as more reactions emerge, and the grab-bag approach is easier to maintain than a more involved writeup (while still offering documentary/reference value). Again, IMO can simply complement these with a (sub)section that surveys/brackets the general takes on the subject (it's already being tackled in the overview section). vr (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are articles on political philosophies, which, as WP:CSECTION notes further down, should often have them due to their abstract nature. Antifa is a movement, not a point of view - the articles for other political parties and movements stemming from those points of view do not have criticism sections. eg. Democratic Party (United States) or Republican Party (United States) do not have criticism sections; neither does Temperance movement, or United States anti-abortion movement, or LGBT social movements. --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Movement" sounds about right (less organized/centralized than a party, better delimited than an ideology). I don't think there's a fundamental problem with "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections in principle, but for a lot of subjects, they are a poor way to structure an article. This seems like one of those subjects. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with and . Political philosophy (ism) articles typically have criticism sections, as do many articles for specific organisations, but very few articles on movements have criticism sections. Looking at the most relevant category, "Political movements in the United States", and checking the first few contemporary ones (9-12 Project, 8664, American Left, American militia movement, Anarchism in the United States, Anti-nuclear groups in the United States, Asian American activism, Asian American movement), none of them have criticism sections. As this movement is particularly heterogeneous, a criticism section seems even less appropriate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer, the *ism examples were primarily in reply to the statement "Criticism sections are not always appropriate. [...] The Anarchism page probably needs updated to reflect that"; I think we can all agree that Anarchism is a political philosophy and qualifies for the section in question. Returning to this article, I agree with the "movement" classification, and therefore having it fit within that framework. vr (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a closely related issue so I'll raise it here: The "Public responses" section includes a sub-section "Academics and scholars". I've argued before on the talk page, without anyone really responding, that this section is problematic and I'd like to raise it again to see if anyone agrees. The sub-section includes scholars and academics (do those words mean different things?) commenting on antifa as scholarly experts (e.g. Bray and Reid Ross). It also includes anti-racist/left activists who happen to be scholars (e.g. theologian West, linguist Chomsky) commenting on antifa as activists. (West is noteworthy because he was prominent at an event where antifa had a prominent presence. Chomsky is noteworthy because his comments have had wide secondary coverage.) It also includes some unnamed critics on the left ("Some "anti-anti-fascists" on the left") who may or may not be academics and scholars. And finally it includes comments from two non-notable academics in Portland who happened to be talking heads on a local radio show ("Here's what antifa is and its connection to Portland") even though they have no particular expertise on the topic and no secondary coverage. This feels like a mishmash to me. I suggest moving the activists to a different sub-section, one on responses from the wider left perhaps, and deleting the non-noteworthy Portland academics. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021
Origin of the term antifa to refer to individuals in the Democratic Party or liberals and that "it" is violent, while not an organization. SusanLanford (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Who specifically started mentioning this term? Sources do not seem to be impartial.SusanLanford (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ Per the template, the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". FDW777 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is blatantly false. The article covers that it originates from German anti-fascist networks. Reliable sources have covered this over and over again, and there's no significant coverage of what you're recommending. Builder018 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No way to cite Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler's statement on "radical antifa and anarchists" (under Law enforcement and officials)
Even though it is overall backed by 3 sources: local news (local CBS affiliate KOIN), Fox and Newsweek, and I first supplied the fuller statement and on the 2nd attempt, a short summation, they are deleted as  "Lengthy, uncontextualized quotations from a source that is iffy on US politics," and then in response to my a short summation, that "this text doesn't explain anything that 'happened', just that a politician made a statement." So the implication is that unless the likes of the  New York Times reports this, and the description is either shorter or longer, it cannot find a place in the  Law enforcement and officials section. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The issue is that all we have is one politician's off-hand opinion. It's not a statement of fact beyond "this politician said this." It adds nothing to the article. So why are you insistent on having this one politician's opinion in the article? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite
 * It is not simply an opinion of a politician but one that intends to bring together local, state and federal law enforcement to deal with antifa.   I assumed that the section was for responses by LEO and  officials, and thus that of the Mayor   Portland would be fitting. As is the opinioned response of Biden who "condemned antifa violent actions."   And seeing as the article states that antifa is   "particularly present in the Pacific Northwest such as in Portland, Oregon" where "likely the first group to utilize the name antifa was formed," then why are some insistent on not  having this  notable mayor's  statement and response  in the article? &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk)
 * It is simply the opinion of a local politician, presented in such a way that it's completely unclear what he was opining about. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not simply an opinion that was stated, but a response due to "good faith efforts at de-escalation have been met with ongoing violence and even scorn from radical antifa and anarchists."    "In response it will be necessary to use additional tools and to push the limits of the tools we already have to bring the criminal destruction and violence to an end.”


 * As for the immediate context, the articles report that this statement was "following a riot on New Year’s Eve in downtown" "in which several businesses were damaged and multiple arrests were made." If you want that in the article then I can supply that, although then  I run the risk of bein cited for being too "lengthy" as  before &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC).
 * The other problem is that you juxtapose it with a comment by the mayor's opponent, which implies that she promotes violence. You need a source that connects her comments with those of the mayor, otherwise you are violating no synthesis. It's like saying, "In common with Adolf Hitler, Trump does not drink or smoke." True statement, but it implies something not in the sources. TFD (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did I juxtapose anything with a comment by the mayor's opponent? Just what you talking about? All I did was quote the mayor.

Now how about saying,
 * following a riot on New Year’s Eve in downtown which Portland Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler blamed on "antifa anarchists,” he stated, "My good faith efforts at de-escalation have been met with ongoing violence and even scorn from radical antifa and anarchists. In response it will be necessary to use additional tools and to push the limits of the tools we already have to bring the criminal destruction and violence to an end.”  Wheeler called for Federal, state, county and local law enforcement to convene to deal with anarchist violence as soon as possible. Previously Wheeler  had opposed the involvement of federal agent and has been accused of taking a "kid-gloves" approach to the protests.


 * Is that too much for context? Seeing that Portland Oregon  has been ground zero this year as regards the focus in antifa, then I would think the reponse in that city warrant some inclusion in the article on that loose-knit movement. What would you have the above include?  &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This takes as fact Wheeler's claim to have made "good faith efforts at de-escalation", which is the sort of pablum that all politicians offer. What actually took place? Or, more practically, what are the conflicting reports of what took place? What actions has Wheeler actually taken over the past several years of civil-unrest incidents in Portland? Who, other than Wheeler himself, describes his actions as "good faith efforts"? As I said in my edit summary, we are an encyclopedia and need to aim higher than headlines. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What Wheeler has done can be documented, and the reasons why he is accused of taking a "kid-gloves" approach to the protests as the AP reports, yet I have already has a smaller contribution deleted as  "lengthy" and adding nothing, yet  I assumed that what was pertinent was the response by officials, however much of  it is his own judgement  as is the case with  certain writers the article  refers to. So I suppose even  saying "on 01 January 2021 Portland Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler blamed "antifa anarchists” for riots and  criminal destruction and violence in his city" would has no place in an WP article on antifa under officials?  &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Meaning why is it that the article can include opinioned statements such as that "Cruz accused Antifa protesters of organizing these acts of terror," and from others, from  Noam Chomsky to Peter Beinart,to Biden, but the opinion of the mayor of the primary city that antifa is accused of causing damage in cannot be quoted? The reasons for absolutely excluding any of the statements or descriptions thereto made by Wheeler are simply inconsistent with what I see in this article. You either need to allow what officials say about the movement, even if it is their opinion, or disallow all such. opinioned statements or descriptions of them.&#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd be fine with removing the Members of Congress section, or summarizing it more briefly rather than dropping in a bunch of quotes. I think we're giving Beinart WP:UNDUE weight (and have said as much above repeatedly); we're citing a single 2017 article by him 13 times, plus another three cites to other things by him, and his opinions are presented with inline cites at at least four separate parts of the article, often dominating entire paragraphs. That's a lot of weight to put on someone whose only expertise is general political-science and being a political commentator - he's given more weight than any other source we have, which seems inappropriate at this point. But that said, it's at least a published piece that attracted a lot of attention, so mentioning it once is probably fine. Chomsky is both a subject-matter expert and one of the most prominent figures in the New Left, which makes him a reasonable source to reference once as an example of opinions within the American left (which is what he is cited for here). --Aquillion (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm just not seeing how it's significant enough. Lots of people have said lots of things about Antifa; Wheeler is ultimately just a mayor, not an expert on the subject, and it's not a statement of some new unique view of any particular note. --Aquillion (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So again the response of the mayor of the city which has been the focus of real or alleged antifa violence and destruction having no real significance, despite intending to bring Federal, state, county and local law enforcement together to deal with the ongoing problem. and despite his extended experience in dealing with antifa protests. Nothing to see here folks according to WP.  The latest report is not even mentioned in the Ted Wheeler or George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon article.  And to be consistent, I see that you think  even  more info on antifa  needs to be removed  from here as if the public would have no interest in who said what rather than just a summation. And I stand by my position that the New Year statement by Wheeler regarding his experience and response to antifa - which adds the description of its character, in part - warrants inclusion.  Meanwhile Beinart  is likely quoted a lot because there is very little substantive on antifa. More could be provided from CNN's "Unmasking the leftist Antifa" which is only briefly mentioned.  &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
 * If his statements do lead to actions that have the long-term impact you imply they might have here, we can always add them then. But right now lots of people have said lots of things about Antifa, so it makes more sense for us to briefly summarize the most important points and overarching themes of each, rather than turning the article into a wall of competing quotes. I do think that a summation is, overall, more useful to readers than a wall of competing pull-quotes; the purpose of most of the quotes in the article is to illustrate the broad positions that exist on the topic, not to convince the reader, which isn't a purpose that is well-served by having countless quotes saying similar things. And by my count the article has over 200 distinct sources, many of them quite high quality.  Beinart's piece is given so much weight in the article because it was one of the few good sources back in 2017, but that is no longer true; absolutely huge amounts have been written on the topic by a wide range of experts. --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I support mentioning this if (1) national level sources listed as green at WP:RSP discuss it and (2) it is given only a single sentence. If national-level excellent sources cover it then so should we. Even if they don't now, they may in the future if this pans out as Wheeler says. Crossroads -talk- 07:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides local (and why not?), I cited national level sources (Newsweek and Fox News)  but that edit was deleted as with these sourced being called "iiffy" on politics, meaning they  could be lying about this(!). And as for being given only a single sentence, a deletion of a summation by me cited a lack of context.


 * So far the justification for deletions   or exclusion of this response (3 lines or less) under  Law enforcement and   officials has included, this is just a  "politician's off-hand opinion it's completely unclear what he was opining about." "I'm just not seeing how it's significant enough. Lots of people have said lots of things about Antifa; Wheeler is ultimately just a mayor, [yes, he is only the   mayor in the primary city of Antifa protests];   "you juxtapose it with a comment by the mayor's opponent, which implies that she promotes violence. You need a source that connects her comments with those of the mayor" [I did not include what  a  mayor's opponent said] ; "What actually took place? Or, more practically, what are the conflicting reports of what took place? What actions has Wheeler actually taken over the past several years of civil-unrest incidents in Portland? Who, other than Wheeler himself, describes his actions as "good faith efforts"? [meaning the edit is too brief] ; "Lengthy, uncontextualized quotations from a source that is iffy on US politics" [thus it is loo long];   "this text doesn't explain anything that 'happened', just that a politician made a statement"  [it's too short;] "I support mentioning this ''if'... it is given only a single sentence." [thus risking deletion as not providing context, explanation, etc.  Thus we have another example of attempted edits being excluded based upon the interpretation of policies.


 * Meanwhile the mayor has [ moderated  his remarks somewhat, and later was punched by a  a prominent social justice activist and regular participant in the city’s protests.  &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned the Law Enforcement and Official section is designed for long term notable events. Not Tuesday. If we were to mention Wheeler it would be in context of the entirety of 2020 and his change in stance etc. Absent of that context any statement makes no sense. Koncorde (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well what happened Jan. 1 relates to the year-long antifa activity in Portland and I offered to include more context but it seems nothing is acceptable. Also, because something is not reported on acceptable national media does should not disqualify it from being cited. A statement that should be allowed could be like,


 * Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon, which has seen numerous protests in 2020 and over thousand arrests (but few prosecutions), condemned "violent antifa and anarchists" after another riot  that caused extensive damage on New Years eve, 2020.   The mayor claimed that   his efforts at   de-escalation have been met with ongoing violence and even scorn from radical antifa and anarchists and expressed that he wanted stronger measures to deal with such  destruction.
 * &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In which case it is basically a pointless statement. You are neglecting to include the context of his prior stance etc or why he took it. It ends up just being a sentence from an article rather than a meaningful or illustrative comment. Koncorde (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also not explanation for what "Joe Biden also condemned antifa violent actions" refers to either,  while I   referenced the  lack of prosecutions and in a prior suggestion I    stated that he was accused of taking a "kid's glove" approach and the link to that included  his prior support of the police in allowing Antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers. However, details as that need not belong here but in the  Ted Wheeler or George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon article.    Meanwhile maybe the edit could read something like,
 * , Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon, which has seen numerous protests and riots  in 2019-20 condemned what he termed  "violent antifa and anarchists" after a riot   caused extensive damage on New Years eve, 2020.   The mayor  also expressed that he wanted stronger measures to deal with such. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Perceived neutrality
The article can at times read as defensive/apologetic of the movement that it describes. Notably, as pointed out under Structure, the article is missing an explicit "Criticism" section. Also, the "positive" aspects of the movement are fleshed out in significant detail throughout the article, but the more controversial/"negative" aspects do not appear to be as thoroughly fleshed out when presented side-by-side. This may be due to lack of appropriate references, to idea/sentence structure, to wording, etc., but should ideally be addressed to avoid the "promo" perception.

Also, Mark Bray (extensively quoted in some of the sub-sections) is described as "historian" and "expert on the movement" which, while true, can be construed as misleading (by omission) since he is also a self-professed and unapologetic advocate of the movement. Something along the lines of "historian and advocate", "supporter and expert on the movement" etc. may be more transparent. vr (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the Criticism section discussion in the other section, so this doesn't re-hash discussions.
 * While Wikipedia strives for neutrality, that does not mean we give both sides of a discussion equal time. So "positive" vs "negative" coverage is going to depend on what reliable sources say, not perceptions of others. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe you misunderstood my comment; it was not about equal time, but rather about wording (not references), including lack of full disclosure in some instances (Mark Bray as a source that also happens to be an advocate/supporter; reference was provided in my comment). vr (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:NOCRIT we generally avoid having criticism sections. I think the article is well balanced, in light of the often partisan far-right nature of many criticisms, the legitimate (neutral) criticisms are included. The problem for detractors is that being anti-fascist is pretty inoffensive in-and-of itself. Of course the opposition receive far more criticism, they're fascists - fascism and fascist movements like neo-Nazism and the alt-right are rightly seen as reprehensible and almost universally reviled by society as a whole. Bacondrum (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The comment above makes simplifying assumptions and paints both Antifa and "the opposition" with a very broad brush. Surely not everybody in "the opposition" is a nazi, just as surely not everybody in Antifa is a communist. Probably not the right forum to delve into this kind of opinion-driven discussion. vr (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Everything you wrote is essentially "we are biased to the left, so it's OK to be critical of right wing and not left wing organizations in Wikipedia articles" This article is "well balanced" for left wing. For example the bias that criticism of anarcho-communist terrorists is "far-right" in nature. J1DW (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the NPOV, honest, neutral defense of devoting the first paragraph of this article to apologizing for Antifa and calling them mostly "nonviolent"? An organization isn't defined by what it doesn't do. I can easily argue literally every person and organization in history is "mostly nonviolent". The greatest mass murderers in history were not killing or harming anyone 99% of the time. This is bias. Period.


 * This article calls Antifa, literally anarcho-communists, "left wing". What is "far left" if Antifa is just left wing? What is a pro-violence organization if Antifa members, to mean those who openly identify and organize as Antifa, have stated on numerous occasions they are in favor of violence? You can throw in all the caveats you want, but so could anyone about anyone, because there's no such thing as absolute violence, you created an imaginary standard to defend an organization that openly wants to end the American government, capitalism, and is pro violence. That's THEIR OFFICIAL POLICY AND YOU CALL THEM NONVIOLENT LEFT WING. J1DW (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Most recently subject to a request for comment at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20. I suggest you start a new request for comment if you think things have changed, but in the absence of evidence from reliable references it might not be the best idea. FDW777 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry but what the hell. I will probably get banned from wiki for making this comment, but could you guys explain *how people are a part of Antifa if they are peacful*? The Article **LITERALLY SAYS IN THE FIRST DAMN PARAGRAPH** that **IT IS A VIOLENT MOVEMENT**? If by definition Antifa promotes violence to the far right, how can they be non-violent? BrawlyTheContributor (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was not aware it was impossible to do things such as poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, delivering speeches, marching in protest, and community organizing as well as more militant activity. It is not a binary choice between one and the other, people do both. Or some people maybe just one, such is their choice. FDW777 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * By not doing such, they literally BY DEFINITION ARE NOT ANTIFA! Did you just completely ignore my question? BrawlyTheContributor (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I intend to from now on. FDW777 (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
I wish to have all references to antifa as "left-wing" changed to "far-left" or "radical-left". Bellow I have 5 left wing journal and proper academy sources claiming that Antifa is in fact a far-left ideology and for that should be properly labelled. If more proper academic sources are required I would happy to provide the appropriate point. I am not here looking for a fight, I just think this is an appropriate change. By not changing this you are making all left wing people including myself look look like we associate with Antifa, a violent organization.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html "Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left – often the far left"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjds/s13688-019-0193-9 "we found evidences supporting the Moral Foundations Theory among left- and right-wing extremists."

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aRWDDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=antifa+far+left&ots=R1En9fAQcE&sig=SYmlETIZUmoRZYUI18e-Tn1Qda8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=antifa%20far%20left&f=false

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-36525-7_10

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8ffrDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=antifa+far+left&ots=b0v75_IIaY&sig=ZTCNZTbAiVZR-btZmFhZ5LRZT9U&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=antifa%20far%20left&f=false Jhawk09 (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ See the most recent request for comment at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20. A new request for comment would be needed for the change you suggest. FDW777 (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A one-off line from an actual media outlet followed by 4 random books/publications? No. ValarianB (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * One media source and 4 academic sources is definitely enough to have it change. I can post way more media and academic sources to prove my point easily. It is complete bias that you guys have classified it as "left-wing", I did not know you supported thuggishness and are anti rule of law.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/who-are-antifa-and-are-they-threat

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1190326.shtml

https://huntnewsnu.com/64281/editorial/column-the-views-of-the-far-left-are-rooted-in-good-merits-those-of-the-far-right-are-not/ (even this article which supports Antifa calls in far-left

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/71x1682q

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Sweeney4/publication/329894889_Terrorism_Domestic/links/5c389ce1299bf12be3bfca9a/Terrorism-Domestic.pd

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawk09 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Per my comment above, it won't be changed by an edit request. You can start a request for comment, or you can do nothing. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl
The Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl is only mentioned once, despite it being the first murder ANTIFA has committed, I think their should be a paragraph or at least a sentence on it in the Notable actions section or mention it more the once, so what do you think?--Garmin21 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 21, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 21 and Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 22. FDW777 (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok I didn't know their was an archive of an already discussed topic, sorry for the inconvenience.--Garmin21 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Antifa- listed as non-violent
This has not been the cases and should be updated under their definition Trm42 (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Listed where? The article clearly says they use "nonviolent and violent direct action". I don't see a problem. Crossroads -talk- 06:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For consideration under Notable actions
More like an inaction but on January 20, 2021, President Biden's Inauguration day, Antifa Sacramento of California put out a call for supporters from around the state to come to the city and face off against right-wing groups. An estimated 120 anti-fascists arrived, some armed with sticks and shields, however, right-wing groups did not show up and there were no major incidents. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC) &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, if nothing happened, that seems non-notable to me. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the day ended without major incident, was this even antifa? Shouldn't they be pillaging and burning cities to the ground. FDW777 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it cites "Antifa Sacramento" as the organizer, and that "Without Trump supporters or the Proud Boys here, Antifa had very little to rail against," although they "played cat and mouse" with a Trump supporter flying an American flag and who blared the national anthem, "then sped away before Antifa could catch up to him." Meanwhile   "no major incidents" means   a crowd of 100 protesters descended on the area  and windows were smashed   at a federal courthouse.   However, in this report from the AP Antifa  is not  named, nor in  the report of  a crowd of 150 people  in Portland OR  smashing  windows and spray-painting anarchist symbols  on the building of the  headquarters of the Democratic Party of Oregon,  with some  displaying a  banner declaring “We Are Ungovernable.” .  &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021
(Antifa are a marxist and extremist left movement as well 95.151.127.30 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Marxism is by definition far-left, and this article already says many ANTIFA members are Marxists. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20. A new RFC would be needed to change the current consensus. FDW777 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

antifa and anarachism
There's some good info in this source that could be included or further cited: "Mark Bray, author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist’s Handbook,” said the graffiti that the Portland protesters left behind and the flags some carried included anarchist symbols. There is a “fair amount of overlap” between the ideologies of anarchists and antifascists. Both tend to be anti-government, opposed to both the Democratic and Republican parties, and frequently protest on Inauguration Day and at the parties’ annual conventions." --SoJuicy (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Terrorism Incidents in the United States
Hello, editors,

Since some of these "incidents" are being attributed to Antifa, I thought this new article could use more eyes from editors familiar with this group. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirected to parent article at List of terrorist incidents in 2021. The inclusion criteria at that article also apply to the new article, and not a single reference cited called any of those incidents terrorism (I'm aware there's an argument to be made about the storming of the Capitol, I'm guessing that hasn't been described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism" since it doesn't appear in the parent article either. FDW777 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a good move. I didn't realize when I posted this morning that we didn't have a page for terrorism incidents for other years. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Antifa weapons
It would be helpful to include a list of weapons commonly employed by Antifa. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If you can provide source that describes these weapons, and an argument of why it is noteworthy, then please do so. ValarianB (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In Portland, images of knives, brass knuckles, bricks show viciousness of protests
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.6.121 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reference isn't clear about who the weapons belonged to, since it also talks about rival demonstrators. FDW777 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The article already presents much of what this source describes in the Activities section, including talking about deploying violence, a confrontational approach, carrying clubs and sticks, and causing property damage. I agree with  that the Antifa connection to the weapons was not made in the source, but perhaps the tactic of throwing bricks at police could be added from this source and placed in the Activities section. I'd be willing to try writing a draft sentence with the ref tag if the idea sounds acceptable to the users with privileges who could add it. JaredHWood💬 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

John Sullivan
, I believe this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=1002378246&oldid=1002370769

is DUE because some have asserted Sullivan is "proof" that the insurgency was done by antifa, though Sullivan appears to have connections to Proud Boys, BLM-Utah had disassociated itself from him for months on such suspicions, and feds have not identified him as antifa. This is consistent with efforts to frame antifa for the insurrection, among other incidents. soibangla (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I disagree. It appears to be a total non-event. Nothing actually happened. We can see what other editors think. Bacondrum 05:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "a Utah man who was arrested after the incursion, was characterized by some as an "antifa leader" who had supposedly " (emphasis added by me). From due weight point perspective, that's a pretty good indication we should leave it out. There's no reliably demonstrated connection to the article topic. Graywalls (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Further reading
My addition today of a new book to the Further Reading section was quickly reverted with the edit summary, "Not sure that this is suitable."

The book is Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy. It is published by Center Street, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, a reputable publishing company headquartered in New York City. In 2018, Hachette placed 150 books on the New York Times bestseller list, 31 of which reached No. 1. This particular book, Unmasked (2021), is about Antifa (United States). Both hardcover and e-book editions currently rank as the #1 bestseller at Amazon in three categories:
 * Censorship & Politics
 * Radical Political Thought
 * Local U.S. Politics

I request consensus that this book is suitable for addition to Further reading. NedFausa (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably worth noting here that I'm the one who reverted the addition. The full sentence from my edit summary was Not sure that this is suitable for the further reading section. That concern wasn't based on doubt that Ngo's book is notable, or suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia overall - it definitely is, as has demonstrated above - but on uncertainty that it is suitable for inclusion in this further reading section specifically. Aside from this brief MOS guideline which states that the further reading section consists of "a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", I wasn't able to find any policies or guidelines that directly address the further reading section and how policies like due weight and NPOV should be applied to it, if at all. I'm hoping to learn more from some editors who have more experience with the further reading section than I do. warmly,  ezlev.  talk  05:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I strrongly oppose the inclusion of this sensationalist, sloppy, inaccurate and uninformed book in our further reading section. It is not a reliable source. Just because a book is published by a mainstream publisher does not mean it has been fact-checked or peer-reviewed by anyone with actual expertise on the topic, and if it has been passed by a legal team it is most likely because they know a decentralised network like antifa is not going to sue. There seems to be just one review so far in a reputable source and it leads on the inaccuracy of the book. Acording to our own page on Andy Ngo, In the Los Angeles Times, Alexander Nazaryan reviewed Unmasked as a "supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa". According to Nazaryan, Ngo wrote that his parents' immigration from Vietnam led him to describe his book as "a letter of gratitude to the nation" that made them welcome, as against the leftists who, he claims, wish to destroy it. "As an immigrant from a communist country", Nazaryan wrote, "I understand the sentiment. As a journalist, however, I must point out that he is churning out the very kind [of] propaganda that keeps authoritarians in power." Nonetheless, Ngo's book became an Amazon bestseller. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The essay "Wikipedia: Further reading" suggests: Works named in this section should present a neutral view of the subject, or, if works of a particular point of view are presented, the section should present a balance of various points of view. … Significant minority points of view should usually be included, subject to the same quality guidelines on reliability, topicality, and the limited size of the section. Publications about a tiny minority view need not be included at all. … "Further reading" sections are not to be used for pushing a point of view. Unmasked presents a significant, not fringe minority point of view of Antifa USA. The book is published by a reliable source, is topical, and would serve as the only entry in Further Reading to elucidate that point of view, thus providing balance. Mere inclusion in this list does not push the author's point of view, any more than does the existing entry for Spencer Sunshine's "Antifa Panic: Blaming the Left for Terrorism," which defames Andy Ngo as "an Islamophobic, far-right propagandist" who amplified "a fake study of journalists who supposedly were connected to Antifa, which in turn inspired a neo-Nazi kill list of the same writers." (Emphasis added.) Please, let's not have a double standard—biased in favor of those who condone Antifa USA—in deciding which works to include in the Further Reading section. NedFausa (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , per the WP:FALSEBALANCE section of the NPOV policy, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity... We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Inclusion in the further reading section would certainly be undue legitimization of Unmasked, given that the only reputable source could find described it as "supremely dishonest" and "propaganda".
 * Since our goal here is to create a neutral or balanced list of "publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", I think that removing the Antifa Panic article is a far better course of action than adding the Unmasked book. Including either of them alongside the scholarly content that makes up the rest of the further reading section seems to constitute a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sticking to serious studies of antifa in the further reading section, rather than sensationalized coverage, will adhere more closely to both NPOV and MOS:FURTHER. warmly, ezlev.  talk  18:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The current FR section is a bit of a mess and I'd delete all of it except the scholoarly book by Vysotsky (and possibly the more niche journal article length version by him). Coale relates to US anti-fascism historically but not to antifa. Jackson is no more helpful than any of the primers heavily cited in the article. Massot et al seems off topic. Sunshine focuses on a specific aspect of the story now adequately covered in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Um, it's written by Andy Ngo, a thoroughly discredited partisan activist, referred to by Rolling Stone Magazine as a "right-wing troll". The author has been accused of being involved in planning far-right attacks on Antifa members. This is the definition of an unreliable partisan source. The book is a partisan hatchet job, at best and should be totally disregarded. Bacondrum 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Further Readings
reinserted a book/paper I removed from this section that I find to be questionable. They didn't offer any explanation. I don't see why it should be mentioend in the article. The contents in question is "Massot, Xavier; Scott, Crow; Van Deusen, David (2002). The Black Bloc Papers (2nd ed.). Shawnee Mission: Breaking Glass Press. ISBN 9780979167102. OCLC 906021712.". Not in Google Books, not stocked in libraries. "Breaking Glass Press" seems to be a vanity press/self publishing domain and I believe this would be in WP:SPS territory. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I accidentally saved the reversion before completing my edit summary. I wanted to point out that "Breaking Glass Press" is an imprint of the Alternative Media Project. The Black Bloc Papers (Second Edition) is "An Anthology of Primary Texts From The North American Anarchist Black Bloc 1988-2005 The Battle of Seattle Through The Anti-War Movement" written by the Green Mountain Anarchist Collective, which was an anarchist group. Articles written by insiders are often helpful for further research by readers, although this group came before antifa. TFD (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to include for further reading. Scott Crow is a reasonably well known anarchist activist, other contributors I've never heard of seem like interesting and relevant academics and activists from a google search. It's on topic, I would support its inclusion for further reading, but probably not as a source for claims in the article. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The further reading section's presence isn't even compulsory and I would say WP:ELNO is a reasonable guiding reference to follow. One of the three people involved in writing the book being "reasonable well known other activist" in my opinion isn't a justification to include what appears to be some vanity press published book. Why should this be included? What value does it add? How do we even know the book is even accurate? No traditional library stocks it. Allowing this means opening up the list to every vanity press. The further reading section of this very high traffic article is not a rotating exhibit of some random authors books. Graywalls (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * External links to people involved in a movement don't have to be accurate. The Unabomber's manifesto for example may not be accurate but may be of interest to someone interested in him. Reading what members of a movement have written is helpful in understanding them. Please don't worry that using this link will lead to a mass brainwashing of Wikipedia readers into antifa. TFD (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If this group came before Antifa USA, I oppose inclusion in the Further reading section. Once we start listing historical antecedents, where will it end? Further reading will swell to a size that makes it unhelpful to readers. Please, let's keep our focus on Antifa USA. NedFausa (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It will probably end with the antecedents mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , what is your argument for supporting the inclusion of this one, but not the Andy Ngo and what policy-based guideline can you suggest that would be in favor of this one but not the Andy Ngo one? My position is that neither should be included. Graywalls (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The activist one is first hand accounts of American antifascist activism, by insiders. I would certainly be interested to read more about the inner workings of anti-fascist groups. Having said that, I don't really care either way about its inclusion - I just see no real problem with including it. Andy Ngo's book is undoubtedly a hyperbolic partisan hatchet job, his "reporting" is thoroughly discredited, his work is trash. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * For students reading about a movement, it is sometimes helpful to read what they said. It is much less helpful to read unreliable accounts of them write from a fringe POV. This is based on the idea that everyone is a reliable source for their own views. In the article about Ngo, I would have no hesitation about providing a link to his book. TFD (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with TFD. If this source is useful for understanding the pre-2017 history of antifa then it would be worth including, as a primary text that gives access to the movement's own documents and voices, but if it isn't then it isn't. Without spending time reading it, I can't immediately see how much it talks about the history of antifa or not. The term "vanity press" is totally inaccurate for this source as well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Quotes
I don't see inclusion of contents derived from stitching together quotes from various professors and such due when analysis was not made by the media source. It causes editorial bias when editors here picks and chooses which quotes to use and stich them up. I searched Levin in discussion archives and what I have just removed wasn't really talked about prior to adding it. His comment that was quoted by the newspaper about right wing being the threat probably doesn't belong here. If people here objects to my removal, we can discuss about it. Graywalls (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 05:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is too much undue quotation here. I find it odd you removed that Levin quote but not the one saying "antifa activists feel the need to participate in violent actions because "they believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist." If Levin's views are undue, let's remove both; or else leave both. He seems to be widely quoted as a source on antifa. The most undue quotes in the article currently are Shirley Jackson and Marc Rodriguez, who seem to be noteworthy only in a local Portland context. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, if you come across, journalists said... or New York Times quoted so and so said "so and so and so", I would encourage them to be removed. So, you could just fix it. If people disagree with it, they can revert it and bring it up for discussion. Graywalls (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, these two academics have expertise in the relevant fields, and nowhere do they limit their comments to Portland; they are merely in Portland, which is not surprising since much or most antifa activity in the US appears to occur there. There is no good reason not to include them. We discussed this previously at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 22. Crossroads -talk- 18:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead image
While I appreciate your edit summary arguing, reasonably enough, for the importance of having an image of some sort in the lead section, I still feel that the current image adds very little to the reader's understanding. As such, I'd propose removing it and moving up File:Antifa sticker on No Parking sign.jpg in its place. You've said that the latter image is lower quality, but that doesn't seem true in the technical sense (the sticker photo is higher-resolution) or in terms of encyclopaedic value (the sticker photo conveys more information simply by having more words on it, as well as providing a sense of the context in which one might encounter the image). As I mentioned in the edit summary, I also think having four separate images of the flags logo (five if you include File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg) is redundant. (File:Antifa logo.jpg is also licensed as the uploader's own work, which strikes me as unlikely, but I don't know enough about the legalities to know how much of an issue that is.) I'd be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My main issue is that there should be a lead image. Typically for these things it is a logo. While I think the sticker's extra wording is more informative, that extra wording may not be as common and doing a sticker is a bit unusual. We'll see what others think. Other pictures of people holding a banner or of the different 1930's German version I don't count as images of the symbol in particular. Crossroads -talk- 17:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since no one else has weighed in here, I wonder if a third opinion might be useful? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I'm also going to state "need more comments on this matter" in the edit summary to draw attention. This page has a ton of participants usually. Crossroads -talk- 20:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The number of variations on the logo may be interminable, lets stick with the basic logo, the current logo contains all the features that consistently appear in other variations of the logo. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 20:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is the text on the sticker itself. I think as a whole, Antifa is not all anti-capitalists, and the sticker may be significantly misleading. I suspect the only commonality is anti-fascist & anti-racist, and hence the sticker misrepresents the subject, just like a photo of black bloc would significantly misrepresent Antifa. Centerone (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good point and one I hadn't considered (thanks also Bacondrum). I still think though that the lede image ought be one of the images we have that's both higher-resolution than File:Antifa logo.jpg and provides more context. One possible solution that hasn't been discussed is moving File:2017.03.04 Pro-Trump Rallies Washington, DC USA 00360 (33211221516) cropped.jpg up to the lede – it's a high-res photo that we can link to a specific event so ticks both boxes. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A possibly misleading context, given the obvious Trump flags also in the picture. The photo itself may be higher resolution, but the logo itself is smaller and distorted in shape from being on a flag. Crossroads -talk- 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The context is a counter-protest against Trump supporters/the far right, so a fairly typical one, but I see what you mean. It could be cropped further I suppose. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2021
100.37.152.229 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Antifa is not mostly non-violent. They are highly organized and responsible for vandalism, violence and the deaths of many innocent people across the country in the summer of 2020. Wikipedia has become politically bias and is losing credibility. There is no scenario where violence against innocent people should be tolerated. Extremism and violence is what Antifa is known for and the favorable description Wikipedia has published is disturbing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.152.229 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This request should be closed as it is a "please change X" request in the face of explicit instructions to avoid this type of request. <b style="color:#256eff">JH</b><b style="color:#0044cc">elz</b><b style="color:#00297a">er</b>💬 13:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ Sentence being objected to is properly referenced anyway, and has been discussed at torturous length. FDW777 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2021
Antifa is a far-left extremist group 24.191.51.171 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ No specific change suggested. A general change in label requires Reliable Sources be provided to justify the change. Jlevi (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It also requires a new RFC to overturn the existing consensus, see FAQ#1. FDW777 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2021
Antifa uses fascist tactics and acts and therefore cannot be anti fascist. 172.58.107.100 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ FDW777 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Highly-Biased Tone
This entry and endless numbers of entries on Wikipedia, covering similar political topics, are afflicted by obvious heavy bias. The pre-established tone of said entries make it nearly impossible to undo the bias. Said bias has morphed into being by design, and upheld through picking and choosing what reliable sources are allowed and when depending on the topic. This, among many other reasons, is why people distrust Wikipedia on topics such as these and topics about left-wing/liberal/Democrat/neolib political topics in general. Each time people come back to these topics every few months, the bias and misinformation has only worsened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChonokisFigueroa (talk • contribs)
 * It's hard to know what to make of this, vague as it is. I believe it has become more balanced with time. I will say that seeing "antifa" equated with "neoliberal" was quite the novelty. Crossroads -talk- 04:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with topics like Antifa is that any attempt at neutrality and objectivity is viewed as white washing etc because the pump has been primed about what Antifa is by the right. You can either pander to the right and and pretend any coverage or claim about Antifa is equally valid (when the reality is they just want to use a very narrow prescriptive viewpoint), or you use the actual RS to try to cover the broad spectrum of Antifa.
 * I don't even edit the article because I believe it could be improved and sanitised more than it is currently, but only because the majority of what is included is functionally just news rather than encyclopedic content. Koncorde (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. The article on Andy Ngo is so full of distracting sentences which are put in every section where the attack on him by Antifa is discussed. However, in this page, they are trying their level best that even by mistake someone should not realize how violent Antifa actually is. Agent raymond232 (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Agent_raymond232
 * Punching a provocateur vs associating Antifa with everything ascribed to them by any talking head (such as Andy Ngo) are very different things. Koncorde (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One of Wikipedia's policies is weight, which requires that coverage of antifa be similar to coverage in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Add to hoaxes and conspiracy section
I'd like to recommend the editors of this article add to the hoaxes and conspiracy section. I didn't see anything mentioned about the so-called "antifa manual" a hoax that has been most recently circulated in association with BLM protests. Perhaps you could add the following in the section that talks about hoaxes and conspiracies in relation to the George Floyd protests: Debunked by Snopes in 2017, images labeled as an “antifa manual” have been circulating online for years. According the Anti-Defamation League, the language used in the document appears designed to sow division and features many statements that do not align with the sentiments of anti-fascist organizers, often clumsily mimicking “left wing” rhetoric. The same images, originally published in 2017 continued to be shared on social media in posts about 2020 BLM protests. (source: https://www.adl.org/disinformation-antifa-manual). Full disclosure -- I work at the Anti-Defamation League. Thanks! OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bumping this so it doesn't get archived. This seems like a good addition. Crossroads -talk- 19:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the article. X-Editor (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm objecting due to not a simple COI, but to apparent source advocacy by the proposing editor. Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

, you added back the contents that phrased by the ADL. I wanted to make sure you are aware that this is part of their strategic self-advocacy effort. The requester is one of the eight accounts, created around May 2020 to push ADL sources into articles. These accounts have been adding "according to ADL..." into a lot of different articles in an apparent attempt to elevate the status of ADL. Please see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard for context. Graywalls (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, and no objection if people feel the material is UNDUE or badly worded, but it seems worthwhile to me. I added a secondary source to show DUE. I've just edited again, adding another secondary source, but am definitely open to the suggestion that it isn't DUE, especially the middle sentence sourced only to the ADL. Just to note we already mention ADL a few times in the article, suggesting many editors have previously considered them DUE in general, so on this page this isn't equivalent to a fringe group using strategic self-advocacy. Obviously if the COI noticeboard reaches a consensus on this material in general that would override any local consensus on this page, so we need to keep an eye on that discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * support re-additions, the blanket removal of content was wrong-headed, reactionary, and just plain stupid, the material should have been flagged, and discussed here before deletion, a single editor with a bee in their bonnet, running around deleting stuff, is creating disruption, sort it out at COI/N then discuss content removal. Dumb. Acousmana (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Has fascism all but disappeared?
Payne states that fascism has "all but disappeared". Everything he states is based on this. Is it true? I guess that depends on how you define "fascism". Quoting from Merriam-Webster, fascism is: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Trump became our most autocratic president (at least that I have heard of). As an example, he ignored the emoluments clause, saying, in effect, "make me", and repeatedly followed this strategy with respect to requests from Congress. When asked about releasing his taxes, he "dissembled", implying that he was just waiting for the audit to be completed, while his intention was never to release them. In other words, he just placed himself above the law and any other standards.

As to exalting nation, consider Trump's determination to characterize Kaepernick's as being unpatriotic. Trump "created" an opposition and suppressed it. Later on, Trump would say there were "fine people on both sides" in Charlottesville, and would subsequently imply that he ought to become "president for life". Some big majority of Republicans seem to agree with these attitudes.

Payne's claim of fascist attitudes having nearly disappeared does not seem to be a reasonably plausible position, and since this is the basis of his claim that fascism has all but disappeared, then any statements he makes that are based on this would not have much plausibility either. Please explain where I have gone awry. Fabrickator (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A few points FDR, LBJ, Nixon, George W. Bush, Hebert Hoover and Abraham Lincoln could all be considered "autocratic". Virtually all President's dislike disclosing things to the public. The emolument's clause is a virtual dead letter that is almost never brought up. Not disclosing Taxes is certainly something people can object to, but hardly exclusive to fascist. Trump hardly suppressed Kaepernick, Plenty of Presidents have questioned the patriotisms of their opponents, Truman basically claimed Dewey was a puppet of fascists and unamerican, Wallace said the same except abut Truman. The charlottesville statement is not evidence of fascism. The President had a massive ego and little respect for the norms of governance, but that does not make a fascist. "Fascist attitudes" is not what Payne is talking about, but actual Fascists from ideological views something neither he nor Richard J. Evans think Trump is. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , most Presidents didn't order the tear-gassing of people protesting the murder of a Black dude in order to stage a PR photo opp holding a book they have never read in front of a building they have never visited. Also the number of presidents who have incited an attempt to overthrow an election they lost is greater than zero and less than two. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)