Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 3

Organisation categories
Last night I removed this article from Category:Anti-fascist organizations and Category:Anarchist organizations in the United States; AlexEng subsequently reverted those edits. Alex and I differ on the question of whether Antifa ought to be considered an organisation – for my part, I think that while it's true that Antifa is an organisation in the sense of "an entity comprising multiple people ... that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment" (i.e. as the term is defined in our article), this is not necessarily the most common sense of the term. I think the word "organisation" more often suggests such an entity that is formally constituted, not necessarily with a leadership or membership but usually with a decision-making structure of some sort. Antifa, we learn from this article, "has no formal organization", and may be "an organizing strategy, not a group of people", and so is not an organisation but a political movement. Before reverting though I'd like to gauge the consensus on this question. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. The categories Anti-fascism in the United States and Anarchism in the United States cover this without using the incorrect description of "organisation(s)" so the organisation categories are redundant as well as incorrect. I will remove them. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I also got rid of the one describing a date of "establishment" as clearly this is not anything that is established and can not have a date put on it in that way.
 * One other thing I would like to get rid of is the claim "Preceded by: Anti-Racist Action". The Anti-Racist Action article says that this was succeeded by Torch Antifa Network, although that does not have its own article and redirects here. There is no mention of this (I assume) organisation in the article here so I don't see the "preceded by" as valid. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I also agree. This article in Buzzfeed is interesting. Despite the fact it uses randomly words such as organisations, groups and chapters to describe various groups (sometimes calling something a group and an organisation), it makes it clear that it's a movement " antifa barely qualify as a group, and lack any sort of central command. Under that veneer of coherence, however, antifa remains more chaos than movement, and not just because its adherents tend to resist authority on principle. It is divided by geography, ideology, and history, less focused and coherent than the other great (and sometimes also chaotic) movement of the recent left, Black Lives Matter." It describes various groups, some of which aren't actually Antifa but support them in various ways, and says that they don't always use Black bloc tactics. Doug Weller  talk 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this rationale. Antifa US is absolutely an organization by the standards set aside in the article for "organization." An entity does not require a centralized bureaucracy in order to be considered an organization. In fact, one of the examples given in organization is "resistance movements." Moreover, Antifaschistische Aktion is listed in that category as well. I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning for claiming that it's not an organization. Labeling it as such clearly adds value to the categories discussed, as it is a relevant member. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 20:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While I somewhat agree with your reasoning, I note that Alt Right is not in the analogous cats. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not an organization by any stretch of the imagination. I fully support category removal. TheValeyard (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @TheValeyard -- any other personal opinions you care to disseminate while you have the chance? Quis separabit?  14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So a movement does not to have any organisation or to be coherently organised to be an "organisation"? I'm sorry, but either I have misunderstood the argument or it is literally nonsense bordering on the oxymoronic. Please don't take that personally. It is perfectly possible that I am misunderstanding the point. Please just take it as an indication that you should probably try to explain it again much more clearly.
 * Antifaschistische Aktion, as I understand it is/was an organisation for at least part of its history. Note the official proclamation of its founding in 1932. Note that post-1945 it had committees and other things that are clear hallmarks of an organisation (or maybe a group of organisations). In its post-1980s incarnations it sounds less like an organisation and somewhat more like the American movement we are discussing here but prior to that there clearly was an organisation of that name and it is possible that it persisted to some extent beyond that. It is clearly not wholly analogous to the subject here.
 * I don't believe that there ever has been an organisation in the USA called Antifa (or that if there has it is not the same as the subject of this article) but I accept that there have been groups which can legitimately be called organisations*, some of them with "antifa" in the their names, who are parts of this overall movement but this article is not about those. It is about the movement as a whole and there is no single organisation here that can justify those categories. Those categories might be perfectly OK on the articles about those groups which are organisations but not here.
 * As I have said above, I believe that the categories Anti-fascism in the United States and Anarchism in the United States convey pretty much the same meaning as the categories you wish to add, minus the concept of an organisation. As such, I think this is sufficient. I do not understand why you want to use rather complicated and unclear arguments to try bend this subject into the penumbra of the organisation categories. I just don't see any need for it.
 * * - I am not going the be obtuse and insist that nothing Anarchist can be called an organisation although it does seem a rather unanarchic concept. It reminds me of an old Private Eye cartoon in which the chairman of an anarchist meeting bangs his gavel and calls "Disorder! Disorder gentlemen please!". ;-)
 * --DanielRigal (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As I sort of suggested in my post above, I think the disagreement here boils down the difference between the definition of organisation in the organization article, and a different understanding which I think is the more common understanding of the term. The definition in the Organizational theory article is roughly what I have in mind: "Organizations are defined as social units of people that are structured and managed to meet a need, or to pursue collective goals." The important part there is structured and managed – there has to be some structure that can be easily apprehended, and some management (whether by a leader or collectively). Neither of these definitions is wrong, but I think that when the lay reader sees the term "organisation" in a category, the definition that occurs to them is closer to the latter than the former. (It's not especially clear in the organization article, but I read the mention of resistance movements as referring to movements like the French Resistance, which had a cell structure and an informal leadership, rather than movements like Antifa which have neither.) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Organization is a terrible article and I think I see some copyvio. In any case, I don't see how a social movement can be called an "entity", and the examples given in that article are "an institution or an association". Doug Weller  talk 08:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've seen worse articles but the possible copyvio is worrying. Maybe somebody is plagiarising us rather than the other way round but it definitely needs looking at. I'll put a note on the Talk page there.
 * I think that the organisation article is a bit of a red herring here anyway. Certainly there is no harm in using it as one possible source in our attempts to clarify what does and does not qualify as an organisation but it isn't the single golden standard we must use. Even if it was a better article, it wouldn't be the sole point of reference here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see a relevant comment I made here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that this has wandered off topic without answering the initial question about the categories. I don't think that we should get wound up by, frankly, silly attempts to reacronym Antifa or to lure us into general discussion that violates NOTFORUM. (And, yes, I probably should not have put my little Anarchist joke in. I was just trying to lighten the tone a little.) Much as I disagree with AlexEng, he has a right to have his proposed categories discussed properly without us losing the plot half way through. So, about these categories...? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, about the categories. My belief remains that Antifa, though loosely organized and decentralized, constitutes an organization. Moreover, I think there is more to gain from including it in the disputed categories than by removing it. Therefore, in the interest of improving the project, I think we should go the route of inclusion. Continuing to argue semantics over whether it fits the definition of an organization or not feels like a waste of effort for all of us. What we should be asking is if inclusion in a category is a net positive or net negative. Does it clutter up those categories needlessly? Or does it help readers navigate to related pages? Would a reader searching for information on anarchist / anti-fascist organizations feel that Antifa US is out of place in that category? I think you know my answers to those questions, but if I've failed to convince you, then I won't obstruct consensus any longer; let the removal stand if that's the case. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 22:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not just semantics, in fact it isn't even semantics. There are a few sources, mainly right wing sources we wouldn't use, that call for it be be labelled a terrorist organisation, but those seem to be about the only ones that use the word. Other more reliable sources call it a movement. An article in the New York Times says "Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization;" Social movements aren't organisations. Our article Antifa movement doesn't use the word except where referring to specific organisations.  Doug Weller  talk 07:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear. It is just semantics. It's not an NPOV issue; "terrorist" isn't implied in "organization." Whether Antifa US is, strictly speaking, an organization or a movement is immaterial: I have no desire to refer to Antifa US as an organization in the article body. However, I think that its inclusion in the categories under dispute is appropriate and a net positive to those categories. The fact that we've delved into deep definitions of the word "organization" and organizational theory itself feels like punctilious overkill for something this benign. Can I simply ask what it is about this categorization that is so objectionable? Alex Eng ( TALK ) 08:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Note: I'm explicitly stating here that I've not rescinded my commitment to stand by consensus as in my previous comment above.
 * This is just to agree with the clear consensus that the article should be removed from the "organization" categories for the obvious reason already noted that antifa is not an organisation. I think it is more than semantics because there is a popular misconception that antifa is an organisation, and when ordinary readers come to Wikipedia to find out what antifa is, which they're obviously doing in large numbers, then it is imperative we are super careful about not feeding misconceptions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the organisation categories would be fine on any articles about specific, organised Antifa groups but not on this article. Speaking of which, I note that we do not even have a list of these groups here. I think it would make sense to have such a list. It would both help to dispel the misconception that Antifa is an organisation in itself and also provide links to a set of articles which people interested in this article are very likely to also be interested in. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Digression

 * @DanielRigal -- "I am not going the be obtuse and insist that nothing Anarchist can be called an organisation although it does seem a rather unanarchic concept." -- perhaps the reason for your confused thinking is that Anti-First Amendment ("Antifa") is not as anarchist as you seem to think or as it may attempt to project. It is clearly political (witness its attacks in Boston and its threats in Portland, Oregon on groups that had nothing to do with racist, neo-Nazis, fascists, or any other boogeyman the group trots out) but rather has set partisan goals (including, IMO, its assault on the First Amendment and, at least rhetorically, on the police), and likely receives funding from somewhere to be able to carry out its activities, although I acknowledge its overhead is low, and it may not need that much cash to get by. Quis separabit?  14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise if my little joke was confusing. My point was simply that an Anarchist group can be an organisation but that Antifa is not a group and hence can not be an organisation. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so this edit has established your point of view. So, can we all go home now, and you will stop POV-pushing in the article itself? Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Newimpartial -- No. I am not a child to be bought into silence with some toffees. I am trying to remove what I see as OR and weaselry from this article, and I am sure I am not alone. Do not denigrate my edits as "POV-pushing" because that is a lie. As a U.S. citizen, I may be passionate about an existential threat to the First Amendment but I still have enough of my wits about me to edit. Why don't you reply to my comments below at "Biased narratives posing as reliably-sourced factual text" rather than answering for @DanielRigal as though you were his factotum? Quis separabit?  14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you insist on referring to the subject of a WP article, on the talk page about that article, using an r/The_Donald/ faux-name then yeah, you are POV-pushing, existential threat or no. Concerning your new section, I will wade in after others have done so - I am not a factotum (and don't reply on anyone else's behalf), but I do prefer to see the lay of the swamp before entering. Newimpartial (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the "faux name" you are referring to is "Anti-First Amendment", I don't think it matters since I am using that name on this talk page not in the article itself. So, stop looking for trivial reasons to avoid the grist of the matter. Quis separabit?  14:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the "grist of the matter" here is your POV-pushing, of which your chosen neologism serves as an elegant indicator. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "elegant" but I am not POV-pushing. I was boldly trying to remove text which I consider to be non-neutral, weaselly, POV, and synthetic. And, as per BRD, we are now in the third phase, after bold and revert, which, I know you know, is "discuss". As far as " Concerning your new section, I will wade in after others have done so", no one has done so, why not jump in the swamp and get things moving. Quis separabit?  15:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the phase is called "discuss", not "signal one's POV through wordplay and caricature". Though I must admit, I was quite pleased with "Unite the white" when I came up with it all on my own. :p Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree. This article in Buzzfeed is interesting. Despite the fact it uses randomly words such as organisations, groups and chapters to describe various groups (sometimes calling something a group and an organisation), it makes it clear that it's a movement " antifa barely qualify as a group, and lack any sort of central command. Under that veneer of coherence, however, antifa remains more chaos than movement, and not just because its adherents tend to resist authority on principle. It is divided by geography, ideology, and history, less focused and coherent than the other great (and sometimes also chaotic) movement of the recent left, Black Lives Matter." It describes various groups, some of which aren't actually Antifa but support them in various ways, and says that they don't always use Black bloc tactics. Doug Weller  talk 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)  @Doug Weller -- that is nonsense. Anti-First Amendment is clearly established, in communication via social media and well-synchronized, with at least sufficient funding to carry on its activities. I believe it has been categorized as a domestic terrorist group by the DOJ but I will need to get a reliable reflink for that last part.  Quis separabit?  13:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that as it hasn't happened and I don't believe the DOJ classifies groups, not that this is a group. Movements certainly communicate through social media, but that doesn't make them an organisation. "Funding to carry on its activities"? You think they travel around in limos and get their black bloc gear tailor made? Doug Weller  talk 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller -- I acknowledge its overhead is low but everything comes down to money and it requires funds to operate like anything else. I don't know why the AG/DOJ would not have the authority or interest in labeling Anti-First Amendment a domestic terrorist group, which is what it is. No one is going to wait for the SPLC to do so. Quis separabit?  14:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Civil liberties issues I believe. And the last left-wing terrorist group I can think of was the Weathermen. If Antifa starts bombing building, that will qualify as terrorism. I'm not sure that the SPLC labels any groups as terrorist groups, although they do discuss terrorist activities. But their focus is on groups that hate or terrorise ethnic minorities, etc. I'm sure you don't think that racists and anti-semites fall into those categories. Doug Weller  talk 14:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "But their focus is on groups that hate or terrorise ethnic minorities, etc. I'm sure you don't think that racists and anti-semites fall into those categories." -- Who are the minorities? In many parts of the United States, whites [Caucasians as some say] are in the minority. Obviously Republicans and conservatives are in the minority at Berkeley and in fact in almost all of academia, and Silicon Valley, and in Hollywood. Minority grouping is usually not fixed and unchanging; on the contrary, it is often quite dynamic and can be seen in increments. Maybe you should reconsider your position. Quis separabit?  15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are Republicans and conservatives an ethnic minority? If that is your claim, I would love to see the reliable sourcing behind that. :) Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they are a political minority, at least in the milieux I mentioned above (academia, Silicon Valley, Hollywood). Actually, they are a minority, numerically, among many "ethnic" groups (blacks and Latinos, most notably). Are ethnic minorities the only minorities worthy of protection? What about LGBTQ+ -- not an ethnic group, per se -- against whose "enemies" the SPLC has taken a very hard-line indeed. Quis separabit?  15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the difference there is that Republicans chose to be Republicans, while all the others had no choice, they were born that way. That's a really big difference. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Gabriel syme -- I assume you are unaware of how offensive and obnoxious and ignorant the comment you just made was. So people are to be persecuted and have their rights taken away because of their political beliefs, and we are not talking only about certain radicals who represent only the extremist fringe but members of a party extant since the 19th-century, and other dissidents from the current PC orthodoxy who are persecuted at schools, especially college and university campuses across the nation. And yes, even more extreme ideologies and their speech, even "hate speech", are protected by the First Amendment, but not any criminal conduct in which they elect to participate, something Anti First-Amendmenters and their enablers refuse to acknowledge. As far as "while all the others had no choice, they were born that way. That's a really big difference", that does not include the LGBTQ+ers, whose non-binary and non-normative and gender-fluid identities are remarkably elastic. They cannot be included with the others, although they have more clout than any other group -- special interest or otherwise. Quis separabit?  01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, I'm not sure what was rude or obnoxious about my reply. Those gender fluid identities didn't choose to be born gender fluid. That was genetics. The fact that hate speech is protected by law here in the US is deplorable but true, make note that most other developed nations have laws against it. Also note that in the US, your political affiliation is not protected from discrimination by the federal government. That being said, reading through your comments on this page again, I have to say that I'm going to bow out at this point and cease engaging with you. It's just not productive for the project, your interactions here are often quite disruptive and borderline uncivil. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, given how real the violence against LGBTQ+ people is, I don't see the need for square quotes for "enemies". I had only been in Alabama for a few years when this happened. I don't know what "line" the SPLC took against his two killers, and I doubt that the word "line" would even be appropriate here. But that's all by the by, maybe. I assume you know that transgenders are the new target for many ... well, use whatever word you like. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Drmies -- It's sad that you [seem to] think I am a gay basher. I actually live an alternate lifestyle, albeit one not much given much attention. Let's just say Janeane Garofalo is a fellow traveller down the same road, albeit I am pretty sure her experiences are different than mine. Didn't wanna go there but ... whatever. Gay bashings still occur (and not only in hick or Southern red states) -- as do knockout games against whites, anti-Semitic assaults, sexual assaults, and lies about same, and many other injustices -- but the fact is that the LGBTQ+ community has gone from being the marginalized and discriminated group that I remember from my youth to an incredibly politically powerful international community which can summon some of the most powerful individuals, oligarchs, and corporations to its will (Comcast, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Apple, Facebook, etc ... and let's not even mention social media, mainstream media, academia, NFL, ESPN, Hollywood, Broadway, and Wall Street) to threaten economic nuclear winter against states (Georgia, North Carolina) which have social policies with which they disagree, or have the SPLC (net worth = $300 million +) lay legal siege, bringing devastating legal costs and fees, thus usually forcing a favorable settlement.HIV/AIDS receives more funding and attention than any other disease and it is no longer the death sentence it once was, unlike, say pancreatic cancer. As Lord Acton put it, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". If you think Antifa is some kind of socially responsible version of Hell's Angels without wheels, dedicated to protecting the "underdog" (although as David Frum pointed out in an essay regarding Garry Trudeau and the latter's post-Charlie Gebdo comments or lack thereof, discerning who is the underdog is often not as simple as it may seem), then you are sadly mistaken. Whatever Antifa's intentions are, rest assured (unless you're a member and maybe not even then), you have no idea what lies beneath the tip of that iceberg. Quis separabit?  01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know where all this came from. I'm not going to address the right-wing rhetoric and the misrepresentation of lots of things, including the power of "the gays"; this is not a forum, and it's not the "enemies" of the gays that are being oppressed. DYK that the SPLC leadership is under constant police protection because their lives are still threatened? I merely pointed out that putting scare quotes around "enemies" is just really silly. It's like white people crying "racism" when someone proposes renaming the Robert E. Lee high school. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure it's safe to say you folks are even discussing Antifa anymore. This has gone past the point of a mere digression, and arguably does not belong on the article talk page. In general, I'm against deletion, even for off-topic conversation threads, but let's try to stay on topic, please. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 02:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller "In 2012, as many as 18 Antifas from Bloomington, Indiana, the University of Indiana's college town, busted into a family restaurant in Tinley Park, Illinois, a southern suburb of Chicago, because they heard a meeting of a tiny organization called the Illinois European Heritage Association. Unprovoked, the men smashed up the restaurant and attacked diners and employees, including those with absolutely no connection to the European Heritage Association lunch with clubs, crowbars, and batons. Only five of the assailants were ever caught and charged. Not one snitched on his fellow Antifas, and all served several years in prison. They are still regarded as heroes in the Antifa community, known as the Tinley Park Five". Quis separabit?  13:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing you got that from Breitbart. There were no "Antifas" then. They were members of Anti-Racist Action (ARA) and the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (HARM). Contemporary sources say the victims were members of the Heritage Association, not that the attacks, which were indeed very violent, were indiscriminate. The Torch Network grew is to some extent a successor as it was formed by at least one of them. But the movement is defined by Torch, even though someone from Torch (I think, maybe not} tried to take over this article at one point. But seriously, this is off-topic, please don't use this page as a forum. There's no need to discuss this further. Doug Weller  talk 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why
The cited source is obviously an opinion piece, hence /lifestyle being in the URL. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's actually not the way sourcing works - you can't reason from the URL to it being an "opinion" piece. It isn't an editorial.
 * Reverted pending discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion relates to this revert I think? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_%28United_States%29&type=revision&diff=800592186&oldid=800591466 I agree with Newimpartial. Article is an "Everything you need to know" piece, not an opinion piece, in a reputable UK newspaper, which will have fact-checked it.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Folks, I pulled that ref directly from the lead in Milo Yiannopoulos. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 17:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is opinion, the header alone shows it is opinion, restore it again and ANI is the next fucking stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of reliable sources for this, and it's been discussed at talk:Milo Yiannopoulos a brain-frying number of times as well. Do we really need to citekill this? Grayfell (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can find some which are not opinion, more power to ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Newimpartial and Bobfrombrockley that the article is not really an opinion piece, but disagree that the Evening Standard is a particularly reputable paper – on political matters it's a small step above the red tops, but quite a long way below the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Times etc. I think the best solution is here is simply to find another, better source associating Yiannopoulos with the alt-right: for example, BBC (1, 2), Daily Beast, New Yorker, Forward, and no doubt many more. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's three more sources in my latest rv. Can we stop talking as if this is controversial at this point? Alex Eng ( TALK ) 20:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And all are opinion, post your next try here, and quit with violating BLP, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None of them are opinion pieces. Is it possible you're struggling to understand what opinion piece means? The Newsweek article even states: "Below Newsweek profiles them." This is a piece written on behalf of Newsweek. It is subject to editorial control and is not solely the opinion of the author. It is not an op-ed. Unless you're proposing that every piece with an author (read: every piece) in a major news source is an opinion piece, you don't have a leg to stand on. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Arms & Hearts that there are better sources than the Standard, though it's fair way above the red tops. Of AlexEng's 3 sources, the weakest is perhaps the NRO one, but the Newsweek one in particuar is absolutely not a opinion piece at all, and there are literally thousands of reliable sources saying the same thing (NY Daily News: "controversial alt-right leader"; Daily Mail: "Alt-right poster boy"; BBC: "alt-right writer and provocateur"; news.com.au: "Alt-right star"; etc etc etc). Let's put this conversation to bed now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Biased narratives posing as reliably-sourced factual text
In addition to == Amazing how biased the intro is == with which I agree, this diff should more clearly illustrate how biased text and syntheses have become part of the article's structure. They must be removed even if that means the deck of cards comes tumbling down. Quis separabit? 13:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * a) "They focus more on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideology directly than on encouraging pro-left policy." -- THIS IS CLEARLY A SYNTHETIC AND BIASED ANALYSIS. Antifa violence in Boston and its threats against Republicans in Portland, Oregon, had NOTHING to do with far-right and white supremacist ideology, and everything to do with, respectively, its assault on the First Amendment, and with its de facto partisan politics. Quis separabit?  13:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * b) "The salient feature of Antifa is to oppose fascism by direct action." -- this also is in blatant violation of POV, weaselry because it takes for granted that whomever or whatever Antifa claims is fascism, an entirely subjective term under these circumstances, is, in fact, fascism or neo-fascism. Talk about not throwing stones at glass houses. Again, as above, "Antifa attacks in Antifa violence in Boston and its threats against Republicans in Portland, Oregon, had NOTHING to do with far-right and white supremacist ideology," And partisan-minded editors attempting to navigate this ideologically inflamed topic who cede to one of the main belligerents the right to define and describe its opponents or enemies have deviated from the principles upon which Wikipedia was founded. Quis separabit?  14:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with almost everything you've said (both here and above), but I do share your discomfort with the sentence "The salient feature of Antifa is to oppose fascism by direct action" as I agree that "fascism" is a potentially ambiguous category. A post of mine above (, 00:26, 11 September 2017), and Doug Weller's post above that, might suggest an alternative, specifically the quote "Most members oppose all forms of racism and sexism, and strongly oppose what they see as the nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies that Mr Trump has enacted." Using something like that to explain more precisely what Antifa mean by "fascism" might be useful. What do you think? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Arms &amp; Hearts @DanielRigal @Drmies @Doug Weller : Sorry, I just got back. In re "Most members oppose all forms of racism and sexism, and [strongly -- this adverb is questionable] oppose what they see as the nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies that Mr Trump has enacted", NO, that is NOT acceptable at all for reasons which will become clear in the next few sentences. Rather, how about, "Most members oppose what they view as racism and sexism, and oppose what they see as nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies they believe President  Trump has tried to enact."  Quis separabit?  01:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote beginning "Most members oppose" and including "Mr Trump" is a direct quotation from this BBC article. Apologies for not making that clear. We obviously can't use it verbatim except as an attributed quote, in which case we would obviously keep "Mr Trump". I share Bobfrombrockley's scepticism (see below) toward "what they view as" etc., which in this case would seem to be a misrepresentation of the source – the BBC article says "all forms of racism and sexism", not "what they see as forms of racism and sexism". See my comment below (with the same timestamp as this one) on the kind of thing I think we ought to use. (I'm also completely mystified by your use of HTML comments in the above – is there some reason why you don't want those parts of your post to be visible to people reading the page?) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds good, although it's pretty clear that 'fascism' no longer means what it meant in the 40s. As for Portland, there are two issues. One is that one of the articles states that the emails weren't identified as coming from Antifa. The other is that it wasn't Republicans that were being targetted, it was the "Known members of neo-nazi and anti immigrant hate groups" and people like Allen Wesley Pucket who is a Trump supporter and Portland street preacher known for his violence. These groups were hijacking a non-political event. But this is an aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to see that it was possible to struggle towards a bit of an agreement on some of the wording here despite an unpromising start. I think that maybe this shows a good approach. Rather than try to reshape the whole article, maybe it is better if people say what they want to do with specific parts and why. The why is as important at the what because other people might want to agree with the reason improvement is needed but have alternative suggestions for a solution. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am also glad to see consensus emerging despite disagreement, but I am not convinced by the "Most members oppose what they view as racism and sexism" type description. It is not opposition to sexism or to anti-Muslim policies that are the defining features of antifa movements; opposition (including direct action) to what they call fascism is the defining feature. Of course, "fascism" is a blurry, contested term, but this is the central thing. I'm also unconvinced about the mention of President Trump. There are mainstream media articles which don't seem able to distinguish between demonstrations against the president and demonstrations against the far right, or between antifa and black bloc, but we should be a bit more careful in this. And finally I am unconvinced about too much use of phrases like "what they see as". Although I understand why we might want to use them, it can make articles pretty impossible to write: there is no universal consensus about what terms like racism, sexism, nationalism, fascism, etc mean, so all uses of them are effectively "what they see as". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I had in mind was something like "Members oppose fascism, which most understand to encompass racism, sexism, nationalism and anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment." That way we make clear that fascism is what's being opposed, as well as giving an idea of what "fascism" means in this context. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and appreciate the lines which you are exploring for improving the article. 'which most understand to encompass..' gets to the heart of it. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I also appreciate the general lines you're taking, and I definitely prefer this wording to earlier versions, but I still disagree with what you're saying most understand it to encompass. I've taken a look at the three most prominent and representative Antifa groups' websites' "About" pages. NYC Antifa: Since 2010, NYC Antifa has been dedicated to research on, and action against, fascist cultural and political organizing in New York City. Rose City Antifa: We oppose fascist organizing in physical, cultural, and political spaces through direct action, education, and solidarity. The TORCH network: The Torch Network is a network of Militant antifascists across (but not limited to) the united states. We are born out of, and pay our respects to, the Anti-Racist Action Network. We are dedicated to confronting fascism and other element of oppression. We believe in direct action. So, clearly, the distinctive feature is opposing fascism, including by direct action, and not President Trump or other general left-wing stuff. As noted above (by Doug?), on two of the sites there is then a discussion of what they mean by "fascism", here and here. Those descriptions are a long way off from "encompassing racism, sexism, nationalism and anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment". Instead, they foreground ultra-nationalism, militarism, glorification of leaders, basically all the stuff that scholars tend to highlight when they define fascism (see Definitions of fascism). If we feel the need to say what it is seen to encompass, can't we paraphrase these pages? Also (sorry to go on) but the source for the sexism/racism quote is the BBC, which I'll quote again in full, but with added emphasis: Most members oppose all forms of racism and sexism, and strongly oppose what they see as the nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies that Mr Trump has enacted. However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy. I take that to mean the individual members are generally lefty, but as antifa their priority is fighting the far right, i.e. the second sentence is the salient and defining feature, not the first. Does that make sense? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with a lot of this. The problem really is that drawing extensively on groups' claims about themselves, rather than on independent reliable sources, seems to run counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:OR and probably other policies and guidelines. Perhaps something like "Members oppose fascism, which most understand as encompassing , as well as "? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tried to smooth the lead out a little, as it was very repetitive and lumpy, but I have not touched the sentence under discussion here. However, I am very happy with this Arms & Hearts suggestion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazing how biased the intro is
Having worked on all different types of political pages on wikipedia for many years, I'm quite surprised at how biased this intro is allowed to be -- Antifa is presented entirely uncritically in the intro, as though they are merely defending against fascism (never defined or evidenced) when a large part of what Antifa are doing and why they have been labeled as engaged in 'terrorist activities' is the large number of attacks on unarmed individuals walking around on public streets or events who have been maced in the face, punched repeatedly in the kidneys, kicked once they have fallen to the ground, spit at, screamed at -- all toward a goal of changing beliefs and behaviors. It's medieval at best, but this intro acts like no real violence is happening and that they are merely engaged in lofty academic pursuits against "fascism". Totally biased.

Antifa supporters don't seem to be aware they are working hand in hand with the people on here who also used to defend the Bush Admin and Neocons: that's the incredible thing about the whole HRC-Antifa-NYT-Neocon alignment going on, how dialed-in the billionaire and establishment mainstream and former-Neocons are into labeling people "fascists" for their political views (I'm not talking about actual KKK - out of 30M Californians, only 21 people donated to David Duke -- that's actual evidence of the absurdity of the numbers in reality of these people). Trump supporters walking around in t-shirts and jeans, with no weapons, are attacked on public property and this is hushed-up or ignored on here to label every person who supports Trump as "alt-right". Here are some "Alt-Right" people, who literally did not even understand what was happening -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8z5DPQfwFs&feature=youtu.be And was the old veteran in a wheel chair, who wasn't afraid to speak, whom Antifa threw water all over (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV9C36zPAk), also "Alt-Right"? GreenIn2010 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article; it is not a forum for discussion about the article's topic. While some of the above is in keeping with what the talk page is for, much is not. Please try to keep comments focused on how the article can be improved. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @GreenIn2010 -- you got it. Scary how some (I won't mention any usernames) are indifferent to or supportive of this threat to the U.S. constitution and the freedom of all dissidents. Very Orwellian. Quis separabit?  14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Re "I'm quite surprised at how biased this intro is allowed to be -- Antifa is presented entirely uncritically in the intro". Is it usual for Wikipedia articles to be critical of the subject of the article in the intro?BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

--66.31.26.32 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)I agree. I came here looking for info on Antifa and the two articles referenced here: "Antifa groups have been criticized for militantly challenging free speech.[17][18]" didn't seem to support the statement about anti-free-speech criticism. Also, overall, the intro seemed biased, which is what I was hoping to avoid when I came here. I want to know what these people are about. I don't need to hear more bias. There's enough of that in the mainstream media.

Colours, again
added the colours again, which is why we need to lose that infobox btw, I reverted pending discussion Darkness Shines (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Flags again
I am a bit unsure about this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=next&oldid=800768378 Isn't this original research? Is there a source saying the black flag on the antifa logo is specifically anarchist and the red flag is the red flag in the Red flag (politics) article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If anybody can find a good reference to support it then it would be OK but without a reference it falls in-between original research and just over-describing what the picture shows and should be removed. There is also a similar mention in the caption of another image lower down where the flags are the other way round. We should handle both cases consistently. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The thing about the flags has re-appeared in the article. Two views don't make consensus, but nobody seems to have tried to justify it - can it be deleted?BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As per Bray, some groups specifically have one flag predominant (Anarchism over Socialism or vice versa); Bray's handbook itself has ye olde KPD Antifaschistische Aktion with the Communism/Socialism flags flowing right on its cover, red on red. (These distinction are aesthetically, and even ideologically important, but that said not everyone who puts up a sticker is a disciplined activist.) I myself hadn't noticed that the two images under contention here were Red/Black and Black/Red respectively until I read Bray. That Antifa has an ideological and aesthetic spectrum is notable, I think. kencf0618 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I had removed it, but was reverted. The flag either needs to go or at least be moved to a subsection. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think we want a subsection on flags and/or symbols as there is no official flag and I doubt that there is enough detailed RS writing on this to source a whole subsection properly. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left the photos in place but removed the unsourced commentary regarding the flags. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've included an appropriate citation. If the consensus is that it's not sufficient, I'll accede. kencf0618 (talk)
 * Why have you moved it back into the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it is descriptive. kencf0618 (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism
I added that one of their ideologies was anarcho-communism but it got reverted because there was no consensus. Here is my case from r them being anarcho-communists: the antifa flags are red and black. In politics, black represents anarchy and red represents communism. Using this logic and also considering the fact that many of them will bring communist imagery to rallies and riots and will even graffiti the sickle and hammer and that many of them idolize the likes of Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, etc., I think we should add it. Nicholas S8 (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you can find good sources for it, go ahead and add it. Otherwise it seems like original research. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Nicholas S8. That would be against basic policy. Your reasoning represents original research and any such addition would need reliable sources. Very few new editors know about our policies but these are core and anything like this has to follow them. One problem with this article is that we've had a lot of new editors who haven't understood what kind of encyclopedia we are (or even perhaps that we are really an encyclopedia). Doug Weller  talk 20:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources for anarcho-communism, no shortage of sources for that, none for Antifa colours though. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're suggesting we do with that source, but I don't think New Tang Dynasty Television is a reliable source on U.S. politics or on anything relating to communism, and that article strikes me as a combination of wilful misunderstanding and conspiracy theory. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a good write-up of the Third International, and as such good historical backdrop. kencf0618 (talk)
 * That is not a good write-up in my opinion, but a rather bizarre mix of hyperbole and conspiracy theory, although it does link to some potentially useful sources. You guys might want to read the anarcho-communism Wikipedia article, as the term might not mean what you think it does. But more generally, the idea that Antifa has a specific ideology or that it is defined by these ideologies is unhelpful. Can't we remove that infobox already as it causes more problems than it solves? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree in regards to infobox, this has been going back and forth for a while here now. Gabriel syme (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox should go but someone will put it back. Darkness Shines, your source is simply wrong claiming first that there is a US organisation called Antifa and then that its the same as the USSR organisation. Doug Weller  talk 13:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 'New Tang Dynasty, TV News' may not be the most reliable source on American Antifa as the major source they list is a former member of German Antifa, that has been disbanded since 2004.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Biased language under "Notable street protests and violence" section
I'm specifically looking at paragraph 3:

"On June 15, 2017, Antifa members joined protestors at Evergreen State College to oppose Patriot Prayer's event. Patriot Prayer was supporting biology professor Bret Weinstein who became the central figure in a controversy after he criticized changes to one of the college's racial healing events. In addition to the peaceful Antifa members who held up a "community love" sign, USA Today reported that one slashed the tires of conservative activist Joey Gibson and another was subdued by police after being seen with a knife.[44]"

I don't think anyone knows what a "racial healing event" is supposed to mean, and from what I've read here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html?mcubz=1 it seems to be less about anything to do with whatever "racial healing" is supposed to mean, and seems to be just plain old racism, by encouraging white students to leave campus. Therefore, the phrase "racial healing event" doesn't seem appropriate.

Secondly, if Antifa Member #1 is protesting your event, while Antifa Members #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 are slashing your tires, and threatening both you and your students to such an extent that you literally have to hold your classes elsewhere, while campus police tell you "We can no longer guarantee your safety", it seems more than a little disingenuous to say something like "peaceful Antifa members held up a "community love" sign while all their comrades committed violence." Vinncent77 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not reading anything here that is of a factual nature, and am instead witnessing you airing your personal opinions on Antifa, which is not what the Wikipedia is for. TheValeyard (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Then I don't think you've read my post very carefully. Could you, for example, explain what exactly a "racial healing event" is, how the actions of minority student groups constitute a "racial healing event", or even better still, edit the article to explain this bizarre terminology? Because as it stands, that statement is entirely unsourced, and reflects not only an opinion, but uses terminology that nobody is familiar with. Vinncent77 (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Your post wasn't hard to figure out, so, no worry there. The reference in question is to the Day of Absence & Day of Presence, the locus of the dispute. Your characterization of the event as being itself racist is curiously also the line of argument given by the "Patriot Prayer" group, a fringe organization with ties to the alt right and white nationalism. Their opinion isn't terribly relevant here. TheValeyard (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I just did a ctrl+f search for "racial healing event" on the link you provided, and nothing came up. I'm not familiar with the "Patriot Prayer" group, but seem to be already covered thoroughly enough on the page. I've done a bit of research about both "antifa" and and Bret Weinstein, however. If nobody is able to explain what a "racial healing event" is supposed to mean, and have no source to back up their claims, I'll edit it to more accurately reflect the event that caused the controversy. Vinncent77 (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017
Wipe out the entire ANTIFA page and just say they are the "Modern day terrorist arm of the Democrat party much like the KKK was when it was first established." 216.54.111.198 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hang on a second, let's not be so hasty. Does the anon IP have a reliable source for that statement? Rockypedia (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We could just use that should be fine. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There should be one section discussing AntiFa connection with radicalism and terrorism . Proposing a different structure for the page
People on the right and center have claimed antifa promotes violence for political reasons and thus they link it with terrorism extremism/radicalism and political radicalism. For example a recent article shows how antifa tries to kill conservative owners' pets by giving them treats with nails in them. The idea is to break the spirit of republicans and win against fascism (by killing their pets). This has been criticized by republicans as not belonging to a democratic discourse. There are other such examples so much so that it warrants having a section dedicated to discussing these connections between terrorism radicalism political radicalism and AntiFa organizations. It should include opinions from the left  right and center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout (talk • contribs)
 * This isn't accurate. What Antifa actually does is petnap conservative owners' pets and forces them to watch the reboot of Ghostbusters (2016 film) repeatedly in secret underground chambers FEMA concentration camps where they also train ISIS, located in liberal San Francisco and funded by George Soros while serving them vegan pizza from Comet Pingpong while denying them their second amendment rights until they are brainwashed to use the bathroom that is not appropriate for their "biological gender". A recent article showed this.  Volunteer Marek   08:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * something something illegal immigrants.  Volunteer Marek   08:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those bastards! I bet they also have something to do with the Illuminati. PackMecEng (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To be used in a Wikipedia article, a source has to be considered reliable, details of which can be found at WP:RS. So by all means, please present the sources you'd like to use to support the "nails in tasty pet treats" claim. I am on the edge of my chair. TheValeyard (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia--it's not about opinions. As for the pet killings, with the old nail-filled treat ploy, I'm sorry but I can't find the LOL emoji on this keyboard. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with the others. To be included, it needs to be sourced. I've looked up your claim, and all I've found was "Antifa member uses flagpole with nail to attack police horse" (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/14/antifa-member-uses-flagpole-with-nail-to-attack-police-horse-cops-youll-love-the-groups-reply/). Although this is probably worth including, I doubt it deserves an entirely new section. Vinncent77 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I dont think it's worth including and in fact we shouldn't. It isn't worth including because there is no evidence that this is a typical action. There must have been thousands of people involved with Antifa protests in the past year and we should not try to tar a group for the actions of one member. It also seems that the person was arrested and charged, so BLP policy prevents us from publicising it before this allegation is decided by the court. Doug Weller  talk 07:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I need to rethink what I said about BLP. We do mention ongoing court cases at times. What I was thinking about was when a couple of days ago I found a very old court case mentioned but in the 7 or so years since there's been no mention at all, meaning that the case might even have been dropped. I still think that we shouldn't use it as it isn't typical. If it were, I'd say we'd need evidence that there still was a case. Doug Weller  talk 12:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I highly disagree. Antifa members using violence to censor people they disagree with is practically the entirety of what the group self-admittedly stands for. Assaulting law enforcement officials seems incredibly typical of their behavior, the same way they assault everyone else. I can't even remember the last time they did anything that didn't involve unprovoked violence on the part of their group.


 * http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/index.html
 * http://www.dailywire.com/news/19875/antifa-protesters-arrested-chicago-after-they-emily-zanotti


 * It's so commonplace, it might help to create subsections such as "violence against civilians", "violence against police", and "violence against journalists".


 * I just gave two links to "violence against police", I'm pretty sure most people know of the violence against civilians such as that Milo guy, Lauren Southern, and the various "Free Speech" rallies, but as far as journalists go, there's multiple sources for that as well:


 * https://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/17/jake-tapper-antifa-protesters-attacked-several-journalists/
 * https://globalnews.ca/news/3694044/black-bloc-warning-urges-more-violence-against-canadian-journalists/
 * https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/08/17/cnns-tapper-antifa-has-assaulted-a-number-of-journalists-too-n2370023
 * http://www.dailywire.com/news/19842/hidden-charlottesville-antifa-concussed-journalist-ben-shapiro


 * There's dozens more examples I didn't bother posting, but what does everyone think about create separate sections for the specific violence against different groups of people? Vinncent77 (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think most of those are reliable sources. One doesn't even mention antifa. All of them are ill-informed and opinionated. This is just silly.

Suggested Edit for Street Protests/Violence
Under "Notable Street Protests and Violence";

"Police in Pennsylvania’s state capital said a member of the leftist antifa group — known for assaulting supporters of Republican President Donald Trump at rallies across the country — was arrested after using a flagpole with a silver nail at the top to hit a state trooper’s horse in the neck at a demonstration Saturday.

"Authorities charged Lisa Joy Simon, 23, with aggravated assault to police, taunting a police animal, prohibited offensive weapons, obstruction to law enforcement function, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. She was arraigned and taken to Dauphin County Prison in lieu of $100,000 bail, WPMT-TV reported.

"Harrisburg police said Simon was among antifa members protesting those marching against Islamic Shariah Law — an event that took place in more than 20 U.S. cities Saturday and drew similar counter-protests."

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/14/antifa-member-uses-flagpole-with-nail-to-attack-police-horse-cops-youll-love-the-groups-reply/ <Vinncent77 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

New source: Times of Israel
I just found this in the BLP of Daniel Sieradski who is quoted in the article. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This piece is a reprint of this Jewish Telegraph Agency piece, which is already cited in the WP article. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Approaches" and "Activities"
What is the point of the two sections "Approaches" and "Activities"? They seem to be incoherently put together. Does "Approaches" mean "ideology"? But why then, in the "Activities" section, does one find the statement People in our group come from across the left sector, we have people who are anarchists, we have people who are socialists, we even have people who are liberals or social democrats -- it should be in the "ideology" section. And why do we see sentences about "activities" in the "approaches" section, like People who speak for the Antifa movement acknowledge they sometimes carry clubs and sticks", and their "approach is confrontational"? How can one understand the activities without the ideologies involved or the "approach" taken? The organization makes no sense.

In my opinion both of the sections should be merged together. I have taken a stab at merging the sections together (there is some redundant or repeated information, which was removed or paraphrased). Here is my scheme for merging:


 * I titled the section "Ideology and activities"
 * First part: political ideology, general ideology, ways of organization. These are all hard to separate out, in my view; the anarchist ideas of many people involved is reflected in the way of organization.
 * Second part: activities (this is the biggest and most well-known part, obviously). It also cannot really be separated from the part above, but there is a rough division between the organization and the actual activities.

More details on the merging follow:


 * I have condensed the statements by Rose City Antifa and Mark Bray about the political orientation of the people or groups involved. I have dropped the "according to", because this seems to be widely accepted no matter the source.
 * I have merged the points of Scott Crow and Peter Beinart on the ideology of direct action, instead of appealing to the state and law enforcement. I have moved the text from the manual in "It's Going Down" to this part, because it fit thematically.
 * This segues nicely to actual activities. Now comes details of activities, including direct action, marches and physical confrontation. This is the part which gets the most attention, so I have given this and the DHS part (discussed below) a bit more than half of the section.
 * I have added a sentence from the WaPo article about "no platforming" in the part above.
 * I have removed the sentence as well as a willingness to merely engage in a show of force if need be., because it is unsourced. This part is mostly covered in the text I included from WaPo.
 * Then comes a few words about the other activities, like mutual aid during Hurricane Harvey and. I have expanded this part a little bit using Natsha Lennard's Nation article, basically dealing with the "New Sanctuary Movement". This part could perhaps be expanded a little bit more.
 * Then comes the New Jersey, DHS etc. stuff. I don't know if it fits better in "Response" section, since it does not really fit in either "ideology" or "activity". But I have not moved it for now.
 * The details of "notable incidents of violence" is in the subsection as before. I have picked out a couple of the most notable parts from the subsection and included them in the section above - one sentence each from the Berkeley stuff and the Charlottesville stuff.

Further things which need to be done: the "Response" section should have responses from both, say, the protest organizers and the people the antifa target. They will, of course, be totally different, but it's good to have a range of views here. The "Response" section seems to be a good place to organize such things.

Feel free to revert/edit/discuss etc. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the citation bogus? Or did I miss something.
Article says "The salient feature of antifa groups is their opposition to fascism by direct action.[5]" But when I went to the citation, I did not find that claim in the newspaper cited. Did I miss it somehow? Should this claim be changed to:


 * "The salient feature of antifa groups is attempt to tar conservatives by attempting to pin the fascist label on them, punctuated by rioting in the streets (no permit for a march)"? (PeacePeace (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC))


 * Ok, so first let me get this straight. You think that a source doesn't support the claim being made so... you want it to changed to something else which the source ALSO doesn't say? And that makes sense how exactly? Please stop being ridiculous.
 * Second, the source says:  Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy. and Unlike the mainstream left, they do not seek to gain power through traditional channels - winning elections and passing bills into law. I guess you can quibble here whether "far-right" and "fascism" is the appropriate term to use, but other than that the sentence is a pretty close paraphrase of the source.  Volunteer Marek   06:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Lozada quote irrelevant
I recommend removing the line in the Approaches section: In reviewing the aforementioned book, Carlos Lozada stated that Antifa groups don't respect free speech. According to Bray, infringing free speech "is justified for its role in the political struggle against fascism".[55]

It appears to use a single book reviewer to suggest Antifa are anti-free speech. His view is irrelevant to the page. The article does then look at how Antifa might define free-speech vs. hate speech, which is a relevant point on that topic.

Juniperthree (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. In addition to the above, the claim wasn't unambiguously supported by the review anyway. The Lozada article doesn't present the book as being primarily about free speech, and only mentions speech briefly. At no point does Lozada explicitly say that Antifa doesn't respect free speech. At most, he implies that they don't treat it as sacrosanct, or that Bray justifies speech being stifled, but those are not the same thing. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Would Antifa members lighting signs on fire that say "free speech" qualify that they are against free speech? They have been pretty consistent in showing up to "free speech rallies" to riot against "free speech". Although I wouldn't use "reddit" as a source, it's a pretty consistent phenomena. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5xk8gb/yes_thats_a_liberal_protestor_andor_antifa/ Vinncent77 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If you know it's not a reliable source, you're already starting off on the wrong foot. The reliable source is compatible with the interpretation that antifa can respect free speech without treating all speech as sacrosanct. Speech which calls for extremism, genocide, racism, attacks on liberty, etc. is not, and never has been, protected speech. Additionally, "free speech" is euphemistic or at least loaded, along the lines of "states' rights" from the civil rights era. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming that when the founders of the USA constitution added the bill of rights on free speech they did not intend it to include racist speech? There is no free speech if one group may exclude opposing POV by labeling it "extremist."  Free speech is just what it says, free speech.  And such use of the term "extremist" is a weasel word.  Obviously if something is extremely good, it is not bad for being thus extreme.  And a comment arguing that "attacks on liberty" are not to be considered free speech logically implies that the very comment made should be censored. (PeacePeace (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC))
 * What?  Volunteer Marek   06:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External opinion piece by blocked editor says this article is in violation of wikiedia's own policies
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/31/editors-on-wikipedia-seek-to-downplay-violence-and-ideology-of-antifa-movement/

71.182.246.199 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What Breitbart has to say, on this or any other topic, is disregarded. It is not considered a reliable source. TheValeyard (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My favorite part is the end:
 * "(Disclosure: the author of this article has had disputes with several of the parties involved.)
 * T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias."
 * Looks like someone needed a safe space. Rockypedia (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, without giving them the click they crave, I can see one plus point: At least, they admit that it is a movement and not an organisation. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose this section be hatted, as it seems likely the author himself posted that link in an effort to get people to pay attention to his piece. WP:SPAM? Rockypedia (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what hatting is, but I agree it's spam.. Didn't he already post the article on this page at least once or twice? Gabriel syme (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One hat coming right up. Think of it as a sickly pink baseball cap with the slogan "Make spam invisible again". --DanielRigal (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts.
I performed this revert of a recent change to the article, since I felt the it removed too many sourced things and rearranged too many parts of the article with very little explanation. We should go over it bit by bit to figure out which parts are uncontroversial, which parts are seriously disputed, and what we need to keep or remove. The parts that alarmed me enough to go for a wholesale revert for now were: Anyway. Those were the main things that leaped out at me, but it might be better to break each proposed change up so we can discuss them individually (perhaps even in their own sections if they're worth it.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The rewrites to the lead. "purport to" is redundant with "self-styled", and I'm unclear on why the "salient feature" sentence was removed.
 * A quote to Mark Bray was removed because he's an Antifa supporter (and because it was a 'biased' statement.) But that, in and of itself, isn't a reason not to cite someone provided their opinion is WP:DUE (and in this case, he's a reputable expert being quoted at length in a reliable source, so one sentence here doesn't seem WP:UNDUE.)  It is worth qualifying his opinion with where he's coming from (since the article is clear on it), but simply because a source has a point-of-view on the topic doesn't disqualify them - see WP:BIASED.  A historian who wrote a book on the topic seems like a reasonable person to cite, overall.
 * Many paragraphs were moved around or joined together without explanation. Most of these I don't feel did anything to improve the article - they broke up paragraphs that look large in Wiki-view because they have a lot of sources, but which are actually only a few short sentences long.

Capital letter
Any reason antifa should be capitalised? It's not a proper noun.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It should not be capitalized at all, as antifa is not a group, it is an umbrella term for a loose collective of people and organizations. TheValeyard (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should defer to the capitalisation used by the sources in the article (if only to limit the potential for pointless edit warring). I looked at the first five sources cited and found a weak preference for the capital A: CNN, the New York Times and the BBC use it, while Wired uses a lower-case A and Language Log uses both. A more thorough investigation might reach the opposite conclusion. I note that there are some cases where loose collectives or umbrella terms are referred to with initial caps: see for example Black Lives Matter, Occupy movement (never "Occupy Movement" but also seldom "occupy movement"), Critical Mass (cycling). It goes without saying that we ought to be prioritise consistency throughout the article. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've looked through the sources now too, and there is no consistency, even within articles. What is clear, though, is that sources that are closer to the antifa movement, that know more about what they are talking about (as opposed to learnt about the existence of antifa in August 2017), tend to use the lower case more. Examples: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-10-23/bash-fash-antifa-origin-story https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/16/who-are-the-antifa/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/anti-racist-antifa-tinley-park-five/ http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-antifa-and-where-did-it-come-from-82977 Exceptions: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/sep/09/no-fascist-usa-how-hardcore-punk-fuels-the-antifa-movement This source is interesting because it uses lower case for the word itself, but upper case for the German organisations of the same name (German capitalises things differently, and the organisations were proper nouns, e.g. committees): https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/antifascist-movements-hitler-nazis-kpd-spd-germany-cold-war Occupy, BLM and Critical Mass are not formal organisations, so useful comparisons, but they much more "things" than antifa is, much more coherent and unified. My strong impression is that editors (and op ed writers) who want to make it seem like a formal organisation add capital letters, and we should resist that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Political movement?
I was a bit surprised to see the words "political movement" in the 1st sentence of the lead and in the hat note. The three sources offered do not contain the words "political movement" either.
 * Antifa is a political movement of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups.

Should this perhaps be reworded? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If we have sources for "political" (or any more specific phrase that is intrinsically political like "left wing") and "movement" separately then that can cover "political movement". I presume it is "movement" that concerns you? If so, what do you suggest? We need to avoid suggesting that it is an organisation, as that would be untrue. So far, "movement" is the best we have come up with. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's "political" and "political movement" that concern me. For example, here are the mentions of "political" and "movement" from the CNN piece:
 * 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...
 * Modern-day members of Antifa have become more active in making themselves known at public rallies and within the progressive movement
 * There's nothing here that suggests a "political movement". I could go with "movement" in the lead and the hat note, but not with "political movement". See Political movement: "In the social sciences, a political movement is a party group that operates together to obtain a political goal..." K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not political, but operate on the streets, in your face and sometimes quiet militantly; perhaps 'direct-action' movement would be a better descriptor? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article calls Antifa Far-left and it is in that category. I think that this is wrong - not every follower is far-left - you don't have to be far left to be a militant anti-fascist. Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is beating up Trump supporters typical behaviour of left wing protesters? Or attacking people attending free speech rallies? The sheer amount of sources calling them far-left quite simply means this has to be in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the main activity of Antifa is beating up Trump supporters, DS, that's a disappointing sentence. And I certainly think some Antifa are far-left, but I also think that many probably are not far-left, which encompasses "the radical left due to their desire for fundamental change to the capitalist system while accepting of democracy and the extreme left who are more hostile to liberal democracy and denounce any compromise with capitalism." Doug Weller  talk 15:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug please, antifa attacks anyone who they deem to be facist, and given there rioting in response to trump winning the election, and all the little signs calling Trump a facist, sorry but their main activity is beating up anyone who disagrees with them. And that has included Trump supporters as well, sources can be given upon request Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * White supremacists, white nationalists, Neo-Nazis and the like that show up at Pro-Trump rallies are the targets of Antifa direct action according to the local news sources where I am in the Pacific Northwest, it might be different elsewhere. But from Seattle to Berkeley, they are drawn to the racist elements that are drawn to these rallies of "Free Speech".  It is wrong to conflate pro-Trump and racists, they are not the same, even though they may be drawn to the same rallies, it is for very different reasons.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

While I can have some sympathy with the exasperation people feel about this stuff, this really is not the right place to vent. So let's all take deep breath:

Aaaaaaaand.... We're back on topic.

I think it is a no brainer that anything that is clearly referenced as "left wing" or "right wing" can uncontroversially be described as "political" in much the way that anybody who is clearly referenced as a man or a woman can uncontroversially be described as a person. It may be other things as well as political. Other things may be political too, even without being left or right wing. None the less, if something is left or right wing then it is automatically and by definition political because those are descriptions of political things. So, I'm not seeing any sense at all in denying the description "political".

Unless anybody objects to "movement", I think that we can leave "political movement" as it is, at least until anybody has a better idea. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From the actions of the local Antifa from my area, they are engaged in direct action on the streets, and not in the traditional political arenas. But do as you will, i do not object.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with "political movement". Is the problem that "political" only means institutional/party politics and excludes street protests? That's a very narrow description of politics. The political movement article no longer says "party group" (which doesn't make sense) but "social group" ("In the social sciences, a political movement is a social group that operates together to obtain a political goal,[1] on a local, regional, national, or international scope." - in the case of antifa, the political goal is obviously to defeat fascism.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way: "Anti-Fascists Will Fight Trump’s Fascism in the Streets", The Nation: the radical left... are calling upon both US and European histories of anti-fascist action to offer practical and serious responses in this political movement... Antifa combines radical left-wing and anarchist politics; "Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement", CNN: Many of those arrested identified themselves as part of the Antifa movement. Its name derives from "anti-fascist"; "'No Fascist USA!': how hardcore punk fuels the Antifa movement", The Guardian: The anti-fascist movement draws on punk’s political awareness and network for activism; "Antifa: the Anti-fascist Handbook", The Guardian: The book Antifa [is a] history of and guide to the anti-fascism movement,... by Mark Bray, a political movement scholar [which argues that] anti-fascism is a legitimate political tradition; Beinart (a  political science prof): these activists appear to be linked to a movement called “antifa,” which is short for antifascist or Anti-Fascist Action [although until recently] even on the militant left, the movement didn’t occupy the spotlight... The result is a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s. "What is antifa and what does the movement want?", USA Today: the anti-fascist movements grew out of leftist politics of the late '80s; National Review [an opinion piece, but still]: Antifa movements began in early-20th-century Europe [and are a central element of today's] political turmoil [and] political violence; Also, isn't anyone insisting they are left-wing (which by definition puts them on a political spectrum) means they are by definition "political"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)