Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 5

Neutrality
Are y'all members of ANTIFA? Seems like a very sympathetic article to a terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C726:DAD1:BF78:960B:B396:C4A9 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I am personally opposed to fascism, so I suppose there's some resonance there. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I don't like their methods at all. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your comment. As of today this article has been edited by 326 people (see the article history statistics), and I would imagine there's a wide variety of political perspectives represented among them. As a general rule though, Wikipedia editors try to avoid letting our own political viewpoints affect how we write encylopaedia articles, and instead strive for a neutral point of view. What aspects of the article do you think show sympathy for the subject? What changes would you like to be made? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this accusation of favoritism. This article for the most part reflects a neutral point of view. It mentions the acts of violence committed by the movement, their radical beliefs, and some of their more controversial actions. As someone opposed to Antifa myself, I find the article to be quite fair and unbiased. Anasaitis (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to Antifa (despite being anti-violence myself), but I agree that this is certainly a neutral article. If the article started calling them a terrorist group or hate group like Trump (who's not a trustworthy source on really anything) or right-wing contributors consider them to be, it wouldn't be neutral whatsoever and would certainly have a right-wing bias. KingofSushi (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As they are a hate group by their actions and they attack those they disagree with, their personel description of themselves should not be in the heading KirinMagic (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can find citations to reliable sources with better descriptions of what they are and what they do, great! We need sources from all points of view-- please add them to the article! Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is Kirin Magic's point crossed out? It makes sense they should be labeled a hate group.47.22.177.195 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Apparently that user was a sockpuppet--please see Mr. Weller's last post in the section above this one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned comment and with KirnMagic and others that the article is not neutral as it stands. In my earnest attempt to help mitigate the problem in favor of neutrality I would like to remind all editors: WP:PA WP:BULLY WP:POV railroad WP:Civility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning SDSU-Prepper (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the reminder! I think it's also worth mentioning that, for the most part, Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus.  I understand your position, and that there are others who agree with it; however, at this point, I don't think you have a consensus (though I am willing to be convinced otherwise!).  Effective argument and persuasion will, in my experience, get one a lot farther than unilateral action.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well hello again Dumuzid. I believe that I have a consensus that the article isn't as neutral as it could be and that is why I highlighted several others who have had concern. Let's take it at that to agree to disagree. Peace out... SDSU-Prepper (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello to you too! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018
Antifa are fascist groups using the veil of anti-facist. Violence, threats of violence and stopping free speech are fascist characteristics. History shows that. Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018

2605:6000:1702:C1B6:E0D2:6080:F41:6831 (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —  Newslinger  talk   10:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment above that Antifa may themselves be fascist groups using the veil of anti-facist; however, my interest is in keeping the article as neutral as possible. I caution such commentary requires hard facts and citation. As Wikipedians we must follow the rules and gain consensus. There is no UserTalk to take this offline, so I thought I'd add the following.

One can argue that fascism is a more of a left-wing ideology. In simplest terms, according to Macmillan for children (Simon & Schuster books), fascism is a political system led by a dictator in which all industry is controlled by the government. Fascism encourages extreme nationalism and does not allow people to have opposing political ideas.


 * The left wing are socialists who favor more government controls and regulation. For example, they want to regulate industry and make regulations on the environment (anti-capitalists). They also want to oppress speech. Nazi is the National Socialist Worker’s Party and it follows they are left wing, though the left does not wish to take credit.


 * The right wing are constitutionalists who want less government control and regulation. For example, they are for free enterprise (capitalists) and want to reduce government regulations on industry. They also want freedom of speech.

For some reason, left-wing activists would like to put the blame on the right-wing for fascism. This angers someone in the right-wing when they few the left wing as the fascists trying to conflate. I express these things not to spur a political debate, but rather to have us all be mindful that labeling is a sensitive area and we must all remain as neutral as possible.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Just curious why my previous content was removed here for view? I'd like to remind editors that no one owns any article on Wikipedia and when content is continually removed and when there is no discussion then one feels there is a WP:BULLY ?! This is a talk page for heavens sake. Am I being silenced? Case in point is that the semi-protected page sub section should be removed if it's not content that's up for discussion. I'm concerned because removing this data allows anyone capable of editing a page the ability to shape the narrative about that subject by creating original criticism -- even talk pages! Again, I’m reaching out to the impassioned editors and I extend an olive branch.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Antifa and black bloc
Where would the appropriate place be to include black bloc on the antifa page? Black bloc is an identifying marker of antifa and I don’t see any controversy with inclusion of my research. Since there seems to be some individual discussions with editors, I'm now looking for consensus or discussion on the antifa talk page.

Here is the research which connects the two: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/ https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence summarising the New York Times piece linked above, which is the only of the four that really makes the connection explicit. The sentence could probably be more closely linked to the rest of the article, but I don't think going into much more depth on the connection would really be merited. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A proposal stands to insert a heading section for discussion on black bloc. Since the suggestion was a heading should not have just one sentence, I propose the following: "The Antifa activists generally wear black bloc, a look characterized by a combination of black hoodies, black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks, goggles or gloves. Some antifa activists bring red flags, shirts or shields and this may distinguish them from other kinds of black bloc activists, protesters or counter protesters. Dressing in black bloc promotes cohesion and unity with the other antifa members as it allows members privacy or anonymity. " SDSU-Prepper (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what sources you'd cite in support of these sentences? Just the Mercury News piece you've included in the ref tags, the New York Times piece that's cited in the article, or all the sources you've linked to above? (Also, you've listed gloves twice.) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don’t minimize my research and this news source. The Mercury News is a nonpartisan source of local news and it’s the fifth largest daily newspaper in the United States. The Mercury News article best describes antifa, and is relevant to the Wikipedia content describing antifa: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/

The Mercury News Article article reads: “They wear black pants and sweatshirts, with either helmets or hoods over their heads, bandanas across their faces — and dark sunglasses, goggles or gas masks over their eyes. Many carry makeshift shields and flags, whose staffs can quickly become weapons. They call themselves “antifa,” short for anti-fascist, and they’re part of a loosely organized national network of anonymous anarchists.”

Regarding photographic evidence in another conversation with an editor.... Some have said pictures are inadmissible, I’d like you to note that I’ve not affixed any imagery to either black bloc or antifa articles. Mercury News is one of the sources listed at the top of this subsection that I found describing the antifa black bloc look.

I have been trying to gain consensus. On Aug 5 2018 an editor reverted my copy for the following reasons. (Non-neutral language. WP:TONE. Black bloc already has an article.)

“The Antifa activist look generally is a black characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles or black hoodies and sunglasses with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.”

The copy is neutral, Black bloc is not slang, and I used qualifiers (generally and some). Help me understand the problem?

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are heinously misrepresenting your own actions. That revert was here. This was the content you added to the lede which was not yet discussed in the body:
 * The Antifa activist look may include black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles. The shadowy activists may wear black hoods and sunglasses, though not always. Some carry makeshift shields or weapons as well, or flags The tactic is known as "black bloc"  a strategy that may hide their identity or show cohesion.
 * This is not the same change which you are now proposing. This edit was obviously intended to portray antifa as secretive and "shadowy" to a degree far in excess of what is supported by these sources. The use of weak sources or passing mentions to emphasize a specific, non-neutral perspective is a form of editorializing, and is inappropriate. The "qualifiers" are also non-neutral. Most people have, at some point, worn black, worn a hoodie, worn boots, carried something that could be used as a shield or makeshift weapon, etc.. Saying that antifa "may" wear something or carry something is devoid of context. Using "qualifiers" as an excuse doesn't make this more neutral, it makes it less neutral, because it's taking something vague and unremarkable and presenting it as highly significant. Antifa don't put on a gasmask and pick up a bike-lock as soon as they get out of bed, so emphasizing this "look" without any sort of context is disproportionate and sensationalizing. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My intention wasn't to "minimise" anything. Could you please answer the simple question I asked above? It's impossible to comment on whether a given passage of text is appropriate without knowing what sources are being used to support it, which your comment doesn't specify. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Arms & Hearts, Please refrain from a personal attack (use of word heiniously). In truth. I had added the black bloc information to the lede as it is an integral part of the story. It belongs in the lede, but in the spirit of collaboration I was open to ideas. Instead it got buried.


 * Language: Regarding the use of the word "shadowy" this was an adjective in the description from Mercury News to describe the black bloc. I trust their editors. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a
 * Regarding the Antifa black bloc -- I can cite several other news agencies regarding the garb:


 * Is antifa not secretive? They wear masks and clothing for privacy and to help create a show of force and unity.


 * Use of qualifiers: You need qualifiers when your evidence or your claim is open to doubt. In such cases, using a qualifier allows you to present your findings.


 * I never said antifa members wear gas masks at all times. Please don't interpolate.

Having said the above, I'm sure we can come to resolution on a simple set of sentences. I wonder why there is so much debate about the specific style of clothing for which is well documented.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not used the word "heinously." That was Grayfell's comment. Thank you for answering my original question. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security
Today I added a citation to another editor's entry on "Domestic Terrorism." I also added a sentence about antifa in this regard tied to the Department of Homeland Security. Here is the transaction..

--- The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared the activities of antifa as “domestic terrorist violence” in 2017. https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396 --- However as quickly as the edits and additions came there were reverts without collaboration efforts what-so-ever. Isn't there a three revert rule? I noted Drmies has reverted copy three times (below is the record). I just cut and paste for convenience to document the three changes:

3 (cur | prev) 04:28, 11 August 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎. . (48,042 bytes) (-100)‎. . (Reverted 1 edit by 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam: Last time for me. need an admin to look at this in the light of DS. again: the BBC ref (or the misplaced Newsweek ref) IN NO WAY support this. (TW)) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 04:25, 11 August 2018‎ 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk | contribs)‎. . (48,142 bytes) (+100)‎. . (Undid revision 854409396 by Drmies (talk) Please explain how it's a ruse when the source supports this.) (Tag: Undo)

2 (cur | prev) 04:13, 11 August 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎. . (48,042 bytes) (-100)‎. . (Reverted to revision 854409096 by Drmies (talk): No, you also reinstated, without verification, the "domestic terrorism" ruse. be more careful please. (TW)) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 04:12, 11 August 2018‎ SDSU-Prepper (talk | contribs)‎. . (48,142 bytes) (+100)‎. . (Added citation https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396) (Tag: Undo)

1 (cur | prev) 04:10, 11 August 2018‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎. . (48,042 bytes) (-100)‎. . (Reverted to revision 854407975 by Newimpartial (talk): No, the BBC ref doesn's say that at all. (TW)) (Tag: Undo)

As a reminder, no one person owns a Wikipedia article. I've worked hard to gain consensus on the talk page.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (Crossposting from AN/I) My opinion: the sources (Newsweek and Politico) state that the DHS has classified Antifa activities as "domestic terrorist violence", so that's what we should say - that the DHS said so. We shouldn't make such classifications in Wikipedia's voice. Note how this is how almost all of the groups mentioned at Domestic terrorism in the United States are treated. ansh 666 05:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't do that either. If the DHS said so, we should be quoting them. We can't use anonymous sources as though they were an official statement. Such classifications aren't secret in any case. Why would they be? The only real source is Politico and all they are doing is making claims that they were told such and such. If this had really happened it would have been in all the major news outlets. Doug Weller  talk 08:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We do that all the time, a RS reports a confidential source said x and we report that. Why would it be different here? PackMecEng (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 August 2018
Antifa should definitionally be referred to as a hate group as the actions and opinions of large swaths if not a majority of the group fulfill every requirement of the term. It is beyond reasonable doubt that rampant violent speech and actions against law enforcement and media members warrant this label. Consensus should not prevent this change, as facts exist separate from consensus, and when they are this abundantly clear, they should supersede consensus opinion.

Original: "The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant[2][3][4][5][6] groups in the United States" Proposed Change: "The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-proclaimed anti-fascist militant[2][3][4][5][6] hate groups in the United States" Tcevidanes (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This template specifically says it's for uncontroversial edits, or for edits supported by consensus. Your opinion that antifa is a hate group is not supported by reliable sources nor consensus, and is definitely controversial. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppopse On the grounds that to suggest that would imply that fascists are a protected group of persons. Also on the grounds of absence of reliable sources which would make such a claim. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Please delete "opposition to the infiltration of Britain's punk scene by white power skinheads in the 1970s and 1980s, and ", which is not supported by the source, which just says "But in the ’70s and ’80s, neo-Nazi skinheads began to infiltrate Britain’s punk scene." It doesn't link it to antifa.

BTW, I think the source is in error anyway; the punk scene in the UK in the seventies was linked to Rock Against Racism, but that was non-violent; I don't think it was infiltrated by skinheads. Rather, the skinheads adopted some of the trappings of punk (see Oi!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDemeanour (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in the source reads "Antifa traces its roots to the 1920s and '30s, when militant leftists battled fascists in the streets of Germany, Italy, and Spain. When fascism withered after World War II, antifa did too. But in the '70s and '80s, neo-Nazi skinheads began to infiltrate Britain's punk scene." It then goes on to describe Anti-Racist Action in the U.S. as a continuation of the tactics of British antifascists, and mentions the use of the "antifa" name in the early 2000s in this context. So I think the connection to antifa is made clear enough in the source and reflected fairly accurately in the article. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * But the source doesn't mention any British antifascists in connection with this alleged infiltration. The punk movement (and also the two-tone movement) were the source of the Rock Against Racism movement; but as I have pointed out, this was non-violent - it was a sort of party/music scene.
 * I still contend that the source does not support that US antifa has its roots in the UK punk scene.
 * I know very little about US antifa; apparently it's some kind of fashion trip. I don't know where US antifa came from. But if it did come from UK punk, the source doesn't say that.
 * In the UK, antifa and black blok are unrelated (except inasmuch as they are both of the left). It is possible that UK antifa emerged from RaR, but my recollection is that it emerged from a wave of antisemitic violence by neofascists, and consisted largely of working-class jews acting essentially as a self-defence grouping. RaR was primarily a bourgeois scene. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I note and confirm your remark about the term 'antifa' appearing in the UK in the early 2000's. A primary source confirming that would be the archive of the UK Indymedia website at ; antifa activists used to post to the site regularly. That source might help throw light on the roots of UK antifa. The archive is large; but it can be searched, and articles are often tagged with keywords. But antifa were fairly secretive; many on the left opposed their tactics and views.
 * At any rate, something that emerged in the early 2000's is not obviously related to the UK punk scene in the seventies and eighties; arguably the punk scene was very much a minority interest in the UK by 1985.
 * My edit request stands. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your recollections, like the Indymedia archive, are are no doubt very interesting, but neither can be used to support claims made in Wikipedia articles (see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:PSTS). I'm you're already aware of this but I'm mentioning it just in the interest of keeping the discussion on track and focused on the central issue, which is whether we're giving an accurate summary of the claims made in the Beinart piece. I think we are doing so, in the sense that Beinart identifies a continuity between the antifascism of the 1920s and 1930s, the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, and Germany in the 1990s, as comprising the origins or "roots" of U.S. antifa, after which "left-wing punk fans in the United States began following suit" under the ARA banner.
 * If you think Beinart is substantially mistaken in drawing such a link or misrepresents events in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s then you'd have to provide some evidence, probably in the form of scholarly or journalistic sources that contradict him. In the absence of that we have to put out faith in The Atlantic's fact-checking procedures and accept that he gives a basically accurate account. (Note also that I'm not able to act on the edit request as the page is fully protected and I'm not an administrator – so I'm not offering any of the above as a justification for not making the change, as I couldn't do so if I wanted to.) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm - I forgot to mention the Anti Nazi League, a group associated with the Socialist Worker's Party - a rather benign trotskyite grouping. The ANL did emerge in the context of the punk scene - I guess they were like the 'badge-wearing' branch of Rock Against Racism - lots of people wore ANL badges. The ANL were not openly violent - they had pretty much mass support among young people during the late seventies. But groups within the ANL might well have taken to fighting fascists in the streets, and grown into antifa-like bands.


 * I did note that the Indymedia archive would amount to a primary source, and I accept that consequently it's not useful for striking this claim of origins in UK punk. Even less my personal recollections! I note that there is no article on UK antifa; I just hoped that someone more knowledgeable about antifa than me might be able to put the archive to use. FWIW, I would expect the archive to show that antifa in the early noughties were secretive (anonymous), and liked to brag about their violent encounters on the streets with neo-fascist demonstrators, leafleters and so on.


 * I question whether a stray remark in a contemporary article in The Atlantic is a reliable source for a claim about the 1970's UK punk origins of US antifa. Beinart appears to me to be about 30, so may not have yet been born in those times. At any rate, I think it is unlikely he was an observer. Since he doesn't cite his remarks about the UK punk origins of US antifa, I think 'stray remark' is not unfair.


 * My edit request stands simply on the fact that the cited source does not support the claim made in the article. I have no idea whether the claim itself is true or not.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Peter Beinart was born 1971; he was therefore not a witness. Absent a citation of his own, I'm not clear as to why value should be assigned to his claim. Which *still* doesn't support the claim in the article. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A reliable source does not need to be a first person account. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is now unprotected; edit request removed. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Trevor Noah relevance
Opening for discussion before making a protected edit request, I propose stripping out the Trevor Noah "vegan ISIS" joke from the responses to ANTIFA section. Noah is not a politician or an expert, and I would dispute that a comedian's joke is encyclopedic in character. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You may well be right. Before I edited it to make it clear that this was a joke it could be read as a serious description, which was potentially very misleading. Noah is not a politician or an expert although I'd suggest that he is a deeper thinker than some who are. What he was doing was mocking the hysterical mischaracterisation of anti-fascism that is going on. As such the joke might be of use as an illustration of how contentious this has become but I don't think it is of much value as a stand alone statement without that context. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to disparage Noah; I just don't think the joke is appropriate in what's effectively a lampshaded criticism section. Because it was, you know, a joke. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that he was "mocking the hysterical mischaracterisation of anti-fascism that is going on": though he was obviously overstating the case for comic effect, from his other remarks it's clear he was criticising tactics he thought were needlessly confrontational and counterproductive. This is the interpretation of the Daily Beast, for whom Noah's remarks were a "surprising stance" that "echo[ed] the overheated rhetoric emanating from the right-wing echo chamber." It's probably inconsequential though: I agree that, though Noah's comments did get quite a lot of attention at the time (see also The Hill, Vanity Fair, The Week) there's no real lasting significance and no other reason to attach any weight to the matter. Having looked at the relevant section, I also think Noam Chomsky's comments ought to be mentioned. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding that I know the opinion most of the younger set of anarchists, and basically all the communists and socialists think of Noam Comsky, I don't disagree that his commentary is certainly more notable than Trevor Noah's in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, so here's my proposal then, how about we cut the Trevor Noah reference, but include mention of Chomsky, and for balance, A statement from Alexander Reid Ross, author of Against the Fascist Creep (an academic history of Fascist Entryism) who said, "When it (ANTIFA) works, it’s one of the best models for channeling the popular reflexes and spontaneous movements towards confronting fascism in organized and focused ways." Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The text below looks good, except for two minor things: "antifa" shouldn't be in caps outside of the quote, and Noam Chomsky should be linked. I wonder if we might also find a quote from Mark Bray, who's quoted elsewhere in the article and is probably more widely-read and influential than Alexander Reid Ross (and his book is mostly about anti-fascism, whereas I understand Ross's is more about various kinds of fascism), but nothing in the book jumps out at me and he's had so many interviews published that it's hard to find a directly relevant quotation or passage. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit biased in that I consider Reid Ross' work to be the seminal work of political history from 2017 - and I haven't read much Mark Bray yet (he's on the TBR). Reid Ross' book centers on fascist entryism and the response to that entryism, so he presents the transformation and growth of fascist movements and the emergence of antifascist movements as being integrated phenomena. As fascists arise so do antifascists who often come from those communities fascists are attempting to recruit from. I'd... like... to include Reid Ross in the response section because he's an expert in fascism and is strongly supportive of antifa tactics, and I think that voice is critical from an WP:NPOV perspective when you consider how many mainstream voices are opposed to antifascist action. Your other edits are 100% OK with me though. and I'll revise accordingly. Would you be so kind as to suggest a Bray quote - perhaps we could include both him and Reid Ross if it doesn't present WP:DUE issues. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That all sounds reasonable. How about the following for a Bray quote, from a December 2017 interview in the Los Angeles Review of Books: "Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions." If we're going to use this, given the use of "current" in the quote we should mention the month of publication. And I wonder if we ought also to mention Bray and Reid Ross's respective specialisms, i.e. refer to them as "the geographer Alexander Reid Ross" (which seems to be right) and "the historian Mark Bray" respectively. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about including their relative academic specialties; by the same token we'd want to refer to Chomsky as a linguist when the reality is, to greater or lesser degrees, each is basically a public intellectual fwiw. Also wondering if we should mention statements about antifa by Cornell West in this section. That said, I like your Mark Bray quote. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's quite the same: Chomsky wasn't speaking in his capacity as a linguist, but rather as a social or political commentator or public intellectual, whereas Bray's Antifa is mostly a history book, and his comments on present politics are informed by, and sought on the basis of, his historical expertise. Reid Ross's being a geographer might be less important though, for the same reason. The It's Going Down source describes him as an "anti-fascist author and organizer"; perhaps we could follow their lead? Either way, it's a fairly minor point. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, following RS lead works for me. Will make more revisions tomorrow AM
 * Is the revised version below acceptable to everyone? Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove: Trevor Noah, host of the popular late-night television program The Daily Show jokingly referred to antifa as "Vegan ISIS".[79]

Insert: Antifa movements have provoked varying reactions within the academic community; Noam Chomsky described them as "a major gift to the right" While historian Mark Bray said, "Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it's clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions." Anti-fascist author and organizer, Alexander Reid Ross said that antifa groups represented, "one of the best models for channeling the popular reflexes and spontaneous movements towards confronting fascism in organized and focused ways." Cornel West was present with Rev. Traci Blackmon attending a counter-protest to the Unite the Right rally. He said, "we would have been crushed like cockroaches if it were not for the anarchists and the anti-fascists," describing a situation where a group of 20 counter-protesters were surrounded by marchers who he described as, "neofascists." Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made revisions to my suggested insertion based on yesterday's discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit request template removed; page is unprotected. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for semi-protect to be put back
Down less than two days and we're getting persistent IPV6 vandalism. Asked for an increase in protection. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that will deal with that for now. With thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Left Wing / Right Wing
Why are we shying away from identifying antifa as left wing activists? This article is a citation inserted by another editor which demostrates use of the description of antifa: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

I'm taking a preemptive approach to open the dialog for consensus as virtually all of my valid research has been reverted and I'm concerned about the neutrality and accuracy.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This sentence has an ambiguous use of the word Alt-right:

"During a Berkeley protest on August 27, 2017, an estimated one hundred antifa protesters joined a crowd of 2,000–4,000 counter-protesters to attack a reported "handful" of alt-right demonstrators and Trump supporters who showed up for a "Say No to Marxism" rally that had been cancelled by organizers due to security concerns.[59][70]"

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f29220ae5418

By its own source the headline reads: Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.

No where does the citation say "alt-right" and the copy does not make use of the words right-wing and left wing referencing the article.

Proposed sentence for consensus. "During a Berkeley protest on Aug. 27, 2017, an estimated one hundred antifa activists joined a crowd of 2,000–4,000 left-wing protesters to attack right-wing participants and Trump supporters in the "Say No to Marxism" rally, which had been cancelled by organizers because of security concerns.[59][70]"

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As a committed leftist, I don't have a personal objection to stating that most ANTIFA groups are leftist in character; but there still need to be reliable sources that make that explicit before we could characterize the movement that way. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Another editor has placed "Left wing" into the first sentence. While there is plenty of sourcing for predominantly left and far-left, it doesn't mean it's universal, and just saying "left" from the get-go will require consensus that doesn't yet exist. Not all are leftish, and there has been a consistent trend of drive-by editors who seem to feel that being militanntly anti-fascists makes someone leftist. I dunno.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think there should be any issue stating they are left wing or far left. I think that might be the only question, which of the two best describes them from RS. PackMecEng (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be comfortable with a qualifier that is supported by sourcing. I'm not convinced that anti-capitalism on its own makes them "far-left." 21:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Acroterion   (talk)  
 * I think far left comes from the anarchism and anti-goverment aspects of it mostly.CNN, CNN, NPR, Politico, and BBC all use far-left as well as left, so a bit of a tossup, but I would go with far-left. PackMecEng (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anarchism and anti-government views exist at both ends of the spectrum (a horseshoe is a good analogy for the shape of a graphic representation) and, for example, sovereign citizens can inhabit either end. I'd like to see a reasonably broad consensus among editors and sources for a specific identifier much beyond left. I would be fine with "primarily leftist" based on sourcing, which would cover many bases.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with left wing to start with, I don't know about primarily leftist since I do not think there are any non-left in antifa to support the primarily part? PackMecEng (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the absence of any consistent published agenda or leadership it's hard to be very specific, and the sources seem to have the same problems with consistency of political pigeonholing.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed it has been all over, that is why I agree we should get more input for far-left vs left. But I will say I have yet to see a source say anything besides those two past simple hard-left or alt-left, which I do not think is appropriate. This article page has been pretty quiet over all for a bit now, would an RFC be appropriate? PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably - you and I and some drive-by editors aren't a consensus.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you grab some source for the left and we can use the sources above for far-left? Something like "Should the lead refer to antifa as "left wing" or "far-left"?" then give a mess of sources. PackMecEng (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just a starting point but this article discusses how the roots of antifa don't necessarily come out of an extreme left ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And here's an article from USA today which describes antifa as being a left-leaning movement rather than far left. Simonm223 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Economist leans hard into the looseness of antifa ideology in their article. Simonm223 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the ADL admits that the modern American antifa movement is not entirely far-left in this article. Simonm223 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah but the ADL start with Most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left. So they are saying most of them are far-left just not 100% which is to be expected. PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I included that one and put it last. My point is that even within a diversity of opinions, ranging from antifa are not mostly far-left (CBC) through to antifa are mostly far-left (ADL) all these sources are conditional. None of them straight up say, "the antifa movement is a far-left" movement. I don't think anybody is disputing that the antifa movement includes quite a large proportion of far-left people including quite a few anarchists, communists and socialists. However, I think it's more reflective of the diversity of sources to describe antifa as a pan-leftist movement that includes both moderate and far-left voices than to pin it to any given part of the ideological spectrum. Simonm223 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think left-wing is better than far left. Soc-dem ANTIFA supporters and activists exist; and they’re hardly far-left. I would be ok with a statement further down that said: (source) described the ANTIFA movement as predominantly far-left, in part due to the historical connection between the movement and communist and anarchist groups. But (other source) eschews calling antifa a far-left movement due to the loose ideological basis of antifa activism.


 * Obviously this is too much for the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, and . At this point do we agree there is rough consensus to add left wing for now? PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per up-thread discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

'Left-wing' is a broadly-NPOV term. I don't think anyone has claimed that there are right-wing antifa. However the term 'far-left' has a meaning that depends on the political posture of the speaker; some right-wing americans (in particular) consider anyone on the left of european politics to be 'far-left'. I don't like the term 'far-left' at all; but if it has to be used, I think it should be reserved for those advocating violent revolution.

What unites antifa groups is their opposition to fascism, not some specific shade of left-wing-ness. Different antifa have different positions on the left-right axis. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * User:MrDemeanour puts it well. I haven't checked the present state of the article but in the past there was at least one source that mentioned liberals involved in the movement. Of course what that means is subjective, but probably center-left. Ah, I see that our article Modern liberalism in the United States doesn't recognise any political position that isn't left or right. I don't think that equates with reality. Doug Weller  talk 11:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Just done significant edits to the Antifa page
Most of what I've done has been grammar fixes, typos fixed and clarifications of text (particularly quotes - no changes to meaning or content of quotes) for readability.

One major edit is trying to track down all the instances of "antifa, AntiFa and Antifa" and - with the exception of historic naming exclusions to the consistency - have moved to the consistent "Antifa". I've also changed content from "Antifa activists" and "antifa protesters" or "Antifa members" to just "Antifa have done XXX" for consistency, as the Antifa is not autonomous and does not specifically define itself in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelastauroch (talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Have also added in section re Antifa being listed as a domestic terrorist group by the DHS, with 3 citations. This seems to me to be pretty significant regarding an activism group, and I am surprised there was no mention of it. Possible bias prior to my edits?

Anyway, the page is *vastly* improved (I think!) with a lot more internal links, clarifications and overall a lot more readable. Cheers.

Oh, and I agree the page should be semi-protected. It's clearly a hot(ish) topic, and vandalism does nobody any favors. Cheers (again). Thelastauroch (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)TheLastAuroch
 * Hi, no. The DHS section was not appropriate to just insert whole-cloth like that. That is definitely a contentious edit and should be discussed first. Simonm223 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where can we see any list by the US DHS of domestic terrorists? This is a movement, not a group, which is another issue. Any prosecutions? Are we to believe that the DHS has actually done this and yet the story just was around for a short while with hardly any mainstream mention (Fox, the Independent, that's about it). And nothing since? Shall we write "Although Antifa is not a group and the government has no lists of domestic terrorist groups one website reported two years ago that they had conducted anonymous interviews which said.... - this was covered briefly by Fox News and a couple of other minor news outlets but there has been no further confirmation nor have any charges been brought." That would be ridiculous and WP:UNDUE Doug Weller  talk 08:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who've argued here and elsewhere before that the "domestic terrorist" label doesn't merit a mention. On another matter, the question of capitalisation ("antifa" vs. "Antifa") has been discussed before (see e.g. this revision, though for some reason the discussion doesn't seem to have been archived) and the consensus was in favour of Bobfrombrockley's view that we ought to use "antifa" to avoid giving the impression of a formal organisation. Of course, consensus can change, and consistency within the article is important, but it's not clear to me why you prefer the capitalised version. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with last few comments. The copy edits looked good, and I appreciate the work put in, but the domestic terrorism thing and capital letters I don't support. I can't find the capitals discussion in the archive - it might have been in one of the related pages? - but there is no reason to capitalise. Nazi or Comintern have capital letters because they shorten proper nouns, but otherwise capitalisation is unusual, so capitalisation makes it look like a proper noun, which might be the intention of those who insist on seeing it as an organisation. For the same reason, definitely good to avoid antifa "members", but I tend to prefer terms like "antifa activists have---" to simply "antifa have---" as it is such a heterogeneous collective, and it can be misleading to attribute actions of individual antifa activists to the whole collective. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion is at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 3 – some broken formatting in the archive page, which I've just fixed, was stopping it from showing up. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Bracketed titles are problematic when linking from social media.
Hi

There are problems with the bracketing of the titles. The link to the site is not compatible with certain coding. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

The brackets at the end interfere with the code and when you click on it you get a malformed link. For instance this code on reddit: [Go read about them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)). translates to the following address because of the double brackets at the end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States  The bracket is removed.

Don't know how to fix it other than changing the bracket to something else in the address bar.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusSab (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This may be an unpopular opinion, but making this harder to link to from Reddit seems like a plus to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * LOL. Yes. But he did ask nicely to let's give him a proper answer:
 * It probably can't tell where the URL ends and just keeps going until it sees some space, hence it misinterprets the second closing bracket as being part of the URL. I don't know why it then drops the both the closing brackets though. Does putting a space on the end of the URL (so it get put between the two closing brackets) fix it? If not, maybe ask over on Village pump (technical) but I think it is far more likely to be an issue at Reddit's end. The brackets are perfectly legit characters to have in a URL path. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can probably avoid this problem by using percent-encoding:  goes to the same target as  . But, as DanielRigal has said, it's really a problem with Reddit rather than a problem for Wikipedia to solve. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue with these links is that Reddit uses parentheses as part of its own Markdown system. It's likely not properly escaping the closing parenthesis in the GUI editor. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Direct action
Between removing it and  adding it back as a better descriptor I am not sure either direct action or violence are the best answer. I have a bit more issue with direct action at the moment, that to Doug's point it is certainly a more broad term that covers things they do that violence does not. That said it seems overly broad which covers just showing up to protest all the way to assassination and insurrection. Would there be a better term to describe them or perhaps give direct action more of a definition as it relates to this group in the article itself? I see we do have a link to it when it's first used, but again it is a very broad term. PackMecEng (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Direct action is certainly more all-encompassing as Antifa groups have quite a few tactics that aren't getting into fist-fights, including digital advocacy, doxing, and peaceful counter-protest. The phrase direct action addresses diversity of tactics rather than reductively focusing just on the stereotype of the violent anarchist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree it is better than violent anarchist, but I do not think it is all that descriptive to the average reader because of how overly broad it is. Again I am not sure of what a better phrase might be, but it might be helpful in the body to define what direct action actually is in relation to the modern US Antifa. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a wikilink to Diversity of Tactics? Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems closer but misses the doxxing and other online activities. PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That might be a need for improvement on the Diversity of Tactics page - my understanding is that a lot of the Antifa groups that are active digitally see that activity through that lens. I'll see if I can find any supporting sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * After a cursory inspection I found this; best I can get without veering into WP:SYNTH immediately Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@simon223 - It *is* problematic, and I'm not sure which is better, because of course we want the page to remain as neutral and accurate as possible (at least, that is my goal). Perhaps referring to both direct action and violence, where appropriate, as Antifa seem to use both? I know it has the risk of making the page less readable, but I do believe that accuracy is more important than ultra-readability. Thelastauroch (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch
 * Diversity of tactics explicitly includes violence by definition. The question is whether it should be expanded to include digital tactics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's return to the direct action / violence / diversity of tactics question. Would the Wired article allow for us to use diversity of tactics as our statement in an attempt to cover the gamut of tactics Antifa groups employ from internet activism to street violence? Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

White House Petition WP:SUSTAINED?
Is there any evidence of sustained coverage of the White House petition beyond the one "and now they answered the petition but it doesn't matter" ref? Because I'm inclined to remove it completely unless it's able to meet that bar. Want to discuss here before acting unilaterally. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the coverage: https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqSQgKIkNDQklTTERvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoOGFIV1JPUlVaMVNVZFlNRkpuUmpWR1RYbFFURWhJVWxCMFpHaHdjVzFOS0FBUAE?q=antifa+petition&lr=English&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfiuLCrZfdAhXkCcAKHYQUCtYQqgIIOjAF&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB:en Mostly Fox News, Russia Today and right-wing websites. Dunno if that counts or not. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fox news = no. RT = Black list IIRC. Will look at the rest. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also most of that is 2017 when the petition originally came out, no? BTW: Daily Mail = black list IIRC, Epoch Times is NOT a RS, the Independent is iffy at best. I'm not seeing any real grounds for WP:SUSTAINED here. Any objections if I remove the section on those grounds? Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've killed the section for now; I agree it seemed WP:UNDUE. Possibly a sentence mentioning it in the 'response' section would be fine if someone objects, but the massive section was way too much for a single petition that went nowhere and only seems to have gotten brief coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fox is a RS so not sure why that would be a no. I agree on RT and Daily mail though, but we do not cite them in the article. We do cite Fox, Politico, and The Verge which are generally all considered RS. There is still some coverage The Verge for instance was pretty recent at Mar 20, 2018 and several from not long before then as well (seems our access date on that source in the article is wrong). So why ditch a well covered, RS sourced section? PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was sure Fox was on the no-no list by now. I certainly wouldn't consider it a reliable source. While I feel differently about Politico and the Verge, the coverage is pretty weak per WP:SUSTAINED and I don't think it's necessary. Some anonymous conservative wants the president to do something directly. He will not because even the United States isn't that overtly fascist yet. Simonm223 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Last couple of discussions at RSN said yes Fox is reliable, at least their news side. But if you want to swap it out for another source that would be fine, Fox is a little out of date for the number of signatures. Also when the White House directly responds to something it is kind of notable. Heck for fun the Death Star still has a section on the White House responding and that was a no as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with the removal here, as undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is that? PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * An initial flurry of reports that the petition was getting signatories followed by a very small number of follow-up reports that the White House, required to comment, was not going to take action doesn't constitute WP:SUSTAINED coverage. This was just another silly flash-in-the-pan petition campaign, and as such has no real lasting encyclopedic merit related to the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair the initial flurry was a year ago and it recently got a bit of coverage, so a bit more than nothing. Also every other "silly flash-in-the-pan" petition that received a statement from the White House is in their respective article. Mostly because it is a notable thing. PackMecEng (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is not grounds for including something non-notable in an article. I'd suggest that if no action occurs, and if the only publicity is 1) during the petition and then 2) when the White House says, "we can't do that," it's not notable. I'd say that for the silly build the Death Star petition just the same as this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes OSE is a nice essay, but unrelated to this. Heck it even mentions "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else" which seems to apply to this situation. But anyhow if it is notable everywhere else why would it not be here besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It would be odd to have it everywhere else as easily notable but not here on an article that is generally less notable than the other subjects of petitions. PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually provided specific grounds why it is not notable. There isn't WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this non-event. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And above it was talked about in a recent RS article. So sustained is not the issue, as covered above. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But a mention in one source as an example of something not happening is not significant coverage and WP:SUSTAINED doesn't require a single RS. It requires significant coverage. We don't have that. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All the Verge article says is, "the White House answered. They said no." And that's about it from this year too; I can't find any current coverage beyond one mention in the Verge. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose I just see it as a pretty low bar for what is sustained coverage. It was a significant event, as noted by any other time such a thing was done, and there is still coverage. I am not sure what else to say other than we just have two different levels of inclusion. But as I mentioned before answering of a White House petition is significant everywhere else it happens with the same or less coverage, no reason it should not be here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a random troll's anonymous petition to ask the White House to do something they can't really do as being significant. It got picked up by Fox, an a bunch of Conservative online outlets. Then nothing happened. Then the White House said, "nothing will continue happening," and then the Verge said, "the White House isn't doing anything." It's a non-issue with no coverage aside from a bunch of signal boosts from the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The existence of other petitions elsewhere just goes to show that people are lax with WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED where Star Wars ephemera and such is involved. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh how about Aquillion's suggestion? A sentence or two in the reactions section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would even be opposed to that. It's just an anonymous online petition. It's ephemera. It's ultimately irrelevant to the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The origin of the petition does not matter, no idea why you are harping on that. It is still a petition with over 350,000 signatures that the White House gave an official response to. PackMecEng (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm "harping on about it" because it's indicative of the ephemeral nature of this petition. It was literally just an excuse for Fox to run a bunch of scare headlines for a week that Antifascists are terrorists. We have no requirement to make it part of the encyclopedic record for Antifascist movements. And considering we have no requirement, and considering there is no significant sustained coverage, we should not include it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Now it's starting to sound like WP:OR on motives. Coverage and sustained have been address. I think we have gone as far as we can go. PackMecEng (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the first time I've been accused of WP:OR for excluding something. We disagree as to notability. I don't believe that the brief mention in the Verge article is anywhere near enough to cover WP:SIGCOV per WP:SUSTAINED for inclusion of an event that I find, on the surface, non-notable. Generally for a government action to be notable, the government would have to actually do something and this is evidently not the case. As for the fact the petition got signatures, WP:INDISCRIMINATE makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia is not a repository of random information, and barring WP:SIGCOV there's no good reason to include this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Twitter Hoaxes and WP:DUE
Do we really want to give Fourchan the pleasure of a reference to their abysmal little trolling campaigns? This has been a bit of a pet issue of mine lately (see also the Sarah Jeong twitter controversy) but I really question the encyclopedic relevance of Twitter trolling campaigns. They're ephemeral by nature thanks to the platform; designed to flash in the pan. Google trends supports this interpretation. This is not something with any lasting relevance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your update to the section, and I get that newspapers have reported on these fourchan hoaxes but I'm still not convinced they're WP:DUE a paragraph per WP:NOTNEWS and my initial concerns regarding the ephemeral quality of trolling campaigns. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree - this stuff is too trivial and of passing interest only to be included in an encyclopedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Domestic Terrorist
Independent and Political have Antifa labelled as a Domestic terrorist organization by FBI and DHS

Article should reflect this D3bug l0gic (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The article already mentions this under #Ideology and activities, and both of these sources are already used. FYI, this has already been discussed multiple times: Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 5, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 4, and probably others. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thats a bit buried isnt it? D3bug l0gic (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a bit subjective, isn't it?
 * The article has 89 sources, only two or three of which apparently mention the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness thing, all published in the same short time-span. Has this made any substantive difference? If this one incident has been of lasting encyclopedic significance, sources will explain how it's significant. We use sources to determine these things. Do you have any sources explaining why this matters? Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He's trying to add this to other articles, claiming as fact that it a terrorist group, both words being wrong. Doug Weller  talk 05:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security has labeled Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization as of September 2017. This is due to the organization attacking police and government institutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipherre (talk • contribs) 06:06 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please search the archives for previous discussions. Or just read the article as this is discussed there. The claim that they "labeled Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation" is a misrepresentation of the only source for this, a Political article based on material never made public. Doug Weller  talk 11:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect this might be a sock of - new account made to pick up where that blocked user left it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be, but this could just as easily be any one of a huge number of other people with a similarly poor grasp of what the DHS actually said. Certainly I see nothing to justify reporting them as a sockpuppet as yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I submitted the report and Checkuser confirmed it's not a sock. I withdraw my suspicion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
Antifa should actually be called a "far left" activist group in the very firs line for clarity. 2607:FCC8:6083:7F00:FCA4:9501:B9B:258E (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This has been discussed repeatedly on this talk page (review the archives and you'll see it many times). &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 22:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on which sources? Far-left politics is typically an umbrella term for communism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. Dimadick (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Perceive to be
So looks like there is some edit warring going on over "those whom they perceive to be" in "fascists, racists and right wing extremists" supported by this source. My guess is "perceive to be" seems to be appropriate since the source says Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. Which is saying they are using their own definition of fascism, not the standard definition. So it would be who they perceive as fascist. The source also states Another concern is the misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries straight up saying perceived fascist adversaries. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, and . is blocked but still a ping. PackMecEng (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned in edit summaries, I certainly understand the thinking behind this edit. If it ends up gaining consensus, I won't be upset.  But on balance, it seems like a bit of a stretch from the source to me, and in the spirit of MOS:ALLEGED, I just don't think it is an improvement.  Cheers everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We could use the old long standing wording of harassing those whom they identify as fascists, racists or right wing extremists as well I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like a stretch to me dude. I've never been a fan of the weasel wording, and there doesn't seem to be a BLP reason for this to be required. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest for conveying they have a non-standard view of what those groups are? Also I'm not a dude. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Err, my bad. Sorry. Do we have a source that identifies what is most frequently viewed as fascist etc. by those who are seen as antifascist? We could say something like 'harassing fascists, racists or right wing extremists, seen by antifascist people as those who engage in [bad thing?]'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The one I listed above adds but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. Give me a moment and I will see if I can dig up more. Also no worries, happens a lot PackMecEng (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we could also add reporters and anti-Marxist(the non-fascist kind). Time adds anti-capitalist, anti-sexism, anti-ableism, and anti-transphobia as well. PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused why there's so much effort to dance around the fact that the source states that it's unclear, even among members, what they believe these terms mean. It's so much more accurate to say "perceive to be" than to attempt to qualify every single attack. OnceASpy (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I get what you're saying, and I am not sure it's wrong. But to change an article on that basis would be original research.  I'm concerned that without some solid sourcing (for me, a little more than what PackMecEng has proposed, though for others that may work) then we're casting doubt on something simply to cast doubt.  Of course we are all limited by our perceptions (I am a big believer in epistemic humility).  But to specifically detail this goes further into questioning credibility.  As ever, your opinion may differ!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with on this one. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What kind of sources are you looking for in above was not enough? PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It says it in the article. That's sourced info. Reading an article and citing it isn't Original Research. OnceASpy (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see where both you and PackMecEng are coming from. And if your position wins the day, so be it!  But that for me (and me alone!) requires a synthetic logical leap that is just a step too far.  Reasonable minds my differ. Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A greater diversity than just the Washington Post, especially considering the extent to which the second post article is pretty obviously an opinion piece, which we shouldn't just reflect in Wikipedia voice. The Time article is a far better source - it's reflecting how Antifa affiliated people see themselves rather than what a WaPo hack thinks of them - but it would definitely be WP:SYNTH to go from that to saying that Antifa participants don't use the standard definition of fascists. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay here are some more. The Economist, Vox, The Atlantic, Fox, and The New Yorker. That should help right? PackMecEng (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to include the Fox news opinion article, or the Vox article as reliable sources, but the others satisfy my concern regarding the opinion-nature of the Washington post article. particularly the Atlantic and New Yorker pieces seem apropos. I'll put down my WP:STICK now. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"perceive to be" seems to be the best description, as stated in the source as well as here. Can we put this to rest? OnceASpy (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Perceive" still strikes me as wrong, and I guess because it's not really their perceptions we are questioning. What if we were to go with something more like "those they define as fascist" or "those they classify as fascist?"  I'd have fewer qualms worded that way.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with going back to the older language that had been in the article a long time. harassing those whom they identify as fascists, racists or right wing extremists. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I knew I should have checked through the history; I like that better, although I still prefer "classify," "define," or "deem" to indicate that the issue is definitional rather than perceptional. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with any of those terms being used. PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I quite like "identify" as it covers all the options. A lot of other terms carry a loading that gently implies that the identification is correct or incorrect. "Identify" doesn't seem to. To say that "A identifies B as a C" doesn't seem loaded in favour of or against A's identification being correct. Also, it is longstanding content from a while back so it can't be that bad. I think we should put it back as it was and then, if people think it can be improved further, the discussion can continue. I also agree that "classify," "define," or "deem" are OK although they have a very slight implication of mistrust in the classification. Of those three, "deem" seems the best. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't had time to weigh in on this thus far but just wanted to offer a point that I don't think has been made above. The problem with "perceived to be", from my perspective, is separate from (or additional to) whether or not it's supported by the sources. The problem is that that phrasing actively reduces the meaningfulness of the sentence by introducing an unnecessary ambiguity. Whether something is "perceived to be" the case tells us nothing about whether it is the case, and conflates things that are obviously not true (some people perceive that the Earth is flat) with things that are obviously true (I perceive that it's dark outside). By way of comparison, we do not say that the French national football team perceived themselves to be playing Croatia in the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final, even though that would be true, because it's a functionally useless and unhelpful claim that obscures the fact that France did play Croatia in that match. If we can't affirmatively make the coherent and useful claim that antifa groups oppose fascists (I think we can, though I haven't had time to look at the sources in much depth), then we ought to find a replacement that is similarly useful, rather than settle on a wording that avoids actually telling the reader anything of any substance. I would suggest that such a replacement might be found by looking at the relevant scholarly literature (e.g. Mark Bray's book), rather than piecing things together from somewhat offhand comments in news media sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your analogy is that there is empirical evidence of the soccer match and multiple sources confirm it. In this instance, we have sources that relay what the group says they do (which on Wikipedia, we don't allow self-reporting from subjects of an article), and sources that specifically state the incongruity of the definitions even among members. "perceive to be" is supported by the sources, and informs readers that this is the groups perception, regardless of the validity of their accusations. They, themselves, cannot agree on what the terms actually mean, but they assert them nonetheless. And again, this is supported by the source. The wording could be seen as vague, but that's because the group in itself is vague on these claims. OnceASpy (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I address these issues in the final two sentences of my post above. You may wish to re-read (or simply read) them. Also, the claim that "we don't allow self-reporting from subjects of an article" is not true. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, to address @Dumuzid, I prefer "perceive" only because their claims of these terms seems to be situational, rather than simply a disagreement accross members. But I wouldn't object to "deem". OnceASpy (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we settle on "deem" OnceASpy (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikidata
One recent IP edit changed the short description to "far-left militant hate group". The edit was 3 days old before I discovered and reverted it just now. Short descriptions are probably one of the first things people on WP mobile app will read. We need to be more vigilant on Wikidata as well.

I also changed it to "left-wing anti-fascist movement of militant groups in the United States" for more brevity and matching to the article lead. I hope this will be helpful. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018
"harassing" should be changed to "ostracizing". Catfacts22 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌. That seems like an inappropriate change and would require consensus established here first.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)