Talk:Antifa (United States)

Lead

How should the lead characterise Antifa, in Wikipedia's voice?

1. Militancy
   1. Omit militant
   2. Often characterized as militant or some variant thereof
   3. Militant, without qualification
2. Political position
   1. Leftist (or predominantly left-wing)
   2. Left-wing
   3. Far-left
   4. Often described as far-left
   5. Omit political lean

Sources in Discussion, below. Guy (help!) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 2.5 was added 19:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC) per request below

Opinions

• 1.2 and 2.2 per discussions above. The status quo ante was left-wing militant, but I find that militant requires a degree of cherry-picking. Guy (help!) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5), although 1.2. and 2.2 would also be reasonable. In addition, a comment. I think the actual problem in the lead is not exact wording, but this phrase: "Activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against people whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right". The lead suppose to be a summary of content on the page. Does the page say a lot about their "physical violence"? I do not see it at all. "Property damage"? Looks like one occasion, unless I am missing something. "Harassment"? Perhaps, one or two incidents, but I am not sure. More up to the point, this is an accusation of crime. What convictions of the members of the Antifa do we have described on this page? I do not see a single conviction on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 and 2.3-ANTIFA's militancy is well documented. Antifa members have forcibly attempted to prevent conservative speaking engagements and other activities from taking place. They have engaged in repeated altercations with police and right-wing protesters. Many of its members openly identify as communist, which is enough to qualify the group as being far-left. Display name 99 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 and 2.3 Per sources (see my comment in discussion section, as well as PacMecEng's sources below). Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both (1.1, 2.5) The term militant is ambiguous and could refer to anything from someone who has strong enough views to argue on facebook to someone willing to murder for their cause. Also, the term left wing describes ideology, but antifa has only one objective, to confront fascism, which is not a specifically left-wing position. Nor is there any ideological conformity within antifa. It would problem be better merely to say that most antifa are left-wing. It's a single issue group, even if that issue has more resonance on the left. TFD (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both - TFD reflects my views. I am not clear at all what militant means in this context - what activist group isn't militant? And I have no idea why we are discussing the political position of a movement - is anti-facism or anti-white supremacism a political position? It's its supporters who may have, probably do have, political positions, mainly left-of-center. Having members who are communists doesn't make the movement far-left, and although some people may not understand this, there are people who identify as communists who aren't far left. A poll carried out by the conservative Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that "36% of millennials polled say that they approve of communism, which is up significantly from 28% in 2018." 70% said they would vote socialist.[1] Are they all far-left, trying to overthrow the government? Doug Weller talk 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Alternative - I have no issue with either militant or left-wing being used with proper context, but the current layout is badly written. With a small amount of editing it would be easily resolved to better represent both the historic position, and recent broadening appeal / overlap with general protests / opposition to alt-right and far right. The lede is currently a bit of a laundry list rather than particularly well structured. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Koncorde, Feel free. I am just trying to get us all out of the circular discussion. Guy (help!) 21:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5). Both "militant" and all the variants on "(far-)left" fail to refer to anything specific or unambiguous enough to be a useful in the lede. As far as "militant": I don't object to the term being used in the body of the article with a greater degree of context, but decontextualised in the lede it's essentially a hyperbolic empty signifier and fails to reflect the nuanced picture we would ideally portray. "Far-left" is even worse: as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself, and as I've shown, it very rarely appears in serious scholarly appraisals of antifa by credentialed experts. "(Predominantly) left" is not as bad, but still misleading insofar as it fails to acknowledge the significant political differences within antifa. If we're looking to sum up antifa's politics, "anti-fascist" is accurate, unambiguous, and clearly supported by the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 & 2.3 That is how most sources old and new refer to them.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] There is an argument that this these terms are recentism, the issue with that is these terms have been used for years to describe them by these RS. Modern usage is just confirming and refining past usage. Though I could see a case being made for 1.2 and 2.4, which I would accept as alternatives. Basically anything less is just a form of white washing. PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not all of the sources you cite say what you say they say. For example, ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary" and mentions "its militant followers' provocations", which is not the same as calling it "militant". CNN says "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left", which is not the same as calling it "far left", and says "Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across", i.e. some not all. PBS says "far-left-leaning movements" and doesn't use the word "militant". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources are for support of militant and others for far-left. Noting that some say well it can very does not distract from the majority view that they are described as predominantly far-left. For example you cite the CNN "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left" when it is often far left that means mostly far left. Again because a minority are not far-left that does not mean the majority cannot be described as such. That kind of argument is not based on policy, RS, or logic for that matter. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, please see my analysis of sources below at Sources for why they are inappropriate for the first sentence. I have added this at Ideology. By all means, feel free to add more there and sources that [o]ften characterize [antifa] as militant or some variant thereof but the lead should simply state Antifa is an anti-fascist which is the only thing all sources seem to agree on. You also did not reply to any objections this SPECIFICO's comment. Again, the main thing of antifa is anti-fascism and we already write about the ideologies of antifa activists in the lead; in other words, many individuals may well hold far-left views but that does not make antifa far-left and it is contradicted by a significant amount of sources that do not use it or use something else like left-wing which is not the same thing as far-left (which seems to be used more often in American news outlets), hence we should write given facts.--Davide King (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Here, The New York Times says The Trump administration blamed what it called the radical left, naming antifa, a contraction of the word "anti-fascist" that has come to be associated with a diffuse movement of left-wing protesters who engage in more aggressive techniques like vandalism. So which is which? The only agreement among sources is anti-fascist which is exactly what we should report in the very first sentence.--Davide King (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice how it says left-wing protesters? In other words, individuals within antifa are described as generally holding left-wing to far-left views, but that does not make antifa itself as left-wing, certainly not far-left, for their purpose is anti-fascism, not a specific ideology.--Davide King (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The difference between antifa and the broader, wider anti-fascist movement is not that antifa is militant; it is that antifa aim to achieve their objectives through the use of direct action rather than through policy reform.--Davide King (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, that was something I noted too when I actually read them, so accusing those who are for neither of white washing when one cannot even check given sources to support one's argument is not very good-faith like, although I assume good faith and believe it was a simple mistake. I did an analysis of all those sources. Please, let me know if I missed something or if I wrote anything wrong.--Davide King (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1.3 & 2.3 PackMecEng's sources are persuasive. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5), per Arms & Hearts, Doug Weller and The Four Deuces' rationale. Just to clarify, in before I get falsely attacked for the fourth time of being an anarchist or antifa apologist, or for the second time of whitewashing (despite in the end being right to add this, at least per My very best wishes), I am not opposed to have militancy in the lead as it is now. I am also not opposed to add the political positions in the main body, perhaps in Ideology or as a subsection titled Political position in which we write something along these lines News sources have variously described antifa as anti-fascist, far-left, leftist, left-wing, militant, militant left-wing and radical left and whatever other political position, or none political position, while at the same time nothing sources such as this saying [as their name indicates], Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and that terms like far-left very rarely appears in serious scholarly appraisals of antifa by credentialed experts and that "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself which is why it would not be used in the lead.

To clarify, that was more of a paraphrasing; I am not advocating us to use literally this wording, just along those lines. The lead should summarises key facts and the only fact that seems to be a given, notwithstanding several IPs arguing that antifa are the real fascists (which seems to be more of an euphemism for authoritarian than for the real thing) without providing any source, is anti-fascist. Finally, I am especially opposed to far-left being in the lead for the reasons I am going to expose below.

It is contradicted by subscribing to a range of left-wing [which is correct or right per above point] ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism.[27][34] A majority of adherents are anarchists, communists and other socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries,[40] although some social democrats and other leftists adhere to the antifa movement.[40] The Anti-Defamation League states that "[m]ost antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks".[22] and Antifa describes a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often [not always] the far left. (the latter is wrongly used to support the far-left claim).

Besides, I agree that "Far-left" is even worse: as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself and that [m]ore than half of these are sourced to Trump himself which was exactly my point for why I boldly removed that in the first place and which is why I believe sources given to support the far-left claim do not actually support it, certainly not being in the lead, much less the very first sentence and even before anti-fascist, which is the only thing we, all who agree with the consensus of fascism being far-right, may agree on.--Davide King (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue I have with that argument is that it is basically saying well a few RS say some people that identify as Antifa are only left not far-left. So even with the examples you list giving something would 2.1, 2.2, or 2.4 be more appropriate than no information at all? that is of course ignoring most modern sources describing the vast majority as far-left. Also if you are not opposed to militancy in the lead why vote to remove it? Wouldn't 1.2 or 1.3 be a better fit for what you are arguing for? PackMecEng (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not get it. I am opposed to militant, whether far-left or left-wing (i.e. a militant, far-left, anti-fascist or a militant, left-wing, anti-fascist), because decontextualised in the lede [is] essentially a hyperbolic empty signifier and fails to reflect the nuanced picture we would ideally portray (as argued by Arms & Hearts). I am not opposed to us writing protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy as it is currently done or discuss it further in the main body as proposed by other users. Many of the sources used to purposely show that antifa is far-left do not actually say why is far-left and seem to have jumped on far-left due the ongoing the protests, of which there is not even agreement on what part did antifa play, if any, rather than on factual basis; and thus academic sources would be far more preferable. Either way, I do not see why we have to say far-left, anti-fascist or left-wing, anti-fascist as the very first sentence. As argued by Doug Weller, it is individuals who have a political position and this is reported in the lead; the only political position of the movement and which all sources actually agree on is anti-fascist. The fact that far-left is clearly contradicted in the main body and that the lead needs to be a summary of it does not seem to concern you; if there are clearly individuals who are not far-left, it makes no sense to use far-left like that and the only alternative that would not contradict the main body would be left-wing as both the far-left and the centre-left are left-wing; this may be further complicated if there is also a decent portion of libertarians, which may not fit on the political spectrum; and mainstream liberals, which may well be more centrist than left-wing as argued by JzG here, so clearly far-left is inadeguate as the very first sentence without any context.--Davide King (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add another option for your version of militancy? Also the lead is for broad strokes, what the majority of Antifa is. Yes there are some that use only left wing, but that does not invalidate that most sources use far-left. The other political positions besides anti-fascist are anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few so we cannot just say anti-fascist and hope the reader understands. Where have libertarians been mentioned as members? Finally with Guy's post you mention, it also starts with Just because we don't say "Antifa are a bunch of radical far-left terrorists" doesn't mean we're trying to pretend they are something they are not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Militancy and militant are two different words and we are specifically discussing militant and whether it should be in the first sentence of the lead, are we not? What you do not seem to realise, or maybe is just my impression for your reply, is that anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few are not antifa's political positions; they are individual antifa activists' political positions. Considering the history of the wider socialist movement, how would you think could they all co-exist, if antifa is really promoting anarchism, communism, and Marxism as you seem to imply (apologies if I misunderstood you)?

The only political position of antifa is anti-fascism, which is why you see socialists of all stripes coming together and agreeing on one thing. Antifa activists' political positions may well be those of anarchism, communism, and Marxism but they are not antifa's political positions; the main thing antifa promotes and engages is anti-fascism. This is supported by the academic sources we use and by the BBC's comment that Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and the weight of sources should not simply be based on quantity but by their quality too. Academic and experts of the movement should be prioritised over news sources. Why all sources listed to support far-left are news? Is there really no academic source supporting far-left?

In this specific and controversial case, I do not think the mention of far-left in those news outlets means much, if they do not actually explain what they mean by it and why; they seem to use far-left the way it is often used, i.e. to refer to something more left than a given party; and yet, every time there is no agreement on what is the party that is compared to (the Democrats? The DSA?). Just because they use far-left in an article that mentions antifa, it does not mean it has enough weight to be used to support the claim; we should look at articles that specifically discuss antifa and its political position. Do we list the Democrats' political position as left-wing just because a certain amount of news outlets, in articles not even discussing the political party and its political position, use the word left-wing as a quick way to get to the point? I have read so many news outlets that have referred to centre-left and centre-right parties as left-wing or right-wing (like the centre does not exist), respectively; those are not useful to describe a party's political position. I believe this also what SPECIFICO was arguing when writing [t]hese labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers which is a pretty good summary of what I meant but which I probably did not explained very well.

Most of those sources you listed talk more about what is going those days with protests, of which antifa may or may not even been involved; and Trump and others' comments. Merely a quick mention of far-left simply is not enough; you would need sources that specifically discuss antifa and its political position, not merely those that mention antifa and use the far-left qualifier which tell us nothing about it as you wish it would. I am sure other users could just find a significant enough number sources that merely mention antifa but use the left-wing qualifier instead. By all means, add sources that specifically discuss antifa (like What is antifa? as is done for What Is Antifa, the Movement Trump Wants to Declare a Terror Group? which is fine, not Trump Lays Blame For Clashes On 'Radical-Left Anarchists', As Trump vows crackdown on 'antifa,' growth of right-wing extremism frustrates Europeans, Barr threatens to bust 'far-left extremist groups' in Floyd unrest, or What we do and don't know about the extremists taking part in riots across the US) and its political position (i.e. the article is only about antifa and its political position, not Floyd protests, Trump's comments, or other) and that use far-left. Finally, I agree that far-left may be appropriate if it were a centrally-managed organization or institution but not for antifa, which is neither.--Davide King (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG did mention [r]eports suggest that it includes libertarians, mainstream liberals, anarchists and more and I do not understand what you meant by reporting that statement.--Davide King (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

All the sources I gave support militant and far-left. I gave almost a dozen of them and could produce more if you would like. So on the one hand we have your personal feeling on what you think Antifa is, which btw is contrary to this very article, and on the other we have tons and tons of RS supporting what I said. I have to say, policy wise, you do not have a convincing argument. Which unfortunately is the case with most of the omit votes, a lot of personal feelings and fairly short on RS or policy backing up those assertions. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, they do not, for all but The New York Times are simply passive mentions in articles that are about antifa's role in protests and Trump and others' comments about antifa in accusing them of turning the protests into violence and labelling them as terrorists. So it has nothing to do with personal feelings; your sources do not seem to actually support your stronger implications.--Davide King (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Omit both - First off, the lead is incorrect to claim antifa "is a predominantly ... an anti-fascist political activist movement in the United State." The RS along side that sentence do not support that verbiage. The RS are merely discussing the anti-fascists in America but do not claim it is a movement "predominately" in the USA. For example, one RS writes, "antifa gained new prominence in the United States after the white supremacist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, in August 2017" but that RS does not claim that Antifa is predominately in USA.

Second, being "anti-fascist" is not left-winged or right-winged. RS in the lead, ADL [14] writes, "though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks."

So, that makes me think there needs to be a subheading for "Antifa Pre-2016 election" and another subheading for "Antifa Post-2016 election." Washington Post writes, "Antifa veterans [pre-2016 election] are wary of newcomers raring for a fight, however. "A lot of people are coming into antifa because of the thrill of violence, and that's not what we're about," said Mike Isaacson, an anarchist PhD student and adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Anti-fascists are community oriented, and we do make the effort to keep everyone as safe as possible." I think that what makes Antifa so difficult to write about is because it is not an official organization that has it's own platform to outline it's ideology, "Interviews with a dozen antifa activists show they come from a variety of backgrounds and are only loosely affiliated." [15] BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Omit both These labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers. Labels such as these might be appropriate for a centrally-managed organization or institution, but Antifa is no such thing, and the use of such labels suggest a level of organization and unified mission that is not documented by the sources. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 & 2.2/2.3 This article is about the loose network Antifa that has certain defining charasteristics. Militancy, and left-wing to far-left membership are among those characteristics (per the sources collected by PackMecEng above). This article is not about general opposition to fascism (anti-fascism) that does not have those characteristics. This network is influenced by the German Antifaschistische Aktion that was established in 1932. The emblem used in this article is a direct copy of the German 1930s Antifa - what the red and the black flags symbolize is obvious. If these defining charasteristics are removed and you're arguing that they're only defined by "being anti-fascist", then this article is meaningless and could just as well be a redirect to anti-fascism. But reliable sources do offer us those charasteristics. --Pudeo (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both There is clearly bias in the way this Rfc is framed. Smith0124 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)— Smith0124 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Peterjack1 (talk • contribs).
• Omit any militancy and left-wing would be fine. "Militancy" implies cohesive organization, which does not apply to something that isn't actually an organization. The general left-leaning politics of various antifa-related groups is undeniable however. ValarianB (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @ValarianB: Militancy is widely used by RS. Also I have yet to see one saying militancy implies cohesive organization? So drew you to those conclusions? PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.2 & 2.5: 1.2 because not all of the tactics are militant; for example data gathering is not. 2.5 because it's not a defining characteristic, and is best discussed in the body where the movement's lean can be put in proper context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5) because too heterogeneous to be so simply characterised. "often described as" terminology (1.2, 2.4) acceptable. Far left (2.3) completey unacceptable as not NPOV and goes against many sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both The lead does a reasonable enough job of summarising antifa and their activities, as well as them being a broad-based movement with people of many different backgrounds including but definitely not limited to far-left. Deliberately ignoring the many references to the contrary to describe antifa as "far-left" in Wikipedia's voice is a proposal unlikely to gain consensus, and it is a waste of time to constantly debate it. FDW777 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omit both use of the terms is so ill-defined that they have become meaningless. They both are used disparagingly in the media, but fail to elucidate. We are doing our readers a disservice by using the term. If it can be said that antifa is in favor of something (doubtful) then just say what that is. If they are opposed to something, other than the equally poorly defined fascism, just say what that is. Are they insurrectionary anarchists, do they support illegalism? Do they, like the Red Army Faction (that we call far-left militant), use bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and bank robberies? Then just say that. Don't lump everything together in a way that explains nothing.Vexations (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.2, 2.2 & 2.4. The sources are included in the article. As per WP:LEDE, It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Alcaios (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.2 and 2.2 this is consistent with their own self identification and actions, perhaps the only definition that matter. Jettparmer (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support for 1.3 and Strong support for 2.3 Per RS. Vox: "militant left-wing movement", WaPo: "far-left 'antifa' movement", Al Jazeera: "Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is a far-left ideological movement", NYT: "antifa, the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists", Guardian: "Antifa is a useful umbrella term that denotes a broad spectrum of groups and individuals of far-left or anarchist tendencies." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• 1.3 and 2.3 per above ~ HAL333 04:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The status quo ante was left-wing militant.

1. Militancy
   1. Omit militant
   2. Often characterized as militant or some variant thereof
   3. Militant, without qualification
2. Political position
   1. Leftist - e.g. Andy Ngo in the WSJ
   2. Left-wing - e.g. Reuters
   3. Far-left - e.g. Bill Barr, NPR, NYT, WaPo, Politico, and CNN.
   4. Often described as far-left - e.g. ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism." [16]

In response to this, given sources also do not seem to support the against people whom they identify as wording; could you please verify this? Because to me it does not seem to support that and indeed it may appear as they are not really engaging fascist, racist, or on the far-right as though antifa attacks anyone who disagree with them. Only the ADL source may be used to support that qualifier wording, when it says what they believe to be authoritarian movements and groups; yet the same source spoke of right-wing extremists being the object of antifa's harassment (the topic of our phrase), not alleged right-wing extremists; and also references several actions by antifa and clearly describe events as being held by right-wing extremists and white supremacists without any qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand your comment correctly, but... Considering most notable events, such as Unite the Right rally, yes, the right-wing guys were undoubtely extremists who did committed the Charlottesville car attack. They did kill someone during the rally, using the classic terrorist tactics of Vehicle-ramming attack. The "counter-protesters" including members of Antifa? Not at all. That was just a demonstration [[17]. That is what I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I was saying that there is no need for us to state against people whom they identify as because, as you noted, [c]onsidering most notable events, such as Unite the Right rally, yes, the right-wing guys were undoubtely extremists and sources did not dispute antifa's identification of them as such, they said they were held by right-wing extremists and white superemacists without any qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. If these sources are considered authoritative for how we use "left"/"militant" labels, we need to drop any scare-quoting wording about them "identifying" their targets as far right. EDitors arguing these sources justify "far left" and "militant" from these specific sources are not being consistent if they insisst on the "identify as" qualifer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes re "single conviction": It's not in our article, but in September 2019, 32-year-old David Campbell pleaded guilty to two counts of felony assault for his role in a 2018 Antifa protest in New York City. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail and is at this writing still incarcerated. I agree that we haven't adequately documented Antifa's physical violence, property damage, and harassment. More work needs to be done. The sources are out there. Editors merely have to incorporate them into the body of our article. NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can also see this. So whatever RS on the subject say. However, do they openly proclaim the revolutionary terror as one of their tactics? If so, that need to be stated, with refs. If no, such cases can be regarded as crimes by individual members of the movement, which need to be included if notable and reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NedFausa, we would need a better source than the New York Post for that.--Davide King (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. You are of course welcome to dispute that source when I use it later today in adding the incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions, and then we can open a new, separate discussion on this talk page and await consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is striking that only unreliable sources (Daily Mail and NYPost) calls this protestor "antifa".[18] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are some previous discussions about it. I hope it is helpful.--Davide King (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, as one could expect, the current text is a result of previous discussions and consensus. If it does not include something, this is probably for a good reason. Hence the lead must summarize the current version of the page. It does not. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

To be sure, past consensus (or lack thereof) is helpful in considering present contributions. However, consensus changes over time, as subsequent events unfold and opinions mature. If no one else does so, I will add the Ngo incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions. We can then open a new, separate discussion and seek fresh consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Is it possible to add None for political position? Or simply Anti-fascist (which could be worded as militant anti-fascist or simply anti-fascist in relation to the militant wording and depending on whether to include it or not)? For instance, one source, despite writing of left-wing militants, also notes However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and we may choose Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism as the statement regarding its political position in the lead. This may be enough and does not imply the whole movement or every single individual is left-wing or far-left. However, this would be more of a compromise in case there is going to be no consensus for other positions; and I do not exclude us using left-wing, far-left, or other positions.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @JzG: It would be useful if you'd respond to this and either add "none" as option 2.5, or explain why you'd rather not do so, before this discussion progresses much further. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Arms & Hearts, added Guy (help!) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be noted that 'far-left' is not primarily Bill Barr's characterization; I also find it in these sources in a two minute google search:

NPR: The president has said that members of the loosely defined far-left group Antifa...

NYT: ...President Trump said on Sunday that the United States would designate antifa, the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, a terrorist organization.

WaPo: The day that President Trump declared he would label the far-left “antifa” movement a domestic terrorist organization last week

Politico: Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups...

CNN: Antifa describes a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, so add them. Guy (help!) 19:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

More than half of these are sourced to Trump himself. And the last one is ambiguous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG and Shinealittlelight, did you guys review these sources? I assume Shine did since they’re quoting parts of the article beyond the headline. But none of these, without the exception of the Politico one, are appropriate. And three of them are WP:PRIMARY. All three excerpts are quoting President Trump. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed them. I do not understand why you say that they are primary sources. These are news reports about Antifa, and they characterize Antifa as "far-left" (or "often [lean toward] the far-left" in CNN) in their own voice. Perhaps you will claim that NPR, NYT, and WaPo mean to attribute this characterization to Trump. But it's not reasonable to read the sources in this way. For one thing, Trump didn't call them "far-left". Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Shinealittlelight and Symmachus Auxiliarus, see my analysis and review below.--Davide King (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Contrary to what Arms & Hearts and Davide King say above, it is not plausible that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, and NPR are all engaged in the same tabloid sensationalism by using the term "far-left" to describe Antifa. These are paradigms of RS, and we should therefore follow their lead. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Except, now that I have actually read them, only The New York Times is good as it is about antifa and the headlines are actually accurate of what they are talking about and their main topic; only The New York Times's main topic is antifa and can be used to support the far-left claim. All the others are literally reporting on the protests and Trump and Barr and others' comments, as their headlines imply; so I find it absurd you even believe those sources, outside The New York Times, can be used to support the far-left claim. Forbes talks of radical left. If this was the best you could find, I am sorry to write I am disappointed.--Davide King (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

According to what policy is a characterization of Antifa RS only if it reflects the content of the headline? I have no idea where that comes from. Headlines are typically not RS, as they are written from a promotional perspective. To repeat: all of these sources are paradigm RS and call Antifa "far-left" in their own voice, as the closer for this RfC can confirm by looking at the sources themselves. Note well again that Trump did not call them "far-left" in his remarks; that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is a strawman and a mockery of what I actually wrote. Do you not realise that the main topic of all but The New York Times are the protests and Trump and others' comment? Yes, that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others but in articles that talks more about protests and report more about Trump and others' comments than they talk of antifa and its political position, with far-left being nothing more than a passive mention. We can just as easily find sources that use left-wing or another qualifier in articles that merely mention antifa. Antifa needs to be the main topic of the article; we cannot simply use an article that mentions antifa in one passage and use far-left (this is for every other qualifier, whether far-left or left-wing).--Davide King (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a few sources that use left-wing rather than far-left. Besides Reuters, The Independent and The Week use left-wing rather than far-left; and only The Week is appropriate because, like The New York Times, the main topic is antifa and actually talks about antifa, what it is and its political positions, while The Independent is exactly like the other sources supposed to support the far-left claims, i.e. they report more on the protests and Trump and others' comments. Yet CBS News does not mention neither, it only talks of antifa as a collection of loosely connected groups that organize against fascism.--Davide King (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. Good to have agreement on that. As for the rest, I don't understand what WP policy you're appealing to. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A similar issue came up in discussions about far right groups. Per extraordinary claims we decided that such claims required academic sources, since news media are reliable for reporting news but their journalists are not necessarily experts in political science with published academic papers. Barry Goldwater for example was routinely referred to as far right or a right-wing extremist in mainstream media, but not in academic writing. That's because he was to the right of the mainstream Republican Party of the time but not in a global spectrum that runs from revolutionary anarchists on the far left to fascists on the far right. The important thing is that these terms only have meaning when context is understood. Otherwise they confuse readers. TFD (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we do not agree. You wrote [t]hese are news reports about Antifa but they are not; they are only marginally about antifa and far-left is nothing but a passive mention. They are news report about what is happening right now with the protests and the comments of Trump and others about antifa and the terrorists label. Seriously, compare The New York Times to all others. There are only three paragraphs about the current events and Trump, then all the other paragraphs are about antifa and this is a source that can actually be used to support the far-left claim because it is specifically about antifa and what it is, not a marginal or passive mention in reports that are more concerned about the protests and other people comments. If we ought to put those qualifier, I agree with The Four Deuces that they should be academic, not any source found on Google after typing "antifa" "far-left" because I am sorry but that is what you seem to have done; you have not actually read the sources, you simply saw they mentioned far-left and jumped on it. If you have actually read them all, I do not see how you cannot see that all but The New York Times are spending much more paragraphs reporting on what is happening than antifa and what it is as outlined by The New York Times. Finally, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analysing is that it is mainly American news outlets that use far-left while internationally either left-wing is used (The Independent and The Week) or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on far-left merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use far-left because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--Davide King (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, unless you want to take back what you said before, we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. The rest of what you say here doesn't have any clear relationship to WP policy as far as I can tell. I can't imagine that these sources, when they all agree on Antifa being far-left, are not reliable for that characterization. We need to follow RS here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean unless [I] want to take back what [I] said before? You did not reply back to my main poiint which is that those linked articles, besides The New York Times, are only marginally about antifa and a passive far-left mention is not enough to support us writing Antifa is far-left as the very first sentence. In the main body? Sure. If I was reverted for this because antifa was not the main topic, then I do not see how we can support Antifa is far-left as our very first sentence when all but The New York Times report more on the protests and comments of others than about antifa or what it is. We would need What is antifa articles that specifically say far-left rather than any article in reliable news that may give only a passive mention and talk more about something else than antifa. Even then, I do not see why we should use news sources for this claim in the lead rather than academics or experts like Bray who do not say far-left (again, in the main body where we can give the appropriate context? Sure. As the very first phrase, when all but one given sources talk more about the protests? No). Nor any of those who support a mention in the lead have replied to objections such as SPECIFICO and others raised. Here, The New York Times makes no mention of far-left and only call protesters left-wing which support the argument that antifa is anti-fascist and that it is its activists that have political positions, ranging from the left to the far-left (majority) to the centre-left and other (minority). The BBC and CBS do not use far-left, only anti-fascist; and the BBC talks of its members being left-wing.--Davide King (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I replied to your point. We agree that Antifa has been called "far-left" in a broad range of central RS. You have then made an argument about "passive mentions" that does not refer to any WP policy. I am unmoved by this, and I encourage you to relate what you have to say to WP policy in the future. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Davide King do you mean "passing mention"? If so, Shinealittlelight the WP policy here is WP:DUE. Jusst because an RS says something doesn't mean it should be in our article. If the weight of RS coverage of antifa use this language, then it would be appropriate to include; if it is passing mentions in RS coverage of other topics, then it has no place. Even the examples you cite urge caution because they add caveats: "lean toward the left", "loosely defined far-left", etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bobfrombrockley, yes, that was exactly what I meant; thanks! I do not think that passing mentions of far-left in articles that cover more the protests or other things should be used in support of Antifa is a far-left, for the articles should be explicitly about antifa and its political positions like The New York Times. Also, please do not act like there is not a significative amount of sources that do not use far-left or any qualifier; and even when they do add a qualifier, there are caveats as pointed out by Bobfrombrockley. Again, I pointed out an article by the same New York Times and others that do not use far-left or other explicit qualifiers, something which you have yet to address. Therefore, your claim that Antifa has been called "far-left" in a broad range of central RS is misleading, for of the sources you gave, all but The New York Times are passing mentions; and I believe that since you keep mentioning Wikipedia policies, I guess WP:DUE applies. Just because far-left has been used as passing mentions in articles that report more on the protests, it does not mean they are due for support Antifa is a far-left as the very first phrase; nor does this negate all the significant other sources that either do not use it or use another qualifier, which is why the only qualifier we should use and which is supported by all sources is anti-fascist.--Davide King (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks. Well, in that case, my reply is: the claim that Antifa is "far-left" is not a minority viewpoint, as it is a view that has been published by central, prominent RS, including NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others. The policy WP:DUE is meant to keep us from over-emphasizing minority viewpoints, so it does not apply here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment before your reply and there was edit conflict, but I do not think this answer the question for why we should use articles that have far-left as a passing mention (it is usually just mentioned once) and that report more about the ongoing protests, Trump, Barr and others' comments, labelling antifa a terrorist organisation and so on.--Davide King (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand your position and there's no need to keep repeating yourself. You think that although this term "far left" was used by NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others in their own voices, and therefore it passed all of their professional editorial and fact checking processes, nevertheless it's a minority view that is UNDUE in the lead of our article, and your evidence for this is that these are "passing mentions". I find this implasuible. These central and prominent news outlets do not all assert something in their own voice that is a minority view, "passingly" or otherwise. I have nothing else to say to you on this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you do not. For once, I never claimed or wrote that it is a minority view. Please, show me articles from those that are specifically about antifa (they are usually titled What is antifa or something like that). For one, it has already been noted that the CNN wording is ambiguous. Finally, reply to this for why most of given sources are ambiguous and can be used in the main body (some of which I already included) but not support a far-left claim (not clearly verified by the weight of sources or not well-defined) in the lead sentence, even before anti-fascist, much less the very first sentence.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

For example, here Politico says Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups that espouse anarchist views and argue that the social change they seek requires radical measures such as violence and this does not support Antifa is a far-left but it may support Antifa is an anti-fascist movement in the United States comprising a diverse array of far-left autonomous groups which is not exactly the same thing.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You referred to WP:DUE which relates to over-emphasis of minority viewpoints (I recommend that you have a look at it). That's why I interpreted you that way. If that's not the policy you want to appeal to, then you're right, I don't understand how your argument relates to WP policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is very simple actually. We cannot use articles that give a passing mention for far-left; if we want to use those sources to describe antifa's political position, we need the articles to be about antifa's political position (again, they are usually titled What is antifa; we need to find them and compare them), not any article that have a passing mention of antifa as far-left. I gave you the example of Politico, whose wording does not support the claim of antifa being far-left, just that its groups are, which is a different thing.--Davide King (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Here, Politico is like The New York Times which has one article that say far-left and another which just say anti-fascist, so which is which? There is not even agreement between the same source on whether antifa is far-left or not, which is one more reason we should simply say anti-fascist.--Davide King (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh, what WP policy are you appealing to again? Lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not appealing to any Wikipedia policy in particular (I guess due, original research and synthesis may suffice because the sources do not support your implications and talk more about protests than antifa), I just think they do not support your implications and are contradicted by other articles from the same reliable sources. You did not reply to any objection raised by me and other users. Why should we use those sources when it is just an article passive mentioning far-left when of the same news outlet (The New York Times and Politico in this case) I just found two articles that support simply anti-fascist? I am tired of this discussion as you do not reply to any objections and just keep saying RS, even when I have shown you how they contradict each other or do not support your proposed implications. I hope Bobfrombrockley can continue this discussion because he may explain my points more clearly since you keep asking questions without actually responding to any objections that have been raised by those who support omitting both. I think I have been pretty clear.--Davide King (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not appealing to any Wikipedia policy in particular. Thanks for clarifying that. If there are sources that characterize Antifa in additional ways to 'far-left' then we should include those characterizations as well. The things you're pointing at (e.g. their being called 'antifascist' in some sources) do not contradict their characterization as far-left. According to sources, they're far-left and antifascist. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How the same news outlets simply using anti-fascist does not contradict far-left? They either are far-left or they are not. If they are overwhelmingly far-left as you seem to imply and suggest, why two different articles from The New York Times and Politico only say anti-fascist and make no mention of far-left? Anti-fascist does not imply far-left, I am sure on this we can agree on. Also it is according to some sources that they are far-left and anti-fascist; according to others, they are left-wing and anti-fascist; according to other still, they are militant left-wing anti-fascist; yet according to some more, they are militant anti-fascist. Notice how the only thing in common is anti-fascist?--Davide King (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Lots of reliable sources call them all these things: left wing, far left, militant, and anti-fascist. So sources say Antifa is all of these things. The most specific description with lots of reliable sourcing is far left, anti-fascist, and militant. Should we include all three of these descriptions? Well, the current RfC only asks about 'far left' and 'militant'. But yeah, I think we should include all three, based on the massive amount of sourcing for each description. This description is not undue given the sources, and it isn't contradictory. This isn't hard. Let's stop, ok? Nobody is going to read all this, and we're not going to agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There may be reliable sources that call them all these things but not all at once, so it is indeed original research and synthesis, if you want a policy guideline. The only agreement between sources is anti-fascist and left-wing is not the same as far-left so while left-wing includes the far-left, it also includes the centre-left, so all sources that simply say left-wing should not be considered as supporting far-left; that is indeed original research. But I agree, let us agree to disagree.--Davide King (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not original research or synthesis. When RS1 says A, and RS2 says B, it is not synthesis or OR for us to say: both A and B. I am not taking sources that say "left wing" as support for "far left". I'm only taking (lots) of sources that say "far left" as support for "far left". And sources that say "left wing" do not contradict the sources that say "far left", obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that is exactly what it is because in some ways left-wing does actually contradict far-left which is not the same thing. We cannot say that Antifa is [...] far-left militant anti-fascist unless sources call it exactly like that, but that is not what they do. Some simply say far-left, others say left-wing, others still use left-wing militant, others simply say anti-fascist and others more say militant anti-fascist so the sources which do not use far-left and militant contradict those who do and it is indeed some form of original research and synthesis for us to write Antifa is [...] far-left militant anti-fascist when no source actually use this wording at once and contradict each other. You have yet to answer for why news outlets that use far-left in one article do not use it in another. In other words, there is no consensus among them, nor is there this overwhelmingly consensus in favour of far-left; the only consensus is anti-fascist which all use.--Davide King (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't be far left without being left wing. So obviously they don't contradict. Some reports are more specific than others. This is all obvious. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It does contradict that because, as noted by other users, far-left usually implies government overthrow and this is not what antifa is about. Left-wing does not imply far-left in this sense, hence it is a contradiction; left-wing may also imply centre-left or simply a moderate left that is to the left of the centre-left. So no, sources that use left-wing rather than far-left do indeed contradict the far-left claim, just like those who do not use militant or simply say anti-fascist contradict those who do and hence it is not as clear or simple as you imply. Just because far-left is still left-wing (the same could be argued for centre-left), it does not mean they are the same thing or even has to imply the same thing. The bottom line is news sources contradict each other.--Davide King (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I never said that left wing implies far left. Left wing is a spectrum that includes far left. Some sources just call Antifa left wing. Others further specify that they are far left. No contradiction here, just additional specificity. Similarly, if I say that something is an animal, and you further say it is a horse, we have not contradicted each other. And it would of course be silly to reply that "horse" and "animal" contradict each other, or to infer this from the fact that some animals are not horses. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a strawman because that is obviously silly as you noted and that is not what I was implying. Do you agree that if this was a political party, the political position would be Left-wing to far-left? Or would you push for just Far-left? No, it is not just additional specificity in my opinion; those who simply say left-wing does not mean far-left, so it does contradict the far-left claim, not that the movement is still left-wing, whether far-left or left-wing, did I explain it better this time? Anyway, as it was already noted, some of those sources are ambiguous; it is not clear, for example, whether the CNN wording implies far-left or simply left-wing. I still believe anti-fascist is the only given fact we should say as the first thing; note how militancy and left-wing are already in the lead; and me and other users added more to Ideology, including mentioning the far-left claim. As was noted by one user, the BLM has also been labelled far-left; I do not think we should add that to the lead either, certainly not as the very first thing. So unless you give me a clear example on how far-left should be used in the lead without being a hyperbolic empty signifier, if it has to read Antifa is far-left as the very first thing, even before anti-fascist, then there cannot be any solution or compromise and we will have to continue to agree to disagree.--Davide King (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you've said here, which seems to me incoherent. But I am no longer interested in discussing the matter with you. Best wishes. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I just say that the whole idea of assigning a value to an attribute of a diffuse, amorphous set of people is overly simplistic. We shouldn't be debating whether they get a 7 or a 10 on the scale of leftism. None of extreme-left, far-left or left-wing are right. They're all wrong. I doesn't really matter how many mentions in more-or-less reliable media we can count. It doesn't tell our readers anything other than: "Oh, that must be BAD", they're at the same measure on the scale as actual murderers. Stop doing that. Vexations (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you have an argument with CNN, NYT, WaPo, and various other RS to me. Sorry you don't like what they've published. I sympathize. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I don't. I have an issue with editors who are trying to narrowly focus on the wrong problem. If we say that we must decide which grade of leftism we assign antifa, and focus exclusively on all the sources that specifically mention those terms, you exclude, by the design of your method, all the sources that say they are diffuse, amorphous, not easily classified. See what you're doing there? Vexations (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to report what RS say. If you have sources that say what you suggest, provide them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I'm trying to show you that you are using a rhetorical device that is unfit for a discussion. You've created a dilemma that works something like this:

1) Everyone has a political position

2) That position is on a scale from left to right

3) antifa has is somewhere on a scale from left to right

And then it looks like all we need to do is count mentions in RS to determine how far to the left on the scale antifa sits.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that is completely forgoes any analysis. All it does is stick a label on a subject without explanation. That's a disservice to our readers. I'm sure that, after all you've done here, you've seen sources that say that antifa is an made up a folks with a variety of viewpoints. I don't have to prove to you that such sources exist. We've discussed them before. I'm here to argue that our readers deserve better than the reductionist labeling that you propose. Vexations (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I never made any such absurd argument. I and PackMecEng provided a large number of RS for far-left, and supported that content based on those sources. So look, you're right, you don't have to participate at all, so you certainly don't have to provide sources for what you say. It's just that this is how we determine content. The rest is hogwash not relevant or helpful in any way. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, hogwash, huh? That's not a very nice thing to say. You can do better. It's fine to summarize what RSes have to say about a subject, but it is misleading and dishonest to stage a discussion in such a way that the outcome has been predetermined between a binary choice, without acknowledging that, as you well know, there is another, well-documented point of view that neither is true. That view is that it is not possible to ascribe a political position to a movement that defines itself negatively; they're anti-fascists. You've read those sources, so I don't need to list them again. It's true that RSes label antifa as *-left. I'd be willing to accept that we can use sources that provide something more than mere labeling. Any source that actually explains how, or analyses why, they consider antifa *-left will do. Sources that don't do that should be dismissed. Vexations (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I only meant by 'hogwash' that arguments having nothing to do with sources aren't relevant or helpful in any way; I will alter the remark. I'm not aware of sources in favor of your view that they are not left-wing or that they are not far-left. Feel free not to provide sources if you don't want to. Participation is not required. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no moral judgment in stating that a movement is far-left, far-right, communist, anarchist, libertarian, fascist or whatever. Those are just political positions or ideologies mentioned by reliable sources when describing a movement, party or figure. Alcaios (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I found a survey of Antifa. I'm starting a list and invite others to add to it. It does have some concerns about antifa that are related to, yet clearly different from, the disputed passages in the lead. I'm interested in seeing other surveys prior to forming an opinion. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Overview of Antifa by the Anti-Defamation League [19].

In light of my belief that the sources used to support the far-left do not actually support that or cannot be used because they report more on protests and other people comments, including the terrorists label, than they talk about antifa and what it is (as is done in The New York Times and a few others which are the only sources that are appropriate, so certainly ot the supposed dozens of sources that merely passive mention far-left), let us make an actual analyses of those supposed sources, shall we? When I wrote that all but The New York Times are simply passive mentions in articles that are about antifa's role in protests and Trump and others' comments about antifa in accusing them of turning the protests into violence and labelling them as terrorists I was referring only about the sources that appear here. Let me analyse all those given sources here.

1. The New York Times. It is fine because the passive mention is about the protests and Trump while all the other paragraphs are about antifa and what it is.
2. Fact Check. The main topic is the possible designation of antifa as terrorists and I had great difficulty in find far-left which is only mentioned once! Something closer to that only appears when it is reporting Barr's comment that it appears the violence is planned, organized and driven by anarchic and left-extremist groups, far-left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics (then it is not even antifa, if they are only using Antifa-like tactics; it does not say it was planned, organized and driven by [Antifa]) and right after this he is reported as saying the truth is nobody really knows while the other mention is Trump spouting antifa and other radical left-wing groups and the Radical Left which is not even saying it was antifa; Trump is saying the violence is caused by the Radical Left and other radical left-wing groups; and he merely mentions antifa alongside them. Yet the very first sentence actually reads As some nationwide protests have turned violent, President Donald Trump pointed to the anti-fascist movement antifa so is it simply an anti-fascist movement antifa or an umbrella term for far-left militant anti-fascism groups? By the way, we do not use the umbrella term terminology, so if we are to use to support this source for the far-left claim, then we would also have to use umbrella term, otherwise it is original research or synthesis and cherry picking if we use it for the far-left claim but not for the other which contradicts the current wording (there was even a discussion about it).
3. The Washington Post. Again, the main topic is not really antifa and again far-left is another passive mention (I could find only one far-left mention), without explaining what it means and with no What is antifa explanation as is done for The New York Times.
4. USA Today. Again, the main topic is not really antifa but rather the Portland protests. In other words, this is a source that by all means we can use to report for the Portland protests; we cannot use it for the far-left claim in the lead; and here is the BBC using left-wing and I am sure I could find other sources on the Portland protests that are ambiguous about the political position or do not use far-left.
5. Los Angeles Times. Exactly the same thing as for USA Today.
6. The Washington Post. Same thing for The New York Times. This is actually about What is antifa and it is fine. Academic sources would still be preferable and this may not be enough. It also quotes Bray at large, yet as far as I am aware Bray does not use far-left.
7. Politico. And we go back to the main topic being the protests and Barr's comments rather than What is antifa. It is also not sure whether Politico believes they are far-left or if it is merely reporting how Barr described them (again, far-left is a passive mention and is not something discussing at large). Either way, the main topic is something else rather than What is antifa which is a single passive mention (Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups that espouse anarchist views and argue that the social change they seek requires radical measures such as violence).
8. The Washinton Post. Ditto, the main topic is Trump's designation of antifa as a terrorist organization, not What is antifa; and far-left is not even mentioned! So I was right when above I wrote that Bray does not actually say far-left. This can actually be used to support the claim that [the] right-wing [has] attempt[ed] to blame everything on antifa and it is actually written by the expert Bray. (I could find no single mention of far-left, other than quoting Barr's comments)
9. ABC News. Finally another source that is actually about What is antifa. Yet, it reads [w]hile antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism which we and experts describe as left-wing ideologies so I do not see how this can be used to support the far-left label. Again, it quotes Bray, who does not actually say far-left. (see reported quote)
10. CNN. This is fine, but it actually says The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often [not always] the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform so how does this brief mention support the far-left claim? It seems to be that it is described as often [not always] [leaning toward] the far left merely because [it] do[es] not conform with the Democratic Party platform; in other words, it is far-left (the source does not actually say this) merely because it is to the left of the Democratic Party, apparently assuming that the Democratic Party is left-wing rather than big tent centrist.
11. Haaretz. It is fine as it is about What is antifa, but I could not even found a far-left mention; it seems to support the militant claim but it may as well used to support the current wording of digital activism and miltancy when it says In this context, antifa activists view their actions as the only means of defense against a demonstrable threat from fascist activists. Militancy becomes a move designed to match the violence of far-right activists with a counter-veiling force. I noted after Charlottesville the danger of drawing an equivalency between the violence of the far-right and militancy of antifa activists, and it rings true today. (no mention of far-left)
12. PBS. It is about What is antifa but the same argument I made for Fact Check applies here as it uses umbrella term so we cannot use this to support far-left without also using umbrella term, otherwise it is original research or synthesis which is what I was reverted for here.

In other words, all those sources may well be used to report on what is happening; they cannot be used to support the claim that antifa is far-left, certainly not as the very first word in the lead after Antifa is. Finally, as I wrote above in Discussion, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analising is that it is mainly American news outlets that use far-left while internationally either left-wing is used (The Independent and The Week) or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on far-left merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use far-left because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--Davide King (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice list. WP:NEWSORG reminds us however that Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. I have checked the authors. Except Mark Bray, none of them is a scholar. The L.A. Times article does not provide an author (it's been copied from the Associated Press). In my viex, those articles should be used for factual events, not scholarly analysis. What do you think? Alcaios (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios, thanks for your comment. I think that we should use scholars on whether antifa is far-left, left-wing, or whatever. As noted above, most of those sources are passing mentions and in quite a few cases antifa is not even the main topic as much more paragraphs are used to report on the protests and Trump and others' comments. You did provide some scholarly sources below, so I think we should discuss them there. I did note the majority are more comparative works with the alt-right, at least that is what the abstract is saying. I still believe those qualifier should be better addressed in the main body and that the lead mentioning protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy and that Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold [...] a range of left-wing ideologies is fine.--Davide King (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I have provided instances of scholars describing the movement as far-left while admitting at the same time that other scholars use the denomination "left-wing". Note that I'm not trying to push a particular point of view. As I have said elsewhere on this talk page, I'm only arguing that both denominations should be mentioned in the article. Alcaios (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios, I absolutely support mentioning that in the article and I hope we can give more context, for example why those denominations are used, etc. I simply believe the current lead is fine and already does mention militancy and left-wing denominations.--Davide King (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Thanks for your feedback. I have just added quotes within the references to provide more context. Alcaios (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo incident and Tacoma detention centre attack

@NedFausa: See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 7#I decided to remove the whole Portland section and move it here, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 13#Andy Ngo, Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 14#Ngo Attack is Due. What's changed since those previous discussions resulted in no consensus to mention this incident in the article? And, separately, see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 9#Willem Van Spronsen and Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Willem van Spronsen attack on ICE detention center; same question applies. (Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 10#DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS covers both.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: You've yet to respond to to this question as it pertains to the Tacoma incident. Feel free to create a new section to do so if you prefer. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the point? I can't keep up with your determined deletions of reliably sourced content, and other editors have shown they couldn't care less. I leave it to you. I'll continue adding, you'll continue deleting. That's the way Wikipedia works. NedFausa (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"mostly non-violent"

@Beyond My Ken: You recently added Antifa is a diverse and mostly non-violent left-wing movement. You appeal to this WaPo article as a source. I assume the key line in this source is the part that says: The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. I find this line from the source hard to understand. I'm not sure what Bray means by "organizing" here. I'm not sure what "violent organizing" would even be--nothing I think of as political violence is felicitously described as "organizing". So to me there's a real question about the quality of this source. But if we are going to depend on it, I propose that the article text hew more closely to Bray's actual language: it should not say that the antifa movement is non-violent, but that anti-fascist organizing is mostly nonviolent. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The sense of the comment is quite clear unless one is determined to analyze it to death. I oppose your change as nonsensical. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

So you oppose using the exact language from the article? Why do you prefer the current wording? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I oppose copying verbatim from the article, as should any Wikipedia editor, but I especially oppose reading that one sentence out of context when the very next sentence makes it abundantly clear what is meant: "But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

In toto:

The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

My proposal was just to use the term 'anti-fascist organizing'. That seems to bring it closer to the source, since that's what the source says. I don't see why you would reject that term, since it's the term in the source.

I don't agree that the next sentence makes his meaning clear. In fact, it's terribly written. The word 'but' at the beginning leads the reader to expect a reference to "violent organizing" (whatever that is), but then we're told that antifascists (not "the antifa movement" or "antifa") distinguish themselves by defending themselves and by doing something he calls "preemptively shutting down fascist organizing efforts". I guess the latter is a euphamism for violence? Not sure. It's not clear. But it's important for us to reflect the source accurately when addressing something so sensitive as the nature and extent of violent activity. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of the writing, the meaning is still clear. It take a concerted effort not to understand it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

....willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down... That can include violence, but more generally the forms of militant opposition that we have seen, for instance, on US campuses to prevent far-right speakers from attending conferences (blocking the access to a campus is not violent per se). Also the next sentence makes it quite clear that the use of violence by antifa is controversial. Alcaios (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest deleting the “mostly” phrase trying to scale how much or how often they are “non-violent” as not quantifiable and besides, it is just not the point. The antifa in United States are characterized by the willingness to *be* militant at all - seeking confrontations such as coming to Unite the Right prepared with shields and clubs to do fighting, and doing small acts of arson. This is slightly followed by dressing in black and concealing their faces, disrupting reporters taking pictures. There are many other groups that send flyers and do marches and verbally confront... and then there’s antifa. The notable distinction for antifa is the willingness and desire towards violence, not the relative frequency of how often there is physical confrontations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent protests and George Floyd

"Police point finger at gangs and local groups for riot damages, contradicting Trump's claims" - just an example, "Shapiro, the Pennsylvania attorney general, says his office is focused on the criminals, whose activities take attention away from a legitimate cause. "The people who are peacefully protesting are out there for a righteous cause," he said. "We definitely need to reform our criminal justice system." In Philadelphia, police have arrested nearly 900 people in connection with a variety of riot-related crimes, from attacking police to looting. Opportunistic local people, not outside political groups, account for 80% of the arrests there and in Pittsburgh, he said."

Reuters: "Little sign of antifa in U.S. prosecutions of protest violence" "Reuters examination of federal court records found that the word "antifa" does not appear in any documents related to the charges so far. In most cases, prosecutors describe disorganized acts of violence by people who have few obvious connections to organized groups." One of the examples given is the guy arrested in Pittsburgh.

Fox News removes manipulated images from coverage of Seattle protests "Seattle has become a particular fixation for the president, who vowed to crack down on the city following a concerted attempt this week by some of the internet’s most prominent right-wing personalities to blame antifa for the upheaval there. Their claims were contradicted by local law enforcement. “We have no evidence that antifa are in any way involved in the ongoing protests,” said Patrick Michaud, a Seattle police spokesman."

Scant evidence of antifa shows how sweeping the protests for racial justice have become

"The purported peril of antifa rests on what the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab characterized this week as a “disinformation campaign, in which far-right activists have spread fears of antifa ‘terrorism’ by way of largely spurious, decontextualized or provably false claims.

"From Evansville, Ind., to Snohomish, Wash., rumors and disinformation about the impending antifa push into small-town America — in some cases warning of busloads of outsiders ready to storm tranquil communities — have not just duped unsuspecting residents, but forced local law enforcement to mobilize in response."

"Keith Rogers, the chief of police in Snohomish, a city of 10,000 residents near Seattle, was reassigned this week over his handling of an armed counterprotest fueled by false online warnings about antifa. He initiated an “emergency response operation” involving the fire department, county sheriff’s office, the mayor and the city administrator, as he told a recent meeting of the city council. “The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security formally classifies antifa as a violent domestic terrorist group,” he falsely told the body."

[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/klamath-falls-oregon-victory-declared-over-antifa-which-never-showed-n1226681 200 protestors were met with armed men. "The rumors are unfounded. But that hasn't stopped people in some communities, like Klamath Falls, from preparing for the worst. Towns from Washington state to Indiana have seen armed groups begin patrolling the streets after receiving warnings about an antifa invasion, often spurred by social media or passed along from friends."

I know we have some of this, but just adding it. Obviously there's a lot more in the linked articles. I've just removed a very pov statement by a Pittsburgh police chief stuck in the section about police response, which needs overhauling. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to give this some historical context, when Hitler had the SA step up its street fighting against the Communist Red Front-Fighters' League in the years leading up to the Nazi "seizure of power", the purpose was to create a sense of chaos and anarchy among the German people, to which the Nazis could claim to be helping to suppress the "source" of the unrest, the Communists. These moves by American far-right groups to foment false-flag violence under cover of the George Floyd protests is right out of the same playbook, and Trump and Barr have been aiding them in it, whether as dupes or not is still unclear. This is truly a Santayana moment: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Americans have never been too keen on knowing history or learning its lessons (cf. Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk...") and rather pride themselves on living in the moment and breaking historical conventions (which is to be expected, as the first democratic republic in the modern world), the result of which is a profound naivete about repeated behavior. Like the sucker at the carnival, they fall for the same scam over and over again, no matter how often they're warned. Our memories are short, and our credulity apparently unlimited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone seriously doubt that antifa exists in Seattle and such folks are participating? Not controlling or typical of antifa typical modus but just present. And seriously, this was seeming rational but then... mentions of Hitler just sound bonkers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Slight rewording would bring the article into the realm of neutral POV

The last part of first paragraph it reads: "...sometimes involving property damage, physical violence and harassment, against fascists, racists and those on the far-right."

To be neutral this should read: "...against people perceived to be fascists... etc, etc"

To state that the victims are actual: "fascists, racists and those on the far-right" is implying that that is matter of fact. There is no acceptable academic reason to say that the victims are indeed worthy of those labels under all circumstances. There is no ability to prove that.--Hypernator (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 16#"against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right". FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see that now thank you. Can you say why that was archived? Is it simply because the pages are getting so long they need to be sectioned off? Seems like this is a hot topic!--Hypernator (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that archived pages cannot be edited. I will reiterate that from an academic point of view it should be reworded as I stated because the victims cannot be 100% confirmed as having the labels given. Also, it is defined as a movement and not technically a group. This would therefore imply that not all members can be held accountable. I find it odd that it did originally read in a correct academic manner and has now been made POV.--Hypernator (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please note that we are not an academic encyclopedia, we are a popular encyclopedia which uses academic sources along with other, non-academic ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You often mention that Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia. I'm curious to know what you mean by that. Apart from the fact that we also use reliable non-academic sources, what does "popular" mean in this context? Alcaios (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"Popular" means that it should be able to be read easily by a wide variety of people with different intellectual abilities and educational backgrounds. It should not be reduced to baby talk on the one hand, but it should also not require a doctorate to understand either. Sure, there are certain subjects -- I'm thinking of some of the more esoteric subjects in mathematics and physics -- which are so technical that its very difficult to write about them for a popular audience, but that doesn;t mean that we shouldn't do our absolute best to make those subjects understandable to the reader who really wants to know and is willing to work at it a little. Outside of those topics, there is very little that can't be written about in standard English (not Simple English) without excessive use of academic jargon. We are here to serve our readers and our readers are a very broad cross-section of people. An academic work is aimed to the specialist, and can use the language that the specialist understands, but a popular work like ours needs to take pains to be clear and not make things unnecessarily difficult for the reader.

And, just to be clear myself, we do not "also" use non-academic sources, we use both popular and academic sources, and the former should not be avoided in favor of the latter. A reliable source is a reliable source, and there are downsides and problems with both popular sources and academic sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you are implying that people are trying to make Wikipedia inaccurate and full of POV. I do believe that you are not actually referring to the objective of Wikipedia though. The content of this Website should fall in line with academic principles if it is to be taken seriously. This means it should be accurate. If something is not academically accurate then it should not be here.--Hypernator (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

We are already taken seriously. I sometimes refer to Wikipedia as "semi-academic", if that makes you happier, but it's definitely not an academic project, nor should it be. If it was, it wouldn't be one of the most referenced websites on the Internet. People come to it primarily because they can get accurate, unbiased information quickly, and we shouldn't be putting up any barriers to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You are detracting from the original discussion. Indeed Wikipedia is being referenced very often by dubious sites because of its dubious POV (no doubt often because the person citing it is the very person who produced that POV). The article should be accurate according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. I have pointed out how that can be achieved from an educated perspective. Indeed Wikipedia is universally panned by universities due to the very nature of its inability to follow its own rules and guidelines. It is specifically stated at universities that you will be penalized if you cite Wikipedia. Take it or leave it. The article is inaccurate and POV at the moment.--Hypernator (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess that explains the many universities who run projects having their students edit Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic work (although I've seen academic books use it), but that is at least in part because our articles can be changed at any time. But they can be a great source of references for students. And with all due respect, learning what NPOV means takes time. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I have to some extend used Wikipedia, but with great prejudice and usually only as an initial aid to gather some info. I still feel this is detracting from my original section comment. I am presenting a justifiable reason to ensure that we must indicate that there is not 100% certainty that Antifa only target those with those aforementioned labels (fascists, racists, etc). People make mistakes and not only that, it would purely be up to the individuals associated with Antifa to define for themselves what is, or is not, someone considered, for example: "...fascists, racists and those on the far-right." It has even been stated that it is not so much a group, but rather a movement. That, even more so, indicates that the combatants involved are not under scrutiny as to who (or whom) they deem as those befitting those labels. This is a serious issue, and I would appreciate if people carefully examine what I am saying here to truly realize the significance of this edit request.--Hypernator (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hypernator, I think you are a little behind the times. While universities and college dis once almost universlly forbid the use of Wikipedia as a source, that's been loosening up lately. Not that that's necessarily a good thing: we ourselves do not allow Wikopedia to be used as a source in our own articles. (See WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source) But the real value of Wikipedia to the student are the references that we provide, which they can use to expand their research.

What "dubious sites" are you referring to which reference Wikipedia, and what "dubious PoV" are they citing? If they're citing material which is truly biased or PoV, we should know about it so it can be fixed. Would you care to elaborate?

As for your suggestion, you seem convinced that it's in some way academically required, but the WP:consensus of editors who discussed the issue don't agree with you that it should be in our article -- and consensus is, indeed, part of Wikipedia's core principles. Of course WP:Consensus can change, so if you stick around, you can join in the discussion and try to convince others. In the meantime, your insistence that unless the article is changed to exactly what you want it must be PoV is unconvincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel I need to keep my comments regarding this as brief as possible now because it is detracting from the original section topic. It is becoming an extended discussion that is leading away from the section topic. It is filling up quickly so I would rather try to keep it focused if possible (no disrespect intended).--Hypernator (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there's anything else to discuss. Your proposal has already been considered just days ago and rejected by consensus. That's pretty much it for now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the initial proposal actually has some merit. I don't think it should be controversial to add something along the lines of "those they consider/identify as" as a qualifier to "fascists, racists and those on the far right", as it does seem to read as Wikipedia labeling, in its own voice, anyone targeted or affected by them as such. I mean, there is a huge debate on whether Antifa should be described as far-left, despite that being a common label in RS, since there might be some members who aren't, but we are totally ok with labeling every person ever targeted by Antifa as "fascists, racists and those on the far right"? If we wanted to apply one of those labels to someone, per BLP we would need very strong support from RS. But with our current wording, we are labeling in Wikipedia's voice anyone they target with those labels, and thus treating Antifa as an RS. Taking a few pulls from the "Activities" section, that means Wikipedia is currently saying that all the businesses damaged in the 2017 Berkeley protests (some banks, a Target, Starbucks, etc.) are all ""fascists, racists and those on the far right". Same with the ICE agents doxxed in 2018. Same with any police they clash with. I mean, we don't even use SPLC as an unattributed source to label people or ideologies as "racist", and if Antifa were a source it would certainly be less reliable than the SPLC. I think that there should be serious consideration given to adding a qualifier. It wouldn't prevent us from accurately labeling people who actually are "fascists, racists and those on the far right" when they are involved in incidents, but it would prevent us from labeling anyone mistakenly or unintentionally targeted or affected, and sidestep a ton of potential BLP issues. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson are considered fascists by part of the antifa movement, hence the various speech shutdowns. Alcaios (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really the kind of people I'm talking about, as there's a good argument to be made that Ben Shapiro is indeed "far-right". I'm not really talking about people specifically targeted by antifa campaigns, like Milo Yiannopoulos and such, in regards to whom the statement is largely correct. I'm opposed to the blanket manner in which it is worded, which implies that every instance of "property damage, physical violence and harassment" was, without fail, directed against "fascists, racists and those on the far right". It implies that there is never collateral damage done to the property, or persons, of people who are not "fascists, racists and those on the far right". AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I was not really making a point about their political position, those were just the two first examples that came to my mind. Antifa aren’t going to read the Oxford Handbook of Fascism to determine who is a fascist or not if you see what I mean. If someone comes to be considered fascist or racist by enough people within the antifa movement, their will face repercussions whether they are fascist, racist, far-right or not. That's the danger of an extrajudicial process and mob mentality. This is in part due to the fact that overtly racist speech is legally tolerated in America. You could defend slavery in the antebellum South or deny that the Holocaust happened without facing legal repercussion, so it's not surprising that people will want racists to face justice outside of court (you cannot glorify or deny the existence of a crime against humanity in most of Europe). That deadlock is dangerous. Alcaios (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that there is a comma, so it is saying that Antifa political activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy [...] against fascists, racists and those on the far-right which is true. What you seem to have also missed is that none of the given sources use such qualifiers; the ADL clearly calls the object of antifa's harassment right-wing extremists, not alleged or perceived. Perceived was actually used in Ideology when it read antifa is united by opposition to perceived right-wing extremism and white supremacy but neither given two sources used such wording to imply a qualifier. It also goes both ways and a qualifier, which is not even supported by sources, may imply that antifa is not really against the far-right et all, that they attack anyone who disagree with them, that they often misidentify people when this is not true. We also have this:

“ But what criteria are used by Antifa to determine who might be deserving of such physical violence?

"In our research, we determine someone to be a fascist, Alt Right, White Nationalist, etc. based on which groups they are a part of and endorse," said a group member.

"Nazis, fascists, white nationalists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes are specific categories, even if they overlap or are subsets or each other. Our main focus is on groups and individuals which endorse, or work directly in alliance with, white supremacists and white separatists. We try to be very clear and precise with how we use these terms."

”

So I do not see how that implies that antifa is always correct. See also The Four Deuces's comment that I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. Doctors treat patients, but sometimes they mistreat them. Police uphold the law, but sometimes they break it. and Bobfrombrockley's comment that It seems to me to stray into MOS:SCAREQUOTES and WP:WEASEL territory to say "those whom they consider". As per TFD, we don't say "the police arrest those they consider to be criminals" (even though sometimes the police arrest non-criminals). We don't say Anti-communism is "a political movement and ideology opposed to people it considers to be communist". Given sources do not even use qualifiers and we report what they say.--Davide King (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

1. It is impossible to confirm that someone is a fascist. It is always 100% subjective and is a label that gets thrown around like confetti. Citations are there to support an article, not confirm that certain individuals are deserving of a particular label or not.

2. This very website is being contradicted. People are not right or left wing - ideologies are. When people suggest someone is "right-wing", they are making the assumption, based on their opinion that the individual holds certain views that lean on the right. It is always an assumption and not a confirmation.

3. Racism? Completely 100% point of view. There is no logical way to confirm that someone is indeed deserving of this title without a purely subjective point of view. Someone could be "racist" because they assume that a particular person likes rap music or a certain type of food. Someone could be "racist" because they want to exterminate all people who are not considered white. One could argue that the entire population of the planet is racist because everyone discriminates whether they like it or not subconsciously.

4. Antifa is a movement, not an organisation. It does not have members, it has associates. Its associates are not held accountable in any way whatsoever. They will do whatever, to who(m)ever they choose with not one bit of accountability whatsoever. They will always 100% of the time attack anyone who they perceive as being opposed to them personally. They are not telepathic and not some kind of supernatural being with the ability to determine with accuracy what label is most befitting of an individual.

No citation will prove anything, it will merely support the various points of views of individuals or groups of people in a partial way.--Hypernator (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, we are not a research or analysis organization and don't have to go through those thought processes. We just use reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style, we need to avoid expressions of doubt. We would only do that if reliable sources said they had a poor record in identifying the far right. We might add however that they also target allies of the far right, which would then include people such as Tucker Carlson. TFD (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

(Edit: bit of an issue with indentation sorry - I have put the comment here because the indentation is getting a bit confusing) I am unfamiliar with the Tucker Carlson in question. Are there 2 of them? The only Tucker Carlson I am aware of is someone who holds moderate right wing and moderate left wing views. I seem to remember that he did make some dubious comments about foreigners and immigrants. Which Tucker Carlson has extremist views similar to Neo-Nazis, who believe that white people are superior to others? You cannot seriously be suggesting that someone who wants stricter control over immigration is comparable to Hitler or Mussolini! This is precisely the issue that I am talking about in the original section comment. If Antifa associates have ever Targeted Tucker Carlson then that proves my entire point.--Hypernator (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The idea that Tucker Carlson is anywhere close to moderate left wing is laughable, and casts into doubt your understanding of this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Which further corroborates the idea that peoples' perceptions regarding things like left and right wing are subjective and not necessarily correct or incorrect. Tucker Carlson is in favor of free speech - a liberal/ left wing ideal. Unless of course you disagree with me - which of course would not necessarily make you right or wrong. It would mean you interpret things differently, of which I respect. Also, by the way, I am going by the very page on this website that states that ideals are left or right wing... not people.--Hypernator (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This wishy-washy equivocating of yours is not going to win anyone over. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I can elaborate further. French revolution (one perspective): those to the left want change/ those the the right want to keep things as they are (conservative). From the wiki page (first paragraph) on left/right political spectrum: "The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right."

Left wing concepts (hence social equality):

1. The right/ freedom for all people to bear arms

2. Freedom of speech.

3. Freedom of the press.

A conservative in the USA wishes to preserve existing values. I am pretty certain that they would wish to preserve the above 3 (supposedly) left wing ideals that relate to social equality. Is it just me, or have conservatives very often been referred to as right-wing? Is it not correct that the French revolution has been interpreted as those on the left wanting change and those on the right wishing to keep things as they are? I do believe that the wiki page on this very website suggests that. It is wishy washy whether anyone likes it or not--Hypernator (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. You've devolved into preaching. I will not be responding to you further. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right. We should remain close to the facts, that is mentioning some representative examples of people targeted by antifa in the past, and let the reader make his own opinion. Alcaios (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Except policy says giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. For example, if I'm reading about smoking, I don't want to see a balance of opinions saying it is bad for you and others saying it is good for you. I want to know what the expert opinion is. I don't have the time or interest to review all the evidence decide if expert opinion is right. If I want to know about fringe theories, there are special articles for them. There seems to be mounting sources for starting a "antifa conspiracy theories" article, which is where that type of speculation would belong. It certainly does not belong in the opening sentences of this article. TFD (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What you're doing is false equivalence. I'm only proposing to mention a representative sample of people targeted by antifa, by relying on high-quality secondary sources, and by following nothing else but the scientific method. Alcaios (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We're not going to accept you performing your own "statistical analysis" for determining what to add to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That's why by relying on high-quality secondary source is the first element of the argument. Alcaios (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you think that would constitute original research, which is prohibited by policy? And why do you think that every person targeted will be reported in reliable sources? An antifa could post something derogatory about you here on Wikipedia and the New York Times won't cover it. TFD (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any other reasonable solution but to follow what the reliable sources say about the people targeted by antifa, if we find any. Alcaios (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Which would not include performing your own "statistical analysis." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal: the current wording is Antifa political activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, sometimes involving property damage, physical violence and harassment, against fascists, racists and those on the far-right. How about this as a compromise: Antifa political activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, sometimes involving property damage, physical violence and harassment, which they aim to deploy against fascists, racists and those on the far-right. This makes it clear that they think of their opponents as racist, etc., while the phrase 'aim to' seems not to have the implication of doubt which 'whom they regard...' seems to have. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, your wording casts doubt on antifa's ability to identify fascists and the far right. We would need a reliable source that made that conclusion. TFD (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is insufficient. It is not even pointing out that a movement like Antifa (that does not even have an official/ universal doctrine) is barely even recognizable as anything much at all. There is not one shred of reliable evidence to suggest that they are anything other than a disorganized collection of groups with anything but vague concepts and labels. It is actually quite funny looking at the ideology section of the article. It is purely a list of wishy washy vague subjective labels that do not really mean much at all. Each one of them is completely open to interpretation.--Hypernator (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I came here to make this point. This article is currently directly validating the views of this organization without citation. It would be the same as saying "a mousetrap catches mice" and "a mousetrap is designed to catch mice". It is important that editors do not assume the voice and views of the subject of an article --Willthewanderer (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair there are tons of sources in the archive here that demonstrate they are pretty crappy at identifying their targets. PackMecEng (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that reports that conclusion, per no original research or synthesis. You need to beware of confirmation bias, where you seek information to support your preconceived conclusions. I can find lots of cases of malpractice by doctors, but it doesn't mean that the medical profession is pretty crappy at identifying and treating diseases. (Mind you if you go to alternative medicine conspiracy websites, you might see them follow that sort of flawed logic.) TFD (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup the sources support it and we go by RS here not your OR on what you think Antifa does or does not target. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying the archives demonstrate antifa is pretty crappy at identifying their targets is OR. None of your sources say that and you need a reliable source that does. TFD (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that this is going into the same territory as the need for an atheist to prove that God does not exist. With all due respect to anyone who claims to be associated with Antifa, I see no evidence that says that it is anything other than a movement. I am attempting to use a logical argument here rather than self-referential Wikipedia guides/ principles. If Antifa were an organisation it would be subject to rules and regulations. There would be a charter, an official doctrine, or at the very least some kind of agreement. (Somewhat subjective viewpoint coming!): It could (maybe) be perceived that the very actions of Antifa are authoritarian and (oh dear, I am going to say it)... similar to fascism (forcible suppression of opposition). I would suggest that those who strongly oppose those who are polar opposites politically do indeed start to contradict themselves... OK OK, I am delving into the territory of what could be called platforming a personal opinion, but I am still in the territory of justifying the need to clarify that the movement in question is subject to little (or rather nothing) in the way of rules or regulation. It is not an organisation by the very admission of the article. It is still up to the interpretation of anyone who decides to refer to themselves as Antifa, that someone is: "...fascists, racists and those on the far-right.".--Hypernator (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of words to really say nothing. Being a movement does not mean we can just throw up our hands and say "well, we can't figure out what's going on, it's all interpretation". We run with what the reliable sources say, which is what's in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The "we" in that statement says something. Is that "we" in reference to Wikipedia, or something else? I think your original choice to stay out of the argument was wiser. Feel free to divulge the reliable source (if it does indeed exist).--Hypernator (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia. As to the rest of your comment, this vague pontificating of yours is wearing thin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

As much as your personal comments may be appreciated by others, they are not required on this website. I believe you do not have a reliable source that my comments are wearing thin. Also, please do not vandalize the page when things don't meet with your approval. You have made your opinion very clear but it is not relevant to this talk page. Thank you.--Hypernator (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not need a source for my opinion of your posts. And second, accusing me of vandalism for following the rules is a personal attack. I'm done with your nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The rules you refer to will be twisted into whatever they need to be, to suit someones objective. The more productive thing to do when you have a disagreement with someone is to refute them. Virtually every comment that has been said by you to me has been nothing but personal attacks. I have no need to repeat them because they are all there for everyone to see. Am I bothered by your personal attacks? No, of course not - I am an adult. Just thought it was worth pointing out that I tend to ignore that kind of thing, rather than retaliate against it. If there is anything you would like to bring to the argument then feel free to add something that relates to the original topic that is described at the top of this section.--Hypernator (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hypernator, I agree that your vague pontifications and personal comments are wearing thin. O3000 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I respect your opinion or those of others regardless of whether I disagree with it or not. I will point out that everything is a personal comment (including references to pontification). I understand that Wikipedia editors cannot be held to the same standards as academics. You will also notice that I am even attempting to provide the fundamental principles behind the stringent regulations that are adhered to by academic institutes, rather than directly dictating that people should follow those principles (although I admit I did imply that people should originally!) If you find my manner pompous then so be it, but uncertainty is the very reason why we question things like: "We just use reliable secondary sources." You no doubt do believe they are "reliable". I am not disrespecting your opinion if I say that I do not agree, I am merely showing a difference of opinion. This is a talk page and this comment is still within the domain of the edit request. Disagreement is not disrespect or pompousness unless you choose to view it that way.--Hypernator (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Shinealittlelight maybe just cut off the ending entirely and end at including harassment - or else separate who the protest is about from who owns what gets damaged. The property destruction and arson has not been of right-wing, it’s been more anarchistic. Also there are opposing statements that fascist is just a claim to enable violence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Breaking windows anti-capitalist

Firebombing ICE

General violence

Campus violence

Bay area

Roots

My proposal was to make the statement about the aims of Antifa, not what they have actually done. The proposal I made is accurate as far as their explicit aims, it seems to me, and my proposal has the virtue of neither agreeing with Antifa about who is a racist (etc.), as the current version does, nor implying skepticism about their views, as the "those they see as" language seems to do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What the factual events are kind of need a notice, and intent of individual acts may be divorced from that. Aiming at fascists that involves just blocking traffic jump on cars and harass random folk because you can, or smashing storefronts because that’s why you brought a hammer, or setting a mobile campus light or police car on fire because you like fire... As to intent one can only cite factually the expressed intent and the opposition claims, knowing full well these are just talking points and may not reflect actual intent very well or the diversity of people.

I got out, bunch of thugs

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Re the sources presented here:

Breaking windows anti-capitalist - OK, reliable source

Firebombing ICE - Ngo in the NY Post is not a relible source, plus see discussion above ("Andy Ngo incident and Tacoma detention centre attack") of discussion of this incident 6 June

General violence - an opinion piece, can't be used as a source for a claim about facts, only for a claim about someone alleging general violence (if noteworthy)

Campus violence - does talk about violence, but not "campus violence", only fear of it

Bay area - reports opinion of some law enforcement people that antifa are violence, although article itself is more circumspect ("A spokeswoman for the Berkeley Police Department said she did not know whether antifa would qualify as a gang under California law. Any law enforcement agency trying to label antifa protesters as gang members might also run into another problem: Technically, they don’t exist.")

Roots - an opinion piece, can't be used as a source for a claim about facts, only for a claim about someone alleging general violence (if noteworthy)

I got out, bunch of thugs - reliable source for the fact that one ex-members thinks they are a bunch of thugs, not for us to say they are a bunch of thugs

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Bobfrombrockley Irrelevant. This is a discussion of why to stop the line at “harassment” and not to go into saying “aimed” or against fascists - and gave links to show those are incorrect by non-aimed and not fascists examples. The anarchistic events *did* happen, and the voiced items *do* exist in significant views, so if you prefer to google up elsewhere because you dislike the illustrative URL NYPost or wherever go ahead. But your dislike as RS is irrelevant because I am not proposing putting edits into article text that cite these - it is a list of recent things Antifa or Black bloc is known for which was random or spontaneous as in not aimed and not organized in a hierarchical manner. If you prefer, we can look at the article or if you mean RS to imply you want text added to article and show that text or due diligence, fine. But the bottom line facts are that both ‘aimed’ and harassment solely ‘of fascists’ just isn’t supported, regardless of how one gets there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Shinealittlelight I believe your proposal would in some way make it better to an extent. What I have attempted to impress upon people is that people in general are flawed in their judgement especially when dealing with vague and constantly changing (and in this present day very vague) concepts such as "far-right", "fascism" and "racism". "Far-right" has gone from being "Hitler exterminating millions of people who were considered inferior" to "someone who believes there should be more control over immigration"! Racism has gone from "people who want to kill every non-white person they see" to "someone who objects to Black Lives Matter". Fascism has gone from "all of the things Mussolini did" to "someone who disagrees with my personal viewpoint". Do you really need me, right now, on this talk page, to go to the effort off providing citations of this? No I am not going to go through that level of effort because it would probably be a waste of time. There are no reliable sources on this article to prove that associates of Antifa (i.e. those people who decide to use that label on themselves) have good judgement. Suggesting that, people prove that those who call themselves Antifa have good judgement, would be akin to suggesting that an atheist prove that God does not exist. It is a logical argument I am presenting here (or "vague pontificating" to those who do not understand it).--Hypernator (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to say or imply that they have poor judgment you need a source, otherwise we need to stick with how sources describe them. It seems anyway that your argument is that reliable sources cannot properly identify fascism, racism and the far right. TFD (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with The Four Deuces. You are saying that antifa and reliable sources cannot properly identify fascism, racism and the far-right, except that is exactly what they do. We have According to one group member, antifa's identification research on whether an individual or group is "fascist, Alt Right, White Nationalist, etc." is "based on which groups they are a part of and endorse". While noting that "Nazis, fascists, white nationalists, anti-Semites and Islamophobes" are specific overlapping categories, the main focus is "on groups and individuals which endorse, or work directly in alliance with, white supremacists and white separatists. We try to be very clear and precise with how we use these terms". The reason why that qualifier was removed in the first place was that given sources did not actually use the qualifier.

Furthermore, sources such as the ADL and the Los Angeles Times say misidentificaton happens sometimes (meaning occasionally, rather than all of the time), not often (meaning frequently; many times). Yet, in the case of the Los Angeles Times it says supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis, i.e. it is disputing they are white supremacists or Nazis, not that they may be far-right, as right-wing populism overlaps and has been called far-right. So the addition of a qualifier, not supported by sources, smacks me of political bias. Again, this The Four Deuces comment is relevant: I don't think that any reasonable reader would assume that they were 100% accurate. Doctors treat patients, but sometimes they mistreat them. Police uphold the law, but sometimes they break it. So thinking that the wording imply 100% accuracy rate and adding a qualifier that is not actually used by given sources seem to be related to political bias rather than an improvement.--Davide King (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of talk about just following the sources, and "The reason why that qualifier was removed in the first place was that given sources did not actually use the qualifier" but that's not true. The sources given do not support such unconditional phrasing, and several of them include exactly that kind of qualifier. The ADL 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" and describes them as "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries". The AOL reference says "In Paris on May Day Antifa members attacked police with improvised bombs, engulfing multiple officers in flames, according to reports" and does not label those police as fascists, racists, or the far-right. The NPR article says "They dress in black and wear masks when they confront right-wing groups" (not fascist, racist, or far-right), and "They point to what they regard as the racism and white supremacist ideology of the other side". The CNN source says that they "protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites" (and again does not label these as fascists, racists, or the far right) and says "Levin said Antifa activists feel the need to partake in violence because 'they believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist'". I checked every source given, and none of them support the current wording. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Remove communism from the list . The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. Communism is authoritarian! 2600:1007:B120:EC72:C02A:DFFD:1D44:A66 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Existing sources support the word "communism" appearing in this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a place to debate the meaning of "communism," especially if you are not suggesting improvements to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is an ultimate flaw in the comment as a whole anyway. You do not even need to "define" communism, but rather simply look at the word itself. There is no government or state in communism! The very concept of communism (which is an ideology) is actually anti-authoritarian. I am referring the the ideology, not the contradictory usage of the word. A party that proposes to be "communist" that gets elected or seizes power may indeed be called "the communist party" but that only relates to the supposed objectives of the party in question. It is a label for the party. The UK is not a "conservative country" (as of 2020) simply because it is run by "The Conservative Party". It is whatever it is (simply the UK)! A society or country could only be referred to as "communist" if it was indeed communally run, i.e. a self governing community. Countries have been called "communist", but that is merely a label (that is inaccurate). The true (no Scotsman fallacy here) "communist" country would have neither a government or a state. To the best of my knowledge there has never actually been a communist country, just countries that have been erroneously (and quite farcically) called "communist".--Hypernator (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your personal views and analysis cannot be used because they are WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I am not interested in any change. No part of the comment suggested that. I am merely paraphrasing what has already been stated on this very website. Feel free to go off and correct the page that relates to "communism" so that it meets with your personal approval. Either that or ensure that, in future, your indentation relates to the correct comment in this section. If that is indeed the case then please refer to the Wikipedia page on indentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation --Hypernator (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede RFC

The RFC on the lead section has been archived without being closed. This is obviously unhelpful but I'm not sure how to undo it. Can anyone sort this out? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Archiving was set for "3 days" insyead of "30 days". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Left wing ideologies- anarchism

Anarchism should not be included as a left wing ideology, because it is not. Graysongardner (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a citation from a reliable source that says that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Biased and ambiguous statement.

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

I raise a number of complaints with this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

Remember this is Wikipedia. Politics has ZERO place here, as tempting as it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggines (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The so-called tabloid website I assume you are referring to is actually The Guardian, a generally reliable source which you are basically disputing; you are disputing what a reliable source is saying. I am also not sure that is an opinion piece, it is in World News, is it not? You write The claim that 'conspiracy theories' have been spread by right-wing activists, media organisations, and politicians is not well sustained by the citation but it is actually sustained when it says Antifa conspiracy theories are common amongst rightwing politicians, media and activists. And it is indeed not a single organisation; it says there is no actual antifa organization for Trump to define in this way. Put simply: antifa does not really exist as a distinct entity. It also clearly states An antisemitic conspiracy theory that the billionaire financier George Soros funds antifa also has widespread currency on the right, including among influential Trump-world figures. So you are basically disputing the source.--Davide King (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The article cited is not an opinion piece: you can tell this from the orange highlight above the word "news" in the page header. If it were an opinion piece the highlight would appear above "opinion". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, thanks! That was what I thought too, but thanks for confirming it.--Davide King (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Davide King and Arms & Hearts. I will add that the claims about the funding sources are vague because that is the nature of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theorists may not agree among themselves and often use coded language, such as blaming "(((George Soros)))." TFD (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)