Talk:Antifa (United States)

American Terrorist Organization

What governmental or nongovernmental organizations have declared Antifa a terrorist organization, and on what basis did they do so?

Terrorist organizations typically all have some central leaders or hierarchy, and make a name for themselves by carrying out and taking credit for killing people in high-profile events. What murders or attempted murders has Antifa undertaken?

The remainder of the article suggests that they are a loosely affiliated political movement, which undercuts the idea that they are a terrorist organization.

Accordingly, this article should be amended.

Jaedglass (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa it's filed under domestic terrorism. But I honestly find it to vague too put it here. Shayco122 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is kind of weird, New Jersey is a pretty random source of authority about what Antifa is or isn't. Are there any federal agencies that concur? In the US, traditionally hate groups are monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who began in the 70's to litigate against the KKK. This article points out the difference between Antifa and hate groups, although it doesn't address the 'domestic terrorism' label https://www.bustle.com/p/is-antifa-a-hate-group-people-are-divided-but-the-criteria-is-clear-76285 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjleone (talk • contribs) 09:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the key point is that Antifa isn't a coherent body. It can't be declared a Terrorist Organisation as it is not an organisation at all. Also, the terrorism claim is pretty preposterous anyway, but lets indulge it for a moment. What would it take to justify inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the aricle? Here is what I think it would take:

• An official (state or national) government body (or maybe an organ of the UN) would have to officially and unambiguously designate a specific named group as a "terrorist organisation". Ambiguous tweets or other unofficial comments don't count. Mud slung by opponents does not count. Mud slung by media pundits does not count. Anything vaguely aimed at "Antifa" as a whole can't count as it isn't an organisation. It has to be a specific group that actually does exist as an organised group.
• That group would need to either describe itself (at least half-plausibly) as being an "Antifa" group or be described as "Antifa" by the same government body.

If that were to occur, and I'm not saying that it ever will, then that, and only that, would justify the article in saying that that particular named "Antifa" group had been designated as a terrorist organisation, and even then only that specific named group.

Do we agree that this is fair? It seems to be in line with the way we would treat similar situations in other parts of the world. (I seem to recall similar issues arising around the correct designation of various Kurdish groups in the past. I never expected to see the same sort of arguments cropping up in the USA.)

I guess that still leaves the question of actions by individuals but unless anybody official actually officially designates any individuals as both "terrorist" and "Antifa" then that doesn't seem to be a pressing concern. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Why is this organisation described as far left and within a category corresponding to that description? Just because someone has described it as far left doesn't mean they are. They are not even mentioned on the American Left article. The sentence "The nature and activities of Antifa have caused some debate in the far-left" is nonsensical. What does "in the far-left" mean? Being anti-fascist is not restricted to part of either left or right wing politics, let alone solely a part of far left politics. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Because it is universally identified as being a left-wing group. [1] Bueller 007 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is this Trump's definition of Alt-Left?Flight Risk (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

But not FAR left. Please edit Rebel Royalty (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Why? It is a far-left group. The antifa people have elements of anarchism and communism. They have been seen with hammer-and-sickle flags, red and black stained flags which are notable for being the symbols of communist revolution (check the 26th of July flag from Cuba). If that is not far-left, then what is?? Ojhernandez00 (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ojhernandez00: It isn't a group - have you read the article? I doubt that you understand our sourcing policy yet, with only one edit so far. Individuals in the movement have a variety of beliefs, some certainly far-left (although it's getting hard to call the mainstream US Communists far=left any more), others definitely not. We shouldn't give such a simplistic label to a group. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for the reply. In the article, it is regarded as a "far-left" movement with groups. There's a lot of potential discussion over the political and societal goals of communists in the US. In your suggestion of the "simplistic label", it can be argued the same for the "far-right". Regarding the people from Antifa, it is quite clear that their foundational mission is peace through violence. With that, a clear line must be drawn between the leftist activist and the anarchist, is my opinion. Arguments over whether Antifa is truly "anti-fascist" are reasonable given the fact that they employ hypocritical violence (street violence, property damage, arson, assault...) . My two-cents to this discussion as a reader are that Antifa is not anti-fascist and that they are militant and far-left. What is your recommended description for Antifa? That they are anarchist? In my words, Antifa is anarcho-communist. Ojhernandez00 (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Never mind that. Just imagine all the fun we could have arguing about what shape Jell-O is. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

We aren't going to get very far with someone who's bringing their own analysis. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nj dhs

This is not a copyright violation since it is in the public domain as a government document. So, the information is straight from the nj dhs. There d doesn't need to be a secondary, but I added one. If your argument is that the number Dhs is lying, then prove it. Until then, this will be added since the ni dhs is 100% reliable and credible and no copyright issues. Clown town (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be edit warring.

The State of New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, mentioned Antifa in a post tagged under "Counterterrorism" and "Domestic". Nowhere does it say that Antifa is a domestic terrorist group, or anything close to that. It appears that every post falls under four categories: "Counterterrorism", Domestic", "International", and "Preparedness". A category for an article which discusses them is not the same as classifying Antifa as a terrorist organization. This would have criminal implications that could impact future prosecution, and presumably they are not stupid enough to risk this casually.

As an easily identifiable source of conflict, Antifa is a pretty reasonable thing for this government agency to be writing about. They have also written extensively about white supremacist organizations. Multiple times, in fact, while Antifa is only mentioned this once. This is a relatively routine analysis which would strongly suggest that independent context is needed to explain why this is significant.

If the only independent source is this blurb from the Independent Journal Review, Copy-pasting half of the report is totally undue weight. Is the IJR reliable? I'm skeptical, but this article is very short and includes both factual errors (starting with the headline) and multiple typos, which suggests a lack of editorial oversight and fact checking. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if they don't explicitly call them domestic terrorists (except in the tags), they still do call them "anarchist extremists" and offer other information which should be used in this article. --Pudeo (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Find a reliable, secondary source. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah right, NJ Homeland Security is not a reliable source until it has been covered by HuffPost or Buzzfeed. #JustWikipediaThings --Pudeo (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The IJR isn't a reliable source, see this discussion. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So, here is the deal. I am going to add that NJ has listed them as Anarchist extremeists. If anyone can prove the NJ DHS is lying, then I will use a secondary source. Until then, the NJ DHS is the most appropriate source. They will not be listed as domestic terrorists. But to leave out this information is a plain hiding of the truth. It needs to be included. If anyone disagrees, please point out to where the NJ DHS is a false resource. Clown town (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: So lets talk about it then. I changed it to state that the NJ DHS has them described as extremists. Exactly what the NJ DHS says. Can you prove this wrong? Not including it is covering real happenings.

@Doug Weller: Please talk here. You told me to come here and I want to discuss this with you. Otherwise, if you do not speak here within 3 hours, I will put the information back up since it is from a verified, government document and you have no objections. Clown town (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Clown town: Why are you claiming in an edit summary that I'm not using the talk page in good faith? I don't have to respond immediately. On the other hand, you've been blocked for edit warring in the past and yet continue to edit war. I've reported you. Meanwhile, before I did that, I removed the New Jersey site from Identity Evropa - they call it a terrorist and I added it August 3rd, but the discussion here has convinced me I'm probably wrong to have done that without independent sources discussing it. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You said get rid of IJR. I did and changed the language to the NJ document. @Pudeo:@Newimpartial: both agreed with me and came to a consensus. None of my edits were reversions. Reporting me instead of using the talk page for discussion is not a good act. You weren't acting in good faith, because you would not discuss whether the NJ DHS document should stay when others said yes. I tried to talk it with you, but when others agreed with me, I decided to make the changes (not reversions) myself. Sorry if I offended you. I wanted to include you but you were not responding. But the NJ DHS article is truthful and consensus says it should be in the wiki page. The IJR article was deleted fyi.Clown town (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Also, prior offenses are not useful for present guilt. I made sure my changes were listed on the talk page and I got consensus. I am changing my ways here since I am new and trying to figure out how to make corrections appropriately. I was hoping you would discuss with me on the talk page, but it was obvious you were reverting my changes, telling me to go to the talk page, then you weren't going to talk to me on the talk page and if I edited the article again (after consensus), you would report me because I am new and they will trust you. That is wrong. Clown town (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they may trust me. And perhaps they won't trust you because you haven't learned from your earlier block for editwarring. You didn't get consensus here. User:Grayfell said you needed a reliable secondary source. Only 4 people have taken part in this discussion and neither you nor Pudeo give policy or guideline reasons to include it. Take a look at WP:UNDUE, that might help. And you shouldn't set deadlines, there is no rush and you need to allow time to let others discuss it. Not everyone is available to edit during any 3 hour period. And in any case, you said I had to respond in 3 hours, right? So why didn't you wait? Doug Weller talk 19:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Again, my edits were in good faith and I was changing language and citations to fit what was requested. I honestly didn't wait because I believed you were playing me and hiding behind rules. I saw you editting other articles and I knew you saw my ping and didn't want to respond. You knew the NJ DHS article was right and didn't want to discuss it. You just wanted to wait until I made a change and then you would report me so that you could have your way. That is what I thought. No matter how long I waited, you weren't going to respond, so I just made the change. Again, everything I did was in good faith and I felt you were not acting in good faith and are hoping the admins will block me so that you can get rid of the reliable document for the NJ DHS that you cannot dispute on the merits, so you are hoping the rules will bail you out. Again though, my edits were requested changes and not reversions. I added citations, I changed the IJR language out. I made grammar fixes. I pinged you multiple times. You know I was doing my best to act in good faith. You weren't. Clown town (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't mean "I think I was correct", and your demonstrated, absurd impatience isn't assuming good faith. If this was your best, then you'll need to figure out some way to do better. It's also not how consensus works.

This entire thing is one obscure anonymous government blog post, essentially. Setting aside its status as an alt-right meme, it can be mentioned. It already is mentioned. If you want to expand on this so that it has its own section, you're going to have to explain why this is not only reliable, but absolutely the most important source in the article. I see nothing at all to suggest that level of importance. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: Did you look at this talk page? Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

" one obscure anonymous government blog post" - where is your proof on this? Are you saying the NJ government didn't actually believe this? This is on their website and had to have their permission to be released. It must be true and it is a formal government document. It is important because it potentially lists antifa as an extremist group. That is very important and needs to be highlighted. To hide this as a one line blurb in a dense document is not giving it the credit it deserves. Judging that others have agreed with me, it seems to be the case. Lets see if others will comment on this. I feel you may not be the most un-biased as you consider a government document obscure. And my changes were not reversions, but adding citations and language changes. I acted in good faith and made sure the information is correct and what people requested.Clown town (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What is it that the government believes, exactly? That entire list of incidents they report happened? So what? Have permission from who? Find a name on this site that indicates who wrote this, please. How is this a "formal" government document? Not everything published by the government is formal, and even court documents need secondary sources. You say it "needs to be highlighted"... Why? Because you personally think it's important? That's not how Wikipedia works, and this subjectivity is exactly why we keep asking for secondary sources. Just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean it's the most important source in the article, which is how you're treating it. It potentially lists Antifa as an extremist group. Yes, that's about right. The technicality of whether or not these were reversions is irrelevant, and putting in effort doesn't automatically mean your edits benefit the encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Yes, and I see no reason to remove it. I don't see how it is a blog post besides the style in which the site is formatted. Have a discussion on this specific resource to determine if it is unreliable, then remove it. I'm not against editting down to give less weight in the article though, but I don't see reason to remove it entirely. nihlus kryik (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: You are aware that it's already mentioned, right? Do you know of any secondary sources? Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: This listing as an extremist group is important and deserves its own section, not hidden in material. A state listing antifa as an extrmist group would need its own write-up.Clown town (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Now you're just avoiding my questions. Other than an ambiguously worded headline, where does it "list" them as extremists? Why is it "important"? If this is so important, why haven't any reliable secondary sources picked it up? Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There are secondary sources on it. Also, read this, straight from the NJ DHS about them being anarchist extremists: "Anti-fascist groups, or “Antifa,” are a subset of the anarchist movement and focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices." Clown town (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Where are these secondary sources, then? You do know that not all anarchists are extremists, right? Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Since no one else wants to find sources and they want to revert without satisfactory edit summaries or reasons, I will:

• News.com ‘They were very, very violent’: Donald Trump blames ‘alt-left’ group Antifa for Charlottesville violence: "Antifa, who claim to be “anti-fascists”, are a loosely organised group of far-left anarchist extremists who focus on “perceived injustices” involving “racism, sexism and anti-Semitism”, according to the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security, which lists the group under domestic terrorist organisations."
• Al Jazeera Who are the US police really protecting?: "On June 12, 2017, New Jersey's Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (OHSP) added a new name to its list of "domestic terrorist" threats: Antifa. The report characterises "Antifa" as a group of "anarchist extremists" who "focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices," a half-baked definition, while technically accurate, is far from comprehensive. Unlike the other American entities that have earned this dubious distinction (and despite what hysterical FOX News hosts like to shrill), Antifa isn't an organised group, a gang, or even a society."
• NJOHSP on Twitter (Infographic)
• Chicago Tribune What is 'antifa?' Virginia clashes bring attention to anti-fascist movement: ""There's extremist ideology and then there's extremist tactics," said Oren Segal, the director of Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism. His organization does not directly track antifa groups but says they come up in their work because of their opposition to the hate groups they do track, he said."

Those are just some. So while we don't want to give undue weight to NJ, it definitely should be mentioned in the article somewhere as it is being covered in many places. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I was googling for secondary sources as well. The Al Jazeera article is an opinion piece. I didn't read the others since I wasn't sure if they qualified as WP:RS. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• The Australian source is the only one that is arguably usable for this as a statement of fact, and it absolutely doesn't justify the lengthy copy-paste or close paraphrase of the NJ report. I say arguably, because there are some neutrality issues both with News.com.au and with this article specifically. Among many other problems, why are they showing photos of Bolsheviks in 2004, from an unidentified event/location? Presumably it was a former Soviet state, judging by the statue of Lenin. Nothing about this is mentioned or explained. The article is about American Anarchists in 2016-2017, not confused Soviets from over a decade ago. This loaded imagery undermines any claim to neutrality, or even ethical journalism. This article should discussed on talk, first, before being cited.
• The Al Jazeera article is an op-ed and would only be useful with attribution.
• The government office's Twitter account isn't a secondary source at all and is of no use. Nobody denying the existence of the article and that's all this tweet verifies.
• The Chicago Tribune doesn't mention the New Jersey thing. I'm not even clear on what this is saying about Antifa and extremism. Is it saying they use extremist methods? Okay, so we could attribute it to the ADL if we're confident that's what this guy is really saying.

If you want to present this as extremism, you should figure out how to contextualize that based on what's being said, not based entirely on an otherwise relatively obscure government report/article/blog post. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to present it as anything since I don't personally believe it is extremism; however, that doesn't mean we should ignore it. At most it should be relegated to a sentence or two. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It already was relegated to a sentence. Do you have any suggestions for how to improve this content? Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I totally missed that. I don't know if I like where it is, but it works for me. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I don't particularly like where it is, either, but it doesn't seem like it warrants it's own section, which is why I plopped it there. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I wish people would read past threads. Some of the material included from the New Jersey page doesn't even mention violence from Antifa or in one instance even Antifa: "*Beginning in March, the Philadelphia Antifa Chapter used Facebook to encourage followers to disrupt a “Make America Great Again” event in Philadelphia, resulting in over 300 participants. Antifa’s presence resulted in law enforcement shutting down the event early for safety concerns. As of May, a manual on how to form an Antifa group—posted on a well-known Anarchist website in February—had approximately 13,500 views." No mention of violence.

• On 1 February, the University of California Berkeley canceled a controversial speaker’s appearance following a protest by approximately 100 Antifa members. In response, far-right extremists assembled at a free-speech rally, which Antifa members disrupted, resulting in 10 arrests and seven injuries. Additionally, on 15 April, Antifa and far-right extremists clashed at a demonstration, leading to 23 arrests and 11 injuries." Obviously violence there although not explicitly attributed to Antifa, but I guess we can assume (which is rarely a good idea, though_/

• On 11 February, members of the 211 Crew/211 Bootboys, a white supremacist gang, allegedly attacked two brothers at a New York City bar after seeing a “New York City anti-fascist sticker” on the back of one of the victim’s cellphones, according to New York authorities." This is an attack on someone with an Antifa sticker, not Antifa violence.

• In June 2016, 300 counter-protesters, including anarchist extremists, attacked 25 members of the white supremacist Traditionalist Worker Party with knives, bottles, bricks, and concrete from a construction site while rallying at the California State Capitol in Sacramento, injuring 10." No mention of Antifa and here we certainly shouldn't assume it. Doug Weller talk 06:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Noting that has Post-WWII Anti-fascism been moved to Antifa movements

I think this just confuses the terminology. Doug Weller talk 07:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. "Antifa" is a label that the American far-right likes because it is a pithy term of abuse and it obscures what is really being said. I'd like to see Wikipedia stop using it except where the subjects in question self-describe as "antifa" or are more commonly referred to as "antifa" than as anything else in Reliable Sources. I see nothing on the talk page discussing the move. Quite apart from anything else, this is the English Language Wikipedia and such American terminology is likely to confuse all other readers who are not watching what is going on in the USA closely. Having said that, I see that it was moved by a respected admin and editor, clearly in good faith, so I am not going to revert it myself.

Going further, I also question the title of this article. If the groups this article are about do self-describe as "antifa" then that is fine. If the groups are generally described as "antifa" by mainstream RS then that is also fine. If neither of these things then we have a problem. Then there is the claim that this is a "movement". That needs backing up. A movement has some sort of organisation, even if it is a loose one. I don't see where we demonstrate that existing. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Antifa movements#Requested move 19 August 2017 Doug Weller talk 12:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Antifa is not American terminology. Antifa is the term this (originally German) movement (with branches in several countries including the US) uses about itself. The attempt to portray the "anti-fascism" of the Antifa movement (mainly directed against the west in general) as part of a struggle against (real) fascists, thereby accepting the false claim that European social democrats, the US government and so on are "the fascists," has its roots in Soviet propaganda and is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Tataral (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

The first para ends with a wiki markup typo: [[verify}}. Fix this.

Mrviner (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 18:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Verification of statement " tactics are more aggressively violent "

As the source doesn't back this, I tagged it rather than revert. @Darkness Shines:, was your 'verified' an error? The source[2] (and one news source wouldn't be enough for this anyway) only says "Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence." That clearly doesn't back the text. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Doug, the cited source covers everything bar the aggressively violent part, misreading of the source on my part. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: That's what I thought, I probably should have asked you on your talk page as that didn't seem like you. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of far-left label redux - we shouldn't stereotype them

Despite the two discussions above where most participants think this is wrong, it was changed back using the source I mention above.[3] That article shows the typical amivalenceabout the politics of people in this movement. It goes from " a loosely affiliated group of far-left protesters." to "The social causes of Antifa (short for anti-fascist or Anti-Fascist action) are easily identifiable as left-leaning." And then "Antifa is anti-government and anti-capitalist, and their methodologies are often perceived as more closely aligned with anarchists than the mainstream left." In other words, it contradicts itself. It says "left-leaning"| as well as "far-left".

This source[4], which is critical of its tactics, calls themn "militant leftists". To any editor who says that means "far left", we don't interpret sources that way. In fact, it later says "With help from other left-wing activists, they’re already having some success at disrupting government." Note: "other left-wing activists".

"What is Antifa" says "Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform. The group doesn't have an official leader or headquarters, although groups in certain states hold regular meetings. Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many members support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across." "The majority of Antifa members don't fall into a stereotype." But we are stereotyping them.

The Voice of America simply calls them left-wing.[5]

I'm sure there are more that don't call them simply far-left and others that do, but very clearly they aren't all far-left. It's original research on my part to say that it seems unsurprising that not all people who might identify as Antifa don't consider themselves far-left, and our article shouldn't stereotype them.

As a side issue, not all black bloc people are necessarily Antifa, certainly not all far-left or even very left, see this. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this and I'd also like to point out that Nazi propaganda used to present the idea that there was a unified and coherent Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy which they had to struggle against. Of course, no such thing ever existed and it is not like there was a Judeo-Bolshevik press office to issue a statement denying it on account of no such thing existing in the first place. I fear that the far-right now is trying the same trick with "antifa" and that it could succeed because "antifa" is so weakly defined that people might grasp at simple narratives and categorisations even if they give a false impression. It is not our job to assist in this. Opposition to fascism comes from many places and focusing on the label "antifa", never mind focussing on what its enemies would define it as, puts the spotlight in one place only and gives a misleading impression. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

How many sources do you want which says they are far left? It took me a minute to find sources fof that. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Now here I will take issue with you. Sure, there are far-left elements, so it's not surprising that we can find sources for that. But (besides the part that I doubt any of the reliable sources say everyone who acts under the label Antifa is far left), there are sources that say that there are elements that aren't far left, and we shouldn't say as a blanket label that they are all far left. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Antifa (United States) has taken the name and logo of a German organisation. The German federal government regards that organisation/movement as "far-left extremist" and it is under observation by Germany's equivalent of the FBI as part of their surveillance of political extremists (see e.g. https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/arbeitsfelder/af-linksextremismus/zahlen-und-fakten-linksextremismus/aktionsfelder-von-linksextremisten-2016/aktionsfeld-antifaschismus-2016 ). Antifa was originally a militant organisation affiliated with the German Communist Party, a party that was staunchly Stalinist at that time, and that was later banned as unconstitutional/extremist in the 1950s. Both government and scholarly sources clearly consider the "Antifa movement" to be far-left. They proclaim themselves to be "Anti-Fascist", but by "Fascist" they don't mean the actual fascists, but typically the western countries in general and the United States in particular (Israel is also one of the countries they consider particularly Fascist). Another example of this usage is the official name of the Berlin Wall, the "Anti-Fascist Wall," as it was called by the communist regime from the 1960s to 1989. The implication was of course that the westerners, the Americans in particular, were the "fascists."--Tataral (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Enough is enough. We rely on reliable sources discussing the subject, not our opinions. Who cares what the German government thinks of a German organisation? Antifa websites and groups here use various logos, and using a logo used elsewhere doesn't prove anything. We don't use that as a source for an American political movement. Please don't use this page as some sort of forum. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The only person using this page as a forum is you. Wikipedia on the other hand is based on reliable sources, such as the ones I cited here and on the other talk page. Antifa is an originally German movement, and clearly the official position of the German federal government has some relevance. --Tataral (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. It is not a "movement", there are no membership cards. The "official position of the German federal government" on something has no bearing on the thoughts of a number of people in the US who share some ideological characteristics and have taken it to the streets in various forms. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Late response sorry, everyone happy with "extreme left" got a source which says those who study such groups consider them such, thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Street violence section ends with a sentence linking to an article about a stabbing that has no verifiable connection to Antifa

The cited line "A man got stabbed by an Antifa militant because he mistakenly thought he was a neo-nazi. The militant thought he was a neo-nazi because of his haircut" links to a New York Post article which offers no evidence that the perpetrator was a member of Antifa: just because there was an alleged attempted stabbing by a person who allegedly stated a question about someone's identity as a Neo-nazi does not make that person a member of a loose association known as Antifa. If the tone of the section and the article as a whole is to list acts of violence that seem peripherally associated with "violence against fascists" because of their correlation with times and/or locations of protests then the section would logically have to have a massive, comprehensive list of violence. Otherwise I don't think this has any relevance to the subject of Antifa. --SimulatorIX (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither does Buzzfeed who interviewed him. I've asked the editor to remove it. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

N.Y. Post

Yo VM the post is no RS why? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I forgot what this is about. But yeah, NY Post is not RS. At best it's a trashy tabloid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I've removed the suggestion that it has a native name (copying a word doesn't make the US movement have a native name) and deleted the suggestion that it somehow has an official logo and colors, which obviously a movement with autonomous groups and websites doesn't have. That still leaves, at least, the false claim that it is simply far-left. I've listed reliable sources that say elements of it, or perhaps we should say people demonstrating under the label, are not solely far left. I don't know why the sources have been ignored - or rather that we use them but only selectively. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Completely Missing The Point of Antifa

WP:NOTFORUM discussion with nothing about the article itself
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Antifa is about defending vulnerable populations that are the targets of extermination by fascist organizations. The violence you see from Antifa is only in defense of those vulnerable populations. Fascism, White Supremacy, and White Nationalism has always had an agenda of genocide, against Jewish People, against Black People, against anyone who isn't white. The tone of the article needs to reflect that. Also, Antifa isn't a political movement. It's a political ideology. There is no overarching organization or structure. There isn't an antifa world headquarters. It's completely individual. Now there are groups that consider themselves as a group antifa but they are not antifa itself. Antifa is a personal conviction. 98.186.93.221 (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Can you address the text of the article directly? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC) If Antifa cared so much about us, then why is it filled with Black Lives Matter, communists, and other groups just as virulently anti-Semitic as the neo-Nazis and KKK they are fighting against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD22:7600:9556:8523:21F7:20E7 (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source

On the Anti-fascism talk page, an editor drew attention to this, which I think is very useful here: Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines. Some extracts: "Because anarchism has traditionally been a marginalised movement, it can be challenging to find well-informed mainstream sources of information. Editors are encouraged to provide multiple sources wherever possible, and should consider scholarly, well-researched material the best source of information...A comprehensive familiarity with anarchism, as with many subjects, is rare among journalists [so] editors should be wary of citing passing references to anarchist-related topics where the author does not support their claims with a rationale or citation... Major mainstream newspapers are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. However, a journalist doing a story on a group of anarchists will often have no prior experience with the anarchist movement. As such, articles that do not cite multiple sources should be considered accurate only in representing the point of view expressed by the particular groups covered in the article and should not be generalized further to the anarchist movement as a whole." All of these are true of Antifa, where the sudden interest in the topic is producing a demand for sloppy, under-researched media articles, such as many that are being used in the current version of this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely. I suspect a lot of the journalists are reading each others articles, with the obvious outcomes which include only a superficial understanding of the movement and its followers> Doug Weller talk 10:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur. After Cville, and particularly given that Trump called out Antifa in Phoenix, there's been a lot of sloppy journalism. But that's a given. Some journalists shall dig deeper, and academic studies shall ensue... The Antifa article is is currently is the early days of the Gamergate controversy article. Plan accordingly. kencf0618 (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

pronunciation

I've heard ANtifa and anTEEfah. Please add the correct one (IPA or respelled). 174.19.239.71 (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

DIY. kencf0618 (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that there is only one pronunciation. A lot of words have more than one way to pronounce them. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

But this backs the latter. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Smear campaigns

The recently added section about Microchip and the Whitehouse petition is not a far right smear, which the section suggests, the source used does not call it either a smear, nor a far right campaign. Therefore it is obviously OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how OR enters into this, but in the interests of civility and comprehensiveness I have amended the section title to "On-line campaigns against Antifa by the far right and alt-right," which should cover all of the bases. I dislike the term "alt-right," but if anyone wants to draw a Venn diagram, go ahead! Furthermore, further citations are forthcoming. kencf0618 (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I changed the section title to "On-line campaigns against Antifa" to be more concise as the previous one was a bit longer than it needed to be. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And I shrunk it to "Criticism". Somebody might complain offline, you never know. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph with a single blog source behind it seems undue. As in that online hoax against the group did not seem to garner much attention from RS. I purpose removing that paragraph in general or at least getting a good source for it besides a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Chapters?

The paragraph about chapters claims that " members and experts have both stated that the movement has boomed; approximately 200 chapters are currently extant in the U.S.,". That's not what the source says, it just quotes one person making the claim. And one thing we seem to know for sure is that this is not an organisation with chapters. Autonomous groups aren't chapters. Nor are groups that are part of a network. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I doubt that it was written with intent to mislead, so I don't want to bite anybody, but the first thing that popped into my head was "You know what really does have chapters? The KKK!" And then I thought "Yes, and other things too", but if that was the first thing to pop into my head then I really doubt that I am the only one to pick up on this verbal association. Given that there is a body of people who wish to create an impression of equivalence between various Anti-fascist groups and organisations similar to the KKK, I think we have a right to be very suspicious of the use of unusual terminology implying that equivalence if the sources don't support it. That said, the JTA ref uses the word "chapters" (which I think was a poor choice on their part) so I don't know if we can get rid of it completely.

I have changed it to "groups" in the infobox and left it as "chapters" in the body due to the proximity of the reference. I was tempted to put "chapters" in quotes but I know that these can be seen as scare quotes so I held off on that. I think that this is just an interim improvement rather than the last word on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Thanks. I see that in fact I'm wrong,the source does back "members and experts have both stated that the movement has boomed" as it says "members and experts say the movement has boomed since Trump’s election." which is pretty much word for word, moving the name of Trump around. Copyvio I believe. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I've got a problem with Mark Bray. His book uses the label Antifa for anything anti-fascist: "As long as there has been fascism, there has been anti-fascism — also known as “antifa.”[6] That's an extension of the label that I don't think is justified by what I've read, but as he's pretty close to the movement politically and was an "Occupation" organiser I'm not surprised. Good review here. Ah, another review[7] "Bray describes his book as “an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent far right”. “I hope Antifa will aid and inspire those who will take up the fight against fascism in the years to come so that someday there will be no need for this book.” So possibly a useful book in some ways but not others. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Dartmouth's not happy, but this article gives more information about his book, which you can buy as a pdf.[8] Doug Weller talk 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Which I did. It refers to Torch Network chapters but calls other groups groups. Eg "There are antifa groups, however, that make an effort to publicly address the argument that anti-fascism infringes upon the free speech of fascists. Rose City Antifa, for example, points out that the right to free speech derived from the Constitution “protect[s] citizens from state interference, not from criticism by the public . . . we do not have a powerful state apparatus at our disposal . . . therefore the concepts of ‘censorship’ and ‘free speech rights’ are not in any reasonable way applicable.” It's this sort of thing for which Bray will be a good source. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Bray puts his ideological cards on the table. kencf0618 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Chapters" is an inappropriate word. TORCH does use the phrase on its website, I think, as a hangover from ARA, which did have more of a membership organisation structure and did have chapters, but "groups" is more appropriate, as many (most?) antifa groups are completely autonomous. "Chapters" implies some kind of centralised structure. Also, I agree with Doug above about the limitations of Bray in that he deliberately widens the term "antifa" to refer to pretty much all anti-fascism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Rv why

Sources describe them as being left wing to far left, my edit here seems a fair compromise on how they are described, yet one user removed this, please explain why. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at their other edit, which was an infobox edit which then contradicted the article text. New user not understanding how we work, particularly sourcing, I'd say. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Because they are not merely left-wing. They take far left positions on issues such as capitalism and free speech. Its adherents are revolutionaries, communist, and socialist. Truthsort (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Truthsort That's just bull - it's your personal opinion born out of lack of knowledge of the movement - which we all here share to some degree. Take a look at this[9] article "How Trump presidency created quiet anti-fascist movement in America's soccer stadiums". "Yahoo Sports was able to identify and confirm the existence of four specific and active antifa groups in North America, within the fan bases of the New York Cosmos of the North American Soccer League and MLS’s New York Red Bulls, Montreal Impact and FC Dallas." There's no evidence that any of the members of these groups are anything politically but anti-fascist. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Adherents are mostly socialists, anarchists, and communists
• The extremist anarchist-communist group Antifa
• It’s a leaderless, horizontal movement whose roots lie in various leftist causes—Communism, anarchism, Socialism, anti-racism. Truthsort (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Strange Portal links

I am really struggling to see how several of the portal links are justified:

• Anarchism portal - Not sure if this is supported.
• Communism portal - This seems completely bonkers. Are there any even actual communists left in the USA external to the fevered imaginations of those nostalgic for the Cold War? Even if we accept that these are left wing groups, and I think we are still arguing about this, there is no justification for a link to anything as specific as actual Communism that I can see.
• Punk rock portal - Not seeing any direct link here. This is not a band or a musical genre.
• Social movements portal - This one seems OK to me.
• Social and political philosophy portal - This also seems OK to me.

So that looks like two good links, two bad links and one that is on the border. What do we all think? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I would kill the punk rock portal. The anarchism one seems to be supported [10]. I'm not sure either on the communism one, it's mentioned in the article but I don't know if they are the best source. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The punk scene, along with ska are sorta tied in with antifa, but only tangentially see Cultures of Violence in the New German Street p66 or The SAGE Handbook of Popular Music p286, however I believe the portal does not really belong. Anarcasim should stay, and although antifa were first created by communists, that portal really has no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks all. I have removed the two dodgy ones. I also trimmed some of the See Also links that were not obviously relevant. I'm glad we got that sorted before the next question 'cos that is coming right up... --DanielRigal (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It says Anarcho-communism on the tin, or at least in the infobox, and the punk lineage is a direct one. kencf0618 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the citations on the historical and ideological lineage of Antifa, I've put the portals back up. kencf0618 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the Communism one should definitely be removed. This is an article about US antifa (in which big-C Communists (the subject of that portal) play the most minor role). If it was an article about European antifa in the 1940s, fair enough, but it isn't. Can we delete it again please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Big C Communism has nothing to do with anarchism. The Communism portal should go. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What's with those red and black flag logos?

Why do we have even one logo, never mind two logos (one of them absolutely massive!), for a rather vaguely related German organisation when this article is about something that is not German, not an organisation and does not have any central/official body to sanction a flag or logo of any sort? Is it because that logo has foreign text and red and black flags on it? Is it because people want to beleive that Antifa is a single coherent organisation. I propose we remove these logos completely from the top of the article. Keeping a small one next to the History section where Antifaschistische Aktion is actually mentioned might be unnecessary too but I don't strongly object to that. I'm not sure if there is suitable replacement image for the top. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see your post but I've removed the logo and the stupid native name - this is the name for an American movement and the official language is English, not German. And the colors. As an aside, Antifaschistische Aktion says "Contemporary Antifa in Germany "has no practical historical connection to the movement from which it takes its name, but is instead a product of West Germany’s squatter scene and autonomist movement in the 1980s." Our article says there's a direct link - including logistical, what in the world does that mean? Doug Weller talk 13:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with your points here Dan, and with Doug's removals. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough the American Antifa logo isn't on Wikimedia Commons, which is why I used the second German Antifa logo. There's certainly enough continuity. kencf0618 (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no organisational continuity, but the logo is widely used across lots of autonomous US antifa groups, e.g. https://twitter.com/NYCAntifa https://twitter.com/NorthNjAntifa https://twitter.com/ClevelandAntifa BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What is Antifa redux?

Just read this.[11] Interesting read, I'll just add a bit here:

"Antifa is actually more label than organization, its believers connected by calls to action on websites like It’s Going Down. Anarchist, communist or just liberal, they oppose fascism with militant zeal. But some formalize into affinity groups like the Pastel Bloc; dressed in pastels — a play on the head-to-toe uniform of black bloc — they offer medical attention during protests.

Black bloc is often seen as mostly white males looking to wreak havoc for their cause. A half-dozen Berkeley antifa members who agreed to speak on record to us saw merit in that stereotype, but since the Trump inauguration, they said, those behind the masks represent the spectrum of gender and race. “People showing up to the protests are the ones with the most to lose,” said Neil Lawrence, a Berkeley student. Part of his decision to go public as a transgender anti-fascist is to counteract the stereotype." Doug Weller talk 13:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer?

I'm not sure that Patriot Prayer's counter protest belongs, but if there's a good reason that it was significant, I don't think the description is correct. From its article it looks as though describing it as a free speech advocacy group is at best oversimplistic. I don't know yet exactly what this group is, but it's got Kyle Chapman as a leader and that's not good. Right now if we mention them I think it should be without a description. @Darkness Shines:, what say you? Doug Weller talk 20:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Chapman a leader? I started the article a few days ago, not seen his name mentioned as a leader. And I'd like to retain the internal or it'll be an orphaned article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it belongs here I think you would be wise to look for other places you can link it. Sadly, we don't have an article about "Dog poo protests" but there must be some better places for it. I agree that that description needs a little work. It is better in the PP article itself where it finds the right balance between accepting their claims at face value and sneering at them without evidence of their falsehood. Assuming the group sticks around I think time will tell what they really are and we don't need to jump the gun on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the Berkley fighting is already in the article, who do you think antifa were scrapping there? Some anti-facists protesters, known as antifa, pounced when Joey Gibson, founder of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, showed up with his crew. The protesters beat one man with a shield and another person wearing an American flag. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I was rather unclear. I wasn't saying that it should definitely not be linked here. At least, that wasn't what I was trying to say but I can see how it could have sounded like that. My point was that only linking it here is not really enough even though that technically de-orphans it. It really should be linked elsewhere too, probably in a few other places. I don't feel strongly either way about it being linked here although I did take it out of See Also as I didn't think that was the right place for it. Having it linked inline doesn't ring alarm bells to me. My other point was that I agree with Doug that maybe it isn't described optimally inline. If they are a "free speech advocacy group" that only defends speech of certain opinions then the description is questionable. I don't know enough about them to know if that is the case but it sounds like it might be. I think the easiest thing is just to drop the description completely here and let anybody who wants to know follow the link. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa raising funds for a network trying to improve access to abortions

Patriot Prayer is based in Portland. Rose City Antifa has a different tactic with this group - they want to use the demonstration to raise funds for an abortion cause: "But this time, antifa members apparently also are changing their tactics. One of the most prominent antifa groups, Rose City Antifa, has asked its supporters to write down every time they hear a white supremacist buzzword or comment or see an alt-right logo such as Pepe the Frog banners. The group is asking supporters to donate a dollar or more for each of the comments or actions that will be given to the National Network of Abortion Funds, which seeks to improve financial and logistical access to abortions."[12]

Antifa isn't all about violence, although you might not guess it from this article. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This is very true. These are committed ideologues, community organizers, and activists; they don't operate in a vacuum. Citations soon. Or as soon as press coverage improves. kencf0618 (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"International affiliation" and the infobox more generally

I have removed Antifaschistische Aktion from the international affiliation field of the infobox. I don't feel that this should be controversial as clearly there is no body to be doing the alleged affiliating here. If anybody disagrees (or wants to say anything else about it) they can discuss it here. BTW, I'm not objecting to the reference to Antifaschistische Aktion in the body text, just the false impression that there is a formal affiliation relationship given by having it in the infobox.

I'd also like to ask the wider question: Is "Infobox political party" even the right type of box to be using here at all? This is not a political party and it has some parameters which as completely irrelevant to this subject as well as some useful ones. Would some other box type be better? I went looking for alternatives and I saw that Occupy movement, Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party protests all use "Infobox civil conflict", which might not sound very promising by name, and also has some not entirely relevant parameters, but might be closer to what we want? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That might work. It'll take some tweaking... kencf0618 (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@DanielRigal and Kencf0618: That infobox is for events, see Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Event. "A civil conflict infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular civil conflict (for example, protest, clash with police) in a standard manner. This template is designed for non-military conflicts, so please do not use on the entry of military conflict." I'm surprised that there isn't one for social or political movements, perhaps we should create one. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Why the United States Antifa DOES have affiliation with Antifaschistische Aktion and why their color(s) are Black.

Hello,

I have kind of coined this dispute a "Wikipedia War". Nothing drastic, just a saying.

Now, on to the discussion at hand.

The reason why I believe that Antifa does have affiliation with Antifaschistische Aktion is because they share essentially the same exact ideologies and customs. This is indisputable and quite incorrigible to say otherwise. If Antifaschistische Aktion wasn't a thing, then Antifa won't be a thing either. Will there be something similar in it's place? Of course, but not to the general degree of what it is today. This is why a portion of Antifa US today wave the Antifaschistische Aktion flag, because that is who they are and they are showing who they are and where they came from.

This is why there is an "International" box for this page and others. It is because it is to show their International counterpart(s). So, this is why Antifa is in direct relation with Antifaschistische Aktion.

And the reason why Antifa is primarily black is because of several factors. But if we look at Antifaschistische Aktion back then, they wore black. What does Antifa US today wear? Black. This is indisputable. And they also wore masks back in the day too. Thus, they do not have to be an "organization" to have official colors. They do have a set primary color and that is black.

Sources: https://www.fastcompany.com/40455758/how-neo-nazis-and-antifa-are-creating-the-uniforms-of-the-revolution https://antidotezine.com/2017/04/25/origins-of-antifa/

These are 2 reputable sites that state their general history and discusses about the 2 statements I have set forth. I am open to debate, but I think personally, it will be silly to be against what I am trying to publish because it is factual.

And here is a quote from FastCompany, the same link that I am citing. "The media tended to identify the Charlottesville counterprotesters who were part of Antifa as wearing all black. This is a form of dress known as “black bloc,” a strategy developed by anarchists in 1980s. The idea is to wear black clothing and items to conceal your face, like bandanas or motorcycle helmets, to make it hard to distinguish between people. These face coverings also help protect against mace and other gasses.

Over the last few months, people who have wanted to be associated with Antifa have worn the movement’s logo—a set of red and black flags—that was inspired by the symbol used by German communists in the 1930s who also resisted fascism. It is now easy to buy Antifa-branded gear on websites like Antifa Wear and Etsy." Aviartm (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Aviartm

Here's a good Twitter discussion on Antifa vis-à-vis Black Bloc which provides further tactical and ideological context. https://twitter.com/stcolumbia/status/902247918886940672

kencf0618 (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Why should anyone think the Spanish website Antifa wear proves something about an American political movement? It just show that Fastcompany, which is a business magazine, isn't a reliable source for Antifa. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kencf0618, I never stated that Antifa and Black bloc are interchangeable terms. Yes, it is a tactic, but I can assure you that the very vast majority of Antifa participants wear Black. This is a given. Aviartm (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I never discussed about Antifawear.com, I do not know why you brought it up. And it doesn't necessarily matter if it's from a Business Magazine, if their researchable proof to back up the claims and that everything checks out, which it does, it can be used as a reference. Antifa may be using Black bloc.

And, if we can not reach a compromise, I wish to propose a "Tactics:" box for the InfoBox. "Over the last few months, people who have wanted to be associated with Antifa have worn the movement’s logo—a set of red and black flags—that was inspired by the symbol used by German communists in the 1930s who also resisted fascism. It is now easy to buy Antifa-branded gear on websites like Antifa Wear and Etsy." - FastCompany (Same citation).

Companies cashing in on a fad is hardly new, although it is ironic that anti capitalists are being used to turn a buck. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A business magazine may be a reliable source for business but not for this. You need to stop adding stuff to the infobox that isn't fully discussed and sourced in the article as that is what is required for material to be included. You can go to WP:RSN to ask about your source but if you do, announce it here. Doug Weller talk 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

And that's not what infoboxes are for. And 'gear' isn't a tactic. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Recalling that this is also about Antifaschistische Aktion, that was a German movement during the Weimar Republic early in the last century. Our article on it does discuss the modern movement there, also called at times Antifa, and says that "has no practical historical connection to the movement from which it takes its name, but is instead a product of West Germany’s squatter scene and autonomist movement in the 1980s." I've seen no sources suggesting they share the same ideologies as the Weimar Republic group which was part of the German Communist Party. Besides the fact that Communism then was very different from Communism now, today's Antifa movements aren't Communist. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we call this a smear campaign

@Jdcomix: how is this criticism? "In August 2017 the image of British actress Anna Friel portraying a battered woman in a 2007 Women's Aid anti-domestic violence campaign was re-purposed using fake Antifa Twitter accounts organized by way of 4chan, an investigation by Bellingcat found. The image is captioned "53% of white women voted for Trump, 53% of white women should look like this" and includes the Antifa flag; another image featuring an injured woman is captioned "She chose to be a Nazi. Choices have consequences," and includes the hashtag #PunchANazi. Although the smear campaign was not regarded as particularly sophisticated, investigator Elliot Higgins remarked to the BBC that "This was a transparent and quite pathetic attempt, but I wouldn't be surprised if white nationalist groups try to mount more sophisticated attacks in the future."<ref name="Far-right smear campaign against Antifa exposed by Bellingcat">{{Cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41036631 |title=Far-right smear campaign against Antifa exposed by Bellingcat |date=2017-08-24 |website=BBC |access-date=2017-08-25}}</ref> See also this. Both articles use the word smear. This wasn't criticism. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would get rid of that paragraph in general. Shouldn't really be sourced to a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the paragraph as a whole is UNDUE. Jdcomix (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: It always depends upon the kind of blog. BBC Trending falls into the category of those we can use I think after reading this. In any case there's Salon, the link that I added. Then there's the Daily Dot,[13] the Daily Kos[14] and Snopes.[15] How is this undue? Doug Weller talk 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I pointed this out above, you can't have a section about a smear campaign when half of it contains the petition, that is not described as a smear at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would argue the petition is more covered than the smear campaign. PackMecEng (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I agree with that. What you shouldn't do is change a sentence about a smear campaign to make it say heavy criticism, as obviously a smear campaign isn't criticism. We need to sort out whether we keep this text and if we do place it and word it properly. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it warrants a mention IMO, and sources do call it a smear campaign, but it is just the usual 4chan trolling tbs. So call it a smear inline but not in the section header? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a smear campaign. The petition can also be mentioned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Antifa is a radical political movement of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist groups, including in the United States.

What is this sentence supposed to mean? Either get rid of including or add something like "many" after including? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civlover (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And their battering people again

Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley And again Gibson and the cancelled Patriot Prayer meeting are mentioned, if Doug has no objections I'll be restoring that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. This really seems too trivial. There's a lot going on and there will be more. Do we really want to mention events that didn't take place? Doug Weller talk 16:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It was cancelled over fears of violence from antifa, and given this was the first event cancelled over fears of antifa violence, the second being linked in the WaPo post I just gave I figure it warrants mention. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Per above, it seems worth including if it was cancelled because of Antifa. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that the raison d'etre of Antifa is to deny Fascists a platform, I concur. kencf0618 (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "Do we really want to mention events that didn't take place?" I've added a definition (at "We Are All Antifa") to help you understand the nominal purpose of the anti-fascist movement: to keep fascist events from taking place. The comments by Darkness Shines, InsertCleverPhraseHere, and Kencf0618 are manifestly correct. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty condescending. I actually know the purpose of anti-fascist movements - they exist to prevent fascism from gaining control, not just to prevent events. And by nominal do you mean "Existing in name only; not real:" or "trifling"? I asked a general question. I'm probably unnecessarily concerned, but what a nice tactic it might be to announce an event and then claim you cancelled it because of Antifa. Stranger things have happened. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "event, n. 1. Something that happens; occurrence <such an event would shock the conscience of the world>. 2. Course of events — often used in plural <events proved the folly of such calculations>." So what you mean here is generally in accord with what I mean here.

By nominal I mean "existing or being ... in name ... but usually not in reality; formal." The purpose of the Antifa movement at Charlottesville was to oppose fascism. Its usual purpose (at Berkeley and elsewhere) is debatable. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Another source, more on signs, pronuncation, politics

NYTimes[16] "Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization; most organized groups are local, concentrated in Texas and the Northwest. There’s not even a consensus among adherents as to whether to pronounce the term AN-tee-fah or an-TEE-fah."

", some antifa activists claim inspiration from the left-wing paramilitaries of Weimar Germany and from the Black Panther Party." - Note the 'some' and Weimar Germany.

"Few antifa groups wear masks or carry firearms," "the two sides have been clashing for months. “We bullied antifa,” a website called Men of the West crowed in May, after an ex-Marine smashed an antifa leader head first into a lamppost for touching his flag during a confrontation in Austin."

There's also a photo "A counter protester holds a “Antifa” sign at the Boston Free Speech Rally earlier this month." The sign? A red circle containing a Swastika with a diagonal red line crossing it out. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Pelosi condemns ‘violent actions’ of antifa protesters

Found this article at 'Pelosi condems...' but couldn't add due to protected status of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel syme (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ideologies in infobox really need sourcing and to be in the article itself

Anarchist terrorism was just added. It's a redirect to Propaganda of the deed, and means, according to that article, " primarily associated with acts of violence perpetrated by proponents of insurrectionary anarchism" - which of course seems pretty inappropriate. That might apply to the Weather Underground but not here. And how about Alter-globalization? Where is that discussed in the article? Or Anarcho-communism? Seriously folks, you can't just drop things in an infobox that aren't clearly discussed and well sourced in the article. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, can't find any verifiable source that indicates that they are terrorists.Gabriel syme (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Have deleted terrorism as I assume that's basically vandalism. My view is we should also delete all the other ideologies except Anti-fascism.BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-fascism, which is hardly an ideology, is the only thing all its followers share. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, how much consensus do we need to remove the rest of those ideologies? Gabriel syme (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is policy, so actually consensus isn't needed to remove disputed unsourced material. If sources are found, they can be replaced. Doug Weller talk 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm new to editing, are you saying I could boldly remove them now and be within policy?Gabriel syme (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Smear Campaign"

I highly believe that the paragraph discussing a "smear campaign" either should be heavily revised or removed entirely. It doesn't belong under criticism (because it's not really criticism if it's a smear campaign) The relevance to the greater critique of antifa is questionable, it doesn't fit in with the NPOV criteria for an article and it takes up a third of a section that really should be about Criticism against the antifa, not about 'smear campaigns'.

I'm in favor of removal, personally.

EDIT: I've decided to put a POV-section marker under there. Kazuok (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Just noting it's been given its own section which now seems appropriate. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this works alright. Kazuok (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Over-quotation

I've added a tag and category for what looks like an extreme case of over-quotation in this article. If anybody is willing and able, please help by rewording quote-heavy sections to use Wikipedia's voice when possible and to summarize/paraphrase sourced content in other cases. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Differentiating between Antifa and Black bloc, noting that One People's Project is Antifa

Although they clearly aren't the same, the article does suggest a couple of times that they are. See Further Reading, for instance, which has some Black bloc stuff that isn't about Antifa. We also have the sentence "During the inauguration celebrations mask-wearing "black bloc" protesters raged across the area just outside of the security perimeter, smashing windows and burning cars." The source differentiates and calls them allies,[17] we make it appear they are the same.

One People's Project is referred to as Antifa here. I'd urge editors to read the linked article in which OPP's founder discusses Antifa, etc. "Though “violence on many sides” rhetoric has defined antifa in the public imagination, Jenkins insists such standoffs are only part of what the movement does—and not the most important part." Doug Weller talk 08:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Bray

How is Bray not RS for his own opinions? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

He is and his comments on followers' politics need to be directly attributed to him, not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think we should mention this book. I'll add that his book points out that followers do more than fight fascism: "Most of the anti-fascists I interviewed also spend a great deal of their time on other forms of politics (e.g., labor organizing, squatting, environmental activism, antiwar mobilization, or migrant solidarity work). In fact, the vast majority would rather devote their time to these productive activities than have to risk their safety and well-being to confront dangerous neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Antifa act out of collective self-defense." Doug Weller talk 18:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

While we should include some sympathetic scholars and writers for the sake of neutrality I agree with Doug that there's no reason for Wikipedia to take a side with him - especially since he takes such a casual approach to the wanton violence they've committed, even after admitting they have no allegiance to Western society or values. That would be a significant bias. Kazuok (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

To my mind Mark Bray is analogous to Charlie Gillett in this matter. The Sound of the City: The Rise of Rock and Roll, a seminal history of early rock music, was published in 1970; Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook is likewise an early seminal history. (It's just gone into its second printing, so I won't be getting my copy until late September.) Like it or not, he is a reliable source, and not to put too fine a point on it, he is a reliable source which we have now, WP:IDLI and concerns about Western Civilization not withstanding. That said, merrily adjust his citations in accordance with encyclopedic tone as ye may. kencf0618 (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't give a dime to Mark Bray personally. I'm satisfied as long as the criticism section stays intact and isn't vandalized by antifa sympathizers. Everything else I've put on the Talk page has been my own personal opinion as a page contributer. Kazuok (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We Are All Antifa

anti-fascist (¦an-ˌtī-¦fa-shist) also antifascist, adj. Opposed to fascism. — anti-fascist also antifascist, n.

fascism, n. A political ... movement ... that stands for a centralized, autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

"Republican, adj. 2. Relating to ... one of the two major political parties in the U.S. ... usually associated ... with favoring a restricted governmental role in social and economic life." "Democratic, adj. 2. Relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. ... associated ... with policies of broad social reform and internationalism in foreign affairs." (Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you looking to add exactly? PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: An inline tag for [promotion?], per WP:NOTADVERTISING policy, for promoting a product in the lead. The most authoritative sources on the issue say Bray's not a "Dartmouth historian", he's just a short-term Visiting Scholar at its Gender Research Institute. Also, his doctoral degree (Rutgers '16) is in Modern European and Women's and Gender History, not Modern American History. More at Dartblog. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the text in the lead is promoting his book? If so, that is a wildly inaccurate interpretation of that text. If simply mentioning the existence of a book is promotion, then you're going to have a lot of tagging to do. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

He says he added it because I didn't seem to understand what anti-fascist movements do, see his statement above. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@AlexEng: That interpretation is accurate. The text promotes the book. Mentioning the existence of merchandise in the lead promotes that merchandise. More important, the book isn't scholarly work. Also, the description of the author is somewhat promotional, and can be improved. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I don't think it should be in the lead. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream disavowal

After the assaults by antifa and other alt-leftists on the peaceful protestors at Berkeley last week, there has been a wave of condemnations and disavowals from politicians and the mainstream media, including Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, and the Washington Post, among others. Note in the article? 152.130.15.14 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Evidently, Trevor Noah from The Daily Show also just disavowed and repudiated Antifa (calling them "Vegan ISIS" LOL). This is starting to turn into a landslide of public opinion and pundits. I think it should be mentioned in the lede that so many public leaders are throwing this group under the bus. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use the Daily Mail as a source

We decided via a discussion at WP:RSN that we wouldn't use it. It got a lot of publicity at the time. There are a lot of new editors who don't know this, but if you add it it will just be removed. Please understand that we can't overrule that discussion here so there's no point in trying. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Weller, your statement doesn't appear to be in the spirit of Wikipedia's culture. Consensus often shifts depending on editor involvement. In fact, from what I understand, whenever an editor says, "Consensus has been established and cannot be changed" usually means that editor has repudiated Wikipedia's inclusive culture. Are you saying that any decision you have been involved with cannot be changed, even if more editors get involved and decide to go in a different direction? Please advise... 152.130.15.14 (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't around at the time but I recall reading about it, an RFC was concluded that the Mail was not generally reliable and use of it was to be discussed on a case by case basis. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)