Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 3 October 2020

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antifa (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues. Q1: Why doesn't Misplaced Pages say that antifa is "far left"? A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern but please be aware that this issue has been discussed many times before. You are encouraged to review Misplaced Pages's policy on consensus-building and the following discussions before posting on this subject: Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 1#Far left is neither accurate nor the same as anarchist Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 2#Left vs far left Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 4#far left movement Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 5#Left Wing / Right Wing Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 6#Far-left, one more time Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Antifa far-left? Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20#Lead Q2: Why doesn't Misplaced Pages say that antifa has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States? A2: There is no legal statute in the United States which allows designating a domestic group as a terrorist organization. Only foreign groups may have that status. Statements from former United States Attorney General William P. Barr and former U.S. President Donald Trump do not equal a legal designation. Q3: Why is 'antifa' spelled in lowercase? A3: Many editors have argued that antifa is a common noun, based on available sources. There was no consensus to switch to 'Antifa' in this RfC.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism  Anarchism WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · history · talk · purge Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help? Did you know 07 Jan 2025 – Liceu bombing (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion Articles for deletion 08 Jan 2025 – Kevin Carson (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion (2 participants) Good article nominees 04 Dec 2024 – Los Solidarios (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion 28 Nov 2024 – Alt Llobregat insurrection (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); start discussion Peer reviews 26 Oct 2024 – Lucy Parsons (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Mujinga (t · c); see discussion Articles for creation 13 Dec 2024 – Draft:José de Molina (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MexicanSoda (t · c) Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (513) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antifa (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Antifa's death toll

Zero, according to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Figure this probably needs to be in the article somewhere? FDW777 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, I did add here that According to a 2020 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, there have been zero deaths linked to antifa, with no deaths linked to anti-fascism since 1994. Other interesting excerpts include:

While researchers sometimes disagree on how to categorize the ideology of specific attacks, multiple databases that track extremist violence have found the same trend: It's violent rightwing attacks, not "far-left" violence, that presents the greater deadly threat to Americans today. "Leftwing violence has not been a major terrorism threat," said Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert who led the creation of CSIS's dataset.

Given the discrepancies between the deadly toll of leftwing and rightwing violence, American law enforcement agencies have long faced criticism for failing to take the threat of white supremacist violence seriously, while at the same time overstating the risks posed by leftwing protesters.

"Antifa is not going around murdering people like rightwing extremists are. It’s a false equivalence," said Beirich. "I've at times been critical of antifa for getting into fights with Nazis at rallies and that kind of violence, but I can’t think of one case in which an antifa person was accused of murder," she added.

Today, Jones said, "the most significant domestic terrorism threat comes from white supremacists, anti-government militias and a handful of individuals associated with the 'boogaloo' movement that are attempting to create a civil war in the United States."

But the president’s rhetoric about "antifa" violence has dangerous consequences, not just for anti-fascists, but for any Americans who decide to protest, some activists said. Yvette Felarca, a California-based organizer and anti-fascist activist, said she saw Trump’s claims about antifa violence, particularly during the George Floyd protests, as a message to his "hardcore" supporters that it was appropriate to attack people who came out to protest. "It's his way of saying to his supporters: 'Yeah, go after them. Beat them or kill them to the point where they go back home and stay home afraid,'" Felarca said.

Shouldn't we include info on organizations based on what they do, not what they have failed at doing? EricCharmanderillo (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That would suggest that they were trying to kill someone, right? Punching Nazi's might result in death I guess, but it would be difficult to ascribe the concept of "failing to kill" to them. Koncorde (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Added the 329 people killed by white supremacists and other rightwing extremists. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

::: I was referring to the bombing of the ICE facility and the various shootings/bombings associated with the organization. Also, @FDW777 why would that be included in this article? EricCharmanderillo (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Fire"-bombed. No clear indication he was attempting to kill anyone - and if he did then he failed, and as you said we shouldn't include info on "what they have failed at doing?". Koncorde (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the study and the secondary reference reporting on it include the information about the 329 people killed by white supremacists and other racists, rather prominently, I fail to see why it shouldn't be included. Except of course that it demonstrates people who peddle the "Antifa are the real fascists" line are drawing a false equivalence. FDW777 (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The bomber was a member of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club, which is an anti-fascist pro-2nd Amendment group. I haven't seen any reliable sources that they are part of antifa.TFD (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

EricCharmanderillo turned out to be a sockpuppet, now blocked, so I've struck through his edits. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is the update referring to the shooting of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl? Instead of point-scoring with "far-right" political violence and death toll why can't editors be balanced and at least include this information, which shows blatantly that Antifa isn't afraid of using political violence against who they deem "far-right." All political violence is wrong but it seems many biased editors downplay Antifa violence as much as possible while even denying the group is responsible or active in many recent events which have obviously taken place and have been instigated by them to some extent. 109.180.155.236 (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Harry-Oscar 1812, using the Gosport range 109.180.155.206/21. Striking out comments. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

He said he was not part of an Antifa group. So, how is it relevant to this article? O3000 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The guy said he was "100% ANTIFA all the way!" in June on social media, why do you deny this, it's widely accepted he supported Antifa and used their methods. 109.180.155.236 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, if a self-described fascist did the same it would be front page news, clear double standard here. 109.180.155.236 (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Harry-Oscar 1812, using the Gosport range 109.180.155.206/21. Striking out comments. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about antifa, not all anti-fascists. And, it is in the news. O3000 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been reported by multiple sources that the shooter described himself as "100% Antifa". So I'm confused - how is he not Antifa? 96.241.129.33 (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

He has also been reported as saying "he was not a 'member' of antifa, but supported the ideology." So why only considering that statement? One can be an anti-fascist without being antifa. Davide King (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but only because someone was killed, people have been maimed from erroneous accusations from the group and not to mention the likely many cases of property damage these individuals have taken part in and they have often received a blind eye from the media. Besides, being aligned to Antifa which have no central authority and while using political violence against certain opposing political groups should be more than enough to show the danger of far-left political violence. Though regional groups exist which share similar ideological predilections. Same goes with any other form of targeted terrorism. 109.180.155.236 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Harry-Oscar 1812, using the Gosport range 109.180.155.206/21. Striking out comments. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. O3000 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Include the recent murder in Portland OR

We should include the recent murder of a protestor by an Antifa member in Portland OR. Killdozer2021 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Since nothing is confirmed, doing so would violate WP:BLPCRIME. XOR'easter (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There already is coverage in some reliable sources like the WSJ: Police Investigating Antifa Supporter Michael Reinoehl in Portland Shooting, but for this article it won't hurt if we wait a bit more. --Pudeo (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The WSJ was the only source I could find among either print or broadcast mainstream media. Note that the WSJ article merely calls him an antifa supporter, not a member, although it says he claims to be a member. We will have to wait to see if (1) the story gets more coverage and (2) he actually is a member of antifa. They don't use the term murder either since the circumstances of the shooting are unknown. TFD (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a thing with a membership, though. There's no membership rolls, there's no dues to pay, your name doesn't go on a list somewhere. It's a loose collection of people who self-identify with the movement based on shared ideology. He can identify with it, he can support it, but it's not a thing of which one is a member. --Jayron32 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't mean there are no members, just that it takes judgment to determine who is a member. Reliable sources can determine who is or is not antifa. For example, we can use a source that says antifa members showed up at a demonstration. TFD (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not members. People who associate with the movement. Again, there is no membership. You keep using that word wrong. --Jayron32 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your position seems to lead to the consequence that no one is antifa. It would be a group without members. I would say people who claim to be antifa and go to antifa events are antifa, even if there is no member registry. Still, I agree with people above in saying there is no rush to add information in the face of uncertainty. MonsieurD (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That's just it, there is no formal membership because there's no formal organization. It's all self-identification. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

But it doesn't have membership. It's like being a fan of a TV show or that you like pepperoni on your pizza. It's a thing you have in common with other people, in this case the philosophy of antifacism, but it doesn't have a membership anymore than being a Game of Thrones fan does. You can be a Game of Thrones fan and that's a real group of people with shared interests, but they don't have a membership. People really are anti-facist. They don't need a membership to identify as such. Not all real things are groups that have official memberships. --Jayron32 15:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That's my point, though. People are fixated on calling this person "a member of antifa," when that's the wrong wording IMO. If someone is a supporter of LGBT+ rights, we don't call them an "LGBT+ member." As The Four Deuces points out, we could call this person an "antifa supporter." The whole "membership" angle is a red herring, meant to try and frame antifa as a formal organization being led by powerful individuals for nefarious means. We should avoid that terminology unless explicitly used by an RS and, even then, specifically in that source's voice. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, correct: no-one is Antifa. Many people are anti-fascist, and some would define themselves as part of the anti-fascist movement, but Antifa has no corporate identity so nobody is, or is a member of, Antifa. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that makes sense. Would you also be ok with saying no one is a Boogaloo boys since there are no official books held by the movement ?MonsieurD (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, I think there is a difference between them though.

While boogaloo groups are often described as a part of a larger boogaloo movement, MacNab has said she does not agree with this characterization "ince the majority of participants were radicalized elsewhere prior to donning a Hawaiian shirt—either in anti-government militant groups such as the Three Percenters or the militias, or in white supremacy groups—the Boogaloo shouldn't be considered an independent movement at this time". MacNab testified: "The boogaloo movement, for example, isn't really a movement. It's a dress code, it's a way of talking, it's jargon. The people who belong to it came from other extremist groups, usually on Facebook. They might have been militia, they might have been a white supremacy . They picked it up somewhere and they donned that Hawaiian shirt, and yet they're treated as a separate movement, and the problem is you're ignoring the underlying areas that they came from".

Davide King (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are differences between them, but the fact that there is no registry or official card for a group doesn't mean the group has no members. Anyway, reliable sources should be our standard here. If they say a guy is a member of Antifa, then Misplaced Pages should echo this. If they don't, same thing. MonsieurD (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this reasoning is that, as this discussion bears out, the meaning of "member" in this context is always ambiguous and potentially confusing. You're right that one can be a member of a group without a formal membership, but the absence of a formal membership is both a vitally important fact about antifa and one that is often misunderstood (or deliberately misportrayed). By which I mean, given that a lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that antifa has a formal membership, we have a responsibility to make clear that that's not the case, which includes using less ambiguous and more accurate wording than the sources we cite when necessary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Didn't the murderer say he was "100% Antifa"? Killdozer2021 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME. Suspicion is not an arrest, an arrest is not a conviction, and hyperbolic statements on social media are no substitute for reliable sources documenting the manner and extent of an individual's involvement with a group. XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There are Antifa groups and people can be members of them, but if someone doesn't belong to such a group, they are supporters, not members. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That is very true. If someone does actually belong to a group which itself ascribes to the philosophy of being anti-facist, it would be correct to identify them as a member of that group. But to say one is a member of Antifa is inaccurate. --Jayron32 15:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

We should also keep in mind the caveat that headlines, which are often written by people other than the reporters, might say "antifa member" for brevity while the actual text makes clear that a more appropriate phrasing would be "antifa supporter", "antifa sympathizer", "member of an antifa-aligned group", etc. All of this just reflects the inherent difficulty in documenting a more-or-less leaderless disorganization. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I might be wrong about this but I think at this time the police have been referring to this guy only as "a person of interest". Volunteer Marek 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, though it would not be surprising if the person who shot a fascist turned out to be an anti-fascist. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't disagree. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This says possible BLM supporter. . Doug Weller talk 16:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it now okay to call recently dead people fascists without sourcing? Or are we talking about somebody other than Aaron Danielson? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah exactly. I know this is kinda old. But are we just going to ignore the fact that an admin just referred to the man who died as a "fascist" with zero evidence? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, a wikipedia admin calling a random murdered person "a fascist". This is the absolute state of this shit page --Kasabian (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We also have "Florida 'antifa hunter' sentenced to three years after threatening Black political candidate, activist".

Antifa is a militant leftist coalition of anti-fascists that has been the subject of viral, false speculation and is a favorite target of President Donald Trump, who has threatened to designate it a terrorist organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate and extremist groups, has said that its members have been involved in skirmishes and property crimes, "but the threat of lethal violence pales in comparison to that posed by far-right extremists."

— Davide King (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. We clearly cannot include attacks on others by Antifa supporters without including the opposite. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The suspect, who has been killed by police said, told Vice, "I am 100 percent anti-fascist. I am not a member of Antifa. I'm not a member of anything." He's probably right. From what I can tell, he wasn't a very social person. And there is no evidence that he attended antifa demonstrations. We should let reliable sources determine if he had any connection with antifa. TFD (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times: Law enforcement agents shot and killed an antifa supporter on Thursday as they moved to arrest him...“Initial reports indicate the suspect produced a firearm, threatening the lives of law enforcement officers,” the Marshals Service said in a statement. “Task force members responded to the threat and struck the suspect who was pronounced dead at the scene.”...“I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!” he posted on Instagram in June, referring to a loose collection of activists who have mobilized to oppose groups they see as fascist or racist. “I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters! Even if some of them are too ignorant to realize what antifa truly stands for. We do not want violence but we will not run from it either!”... Mr. Reinoehl, an antifa supporter, was being investigated in the killing of Aaron J. Danielson, a right-wing activist. Crossroads 15:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wait and see if the news connects it to Antifa and, if so, to what extent; simply mentioning that he was a supporter isn't sufficient. Would we eg. list every time someone registered as a respective party member commits a crime on Democratic Party (United States) or Republican Party (United States)? What matters is the extent to which the sources connect it directly to this topic (especially as a motivation, or if they present it directly as an antifa activity, ie. something that antifa as a group committed to or endorsed) rather than just mentioning or quoting the identification in passing. Right now, by my reading, the sources are only mentioning it in passing, so it doesn't belong here. --Aquillion (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, "wait and see" generally seems like a good approach. We're not obligated to be up-to-the-minute, and we can take the time for journalists to do their thing, interviewing friends and family and so forth, providing a fuller picture than potentially hyperbolic statements on social media. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP just follows higher standards than regular WP:V, but it doesn't require absolute correctness, but requires sources that are considered solidly reliable. As said here, Antifa is highly active on Facebook, but each member operating anonymously; so therefore it would be unrealistic to get any confirmation of antifa from sources within that organization. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/23/what-antifa-and-what-does-movement-want/593867001/ If a source that is considered reliable confirms the subject said he's 100% antifa, it's not a matter of BLP, because it wouldn't be defaming the subject. It's a BLP issue if the source says the "subject allegedly said.. he's antifa" or "it's believed that he's antifa"... it's not a BLP issue if it can be credibly established that the subject said it. I don't see why it can't be included as long as we keep it to things that are known for certain as reported by the source, and not say what's not directly supported. It can be said that Jay was killed as a result of gun shots fired by Michael, a self-identified antifa. Graywalls (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the subject also said "I am 100% anti-fascist," Reinoehl said in the Vice interview. "I'm not a member of Antifa. I'm not a member of anything." Why ignore that? Davide King (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Apparently Rand Paul is going to sue Antifa and demand discovery. That will be interesting, as it will require him to identify the controlling organisation and/or individuals. That may be a challenge, based on the content of the article today. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove 'diverse' from lead sentence as too vague to be meaningful and unsupported by the sources

I propose to remove the word "diverse" from the lead sentence. It is not at all clear what this word is supposed to mean (diverse in what way?), and neither the word nor the idea appears to be in the two sources cited. Those sources would be moved - the first one to the previous phrase, and the second to the other, where they seem to best serve verifiability. The lead sentence would then appear like this:

• Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/) is a left-wing, anti-fascist political movement in the United States comprising an array of autonomous groups that aim to achieve their objectives through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform.

Is there any reason not to? There are many kinds of diversity (racial, ideological, group size, group methods, etc.) and just plopping the word 'diverse' there serves to confuse the reader and interrupt the sentence's flow. We already explain ideology and methods, and group size and racial makeup are not commented on by sources as far as I know. Crossroads 21:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that Davide King has moved the two sources to being after "autonomous" rather than "diverse". I'm fine with that placement, but my points above against the word "diverse" stand. Crossroads 02:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If we delete it there, we might want to use the term "diversity of tactics" as that's a very common phrase used in the antifa movement to indicate the range of forms action can take. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I did not remove it yet myself because I wanted to wait for more comments here, so I simply moved the refs in the correct context as they are about "autonomous" and do not discuss "diversity", at least in given quotes. I agree with bobfrombrockley that we may use diversity of tactics which we currently list in "See also". Davide King (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that phrase could be somewhere else, but I don't see a need for it in the lead sentence, as we already discuss tactics in the phrase through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform. Crossroads 15:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal; it didn't seem to be adding much. I suppose it could have been changed to ], but that seems redundant with the "both nonviolent and violent" part. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Death connected to antifa

Associated Press reports that 48-year-old Michael Forest Reinoehl was shot and killed by law enforcement officers on September 3, 2020, when he pulled a gun as a federal task force attempted to apprehend him near Lacey, Washington. Agents from the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service had located him after a warrant was issued for his arrest as a suspect in the killing of 39-year-old Aaron "Jay" Danielson, a Patriot Prayer supporter who was shot to death on August 29, 2020, near a Pro-Trump rally in Portland. According to AP, "Reinoehl had described himself in a social media post as '100% ANTIFA.' A regular presence at anti-racism demonstrations in Portland, he suggested the tactics of counter-protesters amounted to 'warfare', and had been shot at one protest and cited for having a gun at another." Does this reported antifa connection merit mention in Misplaced Pages's Antifa (United States) article? It would serve to balance the existing statement, According to a 2020 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, there have been zero deaths linked to antifa. NedFausa (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

From his interview: "I am 100% anti-facist,” Reinoehl said in the Vice interview. “I’m not a member of Antifa. I’m not a member of anything." O3000 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's well established that no one can be a member of antifa because it's neither a formal organization nor an informal group. Please note that the Associated Press quotes his self-description in a social media post as "100% ANTIFA." I trust Misplaced Pages editors will grasp this important distinction. NedFausa (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You can be a member of a local antifa group. Most RS refer to him as an antifa supporter. As said earlier, we can't assign killings by Republicans or Democrats to the respective parties. O3000 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Republicans and Democrats are members of their respective parties. Antifa (United States) cites a report ballyhooing that antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades. (Emphasis added.) Based on the AP story, it is fair to describe Michael Forest Reinoehl as an antifa activist. He should therefore be included in our article. NedFausa (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

He is an antifa supporter. He is an antifascist activist. I'm having difficulties with assigning individual crimes to a movement. If you go to anti-war, anti-vaxxing, anti-disco music rallies, and you kill someone, does that apply to the movement? I'm not sure where the lines are. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I get it. This ain't my first time at the rodeo of Antifa (United States), where I've previously made 133 edits (4.1% of the page total). I just thought I'd drop by after a 3-month absence to take the temperature. Thanks for reminding me of the lengths some will go to whitewash Antifa USA as a nonviolent movement composed of pacifists who wouldn't hurt a fly. NedFausa (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, don't make personal attacks. Stick to discussing content, not editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'm outta here for at least another three months. I feel stupid for even trying. NedFausa (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Membership in an organization without formal membership can be inferred based on a person's interactions with other members of the group. So far we have no reliable sources that claim Reinoehl was a member of antifa or that he associated in any way with them. Most importantly, there is no evidence that he killed Danielson while carrying out an activity with (other) members of antifa. TFD (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This article and its discussion always falls into the No true scotsman argument, in that any negative aspect of the movement is atributed to no "real" members or advocates, often labeling the person "antifascist" instead of Antifa, disregarding that there are sources which clearly specify local chapters. This person has been associated with Antifa by pretty much every mainstream media source

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arrest-portland-shooting.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-reinoehl-suspect-in-portland-shooting-is-killed-by-law-enforcement-11599193942 https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-investigating-antifa-supporter-michael-reinoehl-in-portland-shooting-11598904528

Loganmac (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Antifa supporter" is a very weak connection. I support the civil rights movement. But, my actions in life do not reflect on the movement. O3000 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion and the one above under #Include the recent murder in Portland OR: What matters is whether sources draw the connection. If green sources at WP:RSP regularly tie the person to antifa, then so should we. We follow the sources. It shouldn't be complicated, but I often see arguments on this page based on how someone personally understands antifa rather than on what sources say. There is frankly no need for debates about "membership" and whatnot. And one wonders if the person was a supporter of a non-violent and violent right-wing movement, whether there would be these attitudes of 'wait and see' and 'how strong was the connection?'. But fine, we can wait a bit and see what developing sources say. Editors also need to make sure not to confusingly conflate antifa and anti-fascism in their talk page comments. Antifa is just one form of anti-fascism, and as even Mark Bray said to Vox, these are self-described revolutionaries. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum. They’re not interested in and don’t feel constrained by conventional norms. Most Democratic Party politicians, for example, are anti-fascist but not antifa. If anyone really thinks antifa is just anti-fascism (because it's literally the name!) then they can try to get this article deleted as a WP:POV fork. Otherwise, let's avoid the (possibly unintentional) equivocation. Crossroads 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

But then, if a source says that Democratic legislator x killed his wife, do we put that in the WP article on the Democratic Party? O3000 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That's comparing apples and oranges. The Democratic Party is a highly mainstream political party, while antifa is known for nonviolent and violent direct action rather than...policy reform. A legislator's political party affiliation is clearly relevant to stories about him, while the political views of some guy who killed someone is not normally treated as relevant. Yet in this case, sources do so. Why do you think that is? And a more relevant comparison than your question is this: If this exact same scenario played out, but this person was being identified in sources as a supporter of Patriot Prayer and his victim as a progressive, would editors be making these same arguments? Crossroads 17:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that sources are no more making a connection in this case as in the case of a Democratic legislator. They're just saying he supports antifa. In the case of Patriot Prayer, is it a member of supporter? I would NOT make a connection if only a supporter, unless it was shown he was with the group. I haven't seen anyone say he was there with antifa. Now, clearly in an article about this shooter, antifa must be mentioned. Just not sure he should be mentioned in an article about antifa. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the news does frequently discuss the political views of killers. For example, the Kenosha shooter was a Republican and a Trump supporter - something stories about him do emphasize - but no one is suggesting that we put him on the pages for the Trump presidency or the Republican party. As far as If this exact same scenario played out, but this person was being identified in sources as a supporter of Patriot Prayer and his victim as a progressive, would editors be making these same arguments? goes, it's important to assume good faith (otherwise, we could as easily turn that around and ask why the people so eager to mention this on this page haven't been so aggressive about adding similar random accusations against supporters of non-progressive groups to their pages); but rather than flinging such baseless implications of bad faith at each other, we can ensure consistency by looking at comparable articles and coverage. Judging by articles for comparable groups I think it's pretty clear that there's an unusually intense pressure to mention any time anyone who supports Antifa is accused of anything in this article, which I absolutely do not see elsewhere. Aside from this incident, for instance, the Patriot Prayer article's activity section only mentions actions taken by the group as a whole or by things related to its leader that sources directly discuss in terms of the group's future; we don't mention "random Patriot Prayer supporter X was arrested for doing Y", and I couldn't find anyone suggesting those sorts of things on talk. I think that that supports the idea that it's WP:UNDUE here, at least right now. --Aquillion (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

When editors are making arguments that that others feel are poor and lead to violations of NPOV, addressing those is not a failure to AGF. It would be impossible to discuss NPOV otherwise. As for why the people so eager to mention this on this page haven't been so aggressive about adding similar random accusations against supporters of non-progressive groups to their pages, I for one certainly would be, but I know from looking around that such incidents never fail to get listed without my involvement, so why would I bother? As for the unusually intense pressure, well, that could be because people are trying to add things they shouldn't, or maybe people are trying to prevent the addition of things that should be added, or perhaps some of both. Point is, that cuts both ways. As for the Patriot Prayer article, I'd dispute that characterization; it talks about stuff like how the police found members of the organization carrying loaded firearms on the roof of a parking garage overlooking the site of the August protest and that Patriot Prayer member Ian Kramer beat Cider Riot patron Heather Clark unconscious and broke her vertebrae. To be clear, I do not believe that should be removed. Crossroads 02:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you can possibly think those things are comparable - look at the sources. The first one details a group of Patriot Prayer members bringing firearms to a rooftop overlooking an upcoming Patriot Prayer protest; it directly relates to the group's activities because it is directly connected to the protest that they formally planned. The second one is part of the coverage of criminal charges against a group of Patriot Prayer members for something they did while led by the Patriot Prayer leader, with the coverage extensively detailing what these arrests mean for the future of the group as a whole. In both cases the coverage is almost entirely focused on Patriot Prayer as a group and extensively covers the activities being discussed in that context. By comparison, none of the sources for this have covered it as an "Antifa activity" or as something with serious implications for Antifa, merely as something that one supporter is accused of. --Aquillion (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion's rationale. I also do not think sources, at least those given sources below, give the strong connection, at least strong enough to be in this article, those for inclusion are claiming. They do not call it an "antifa protester" or that it was part of an antifa activity. They are all saying he was a (self-described) supporter and on his Instagram post stating "I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!" and yet he also said "he was not a 'member' of antifa, but supported the ideology." So which is it? It seems to be that he was an anti-fascist, but he was not a 'member' of antifa or connected to it as an antifa activity or so much as to warrant an inclusion in this very article. He claim he was a supporter, Ted Bundy was also a supporter of the Republican Party, so I think The Four Deuces was right in making that comparison (as both were described as supporters and not as engaging in Republican or antifa activities) and that this should not be mentioned in either article. Davide King (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Lots of reliable sources are mentioning some sort of connection between the suspect and Antifa. BBC calls him a "self-described antifa supporter" and notes his "I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!" Instagram post. The New York Times describes him as an "antifa supporter". The Wall Street Journal also describes him as an "antifa supporter". The Washington Post opens its article by describing him as " vocal proponent of the far-left antifa movement", and the article says of the Vice interview: "Reinoehl said he was not a 'member' of antifa, but supported the ideology." NPR says that he "identified with the militant antifascists known as antifa".

So, reliable sources describe some sort of connection to antifa, ranging from a "supporter" of antifa to someone who "identified with ... antifa". In any case, the context in which the word "supporter" is used matters: in these articles, the purpose of including such language is to highlight his connection to antifa, not to minimize it. As far as this Misplaced Pages article goes, it is not our place to debate whether someone being a "supporter" of antifa is too weak to merit highlighting their connection to antifa; reliable sources have made that decision for us. And to expand on a point Crossroads made, antifa's notability is derived from its "nonviolent and violent direct action" over the past few years, so it seems relevant to include a killing whose perpetrator's "support" for/"identification" with antifa has been highlighted by reliable sources. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC); edited 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC) to use "suspect" language

Well, as an encyclopedia, yes it is our place to debate whether someone being a "supporter" of antifa is too weak to merit highlighting their connection to antifa.... in an article about antifa. Clearly it is WP:DUE in an article about him. Not clear about this article. So, it belongs in another article. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree that it is our place to debate whether or not the shooting is worth mentioning in the article. When I said that I don't think it's our place to debate whether or not the connection itself is too weak to merit highlighting the suspect's connection to antifa, my intention was to dispute the purpose of the "member vs. supporter" debates, not the debate as to whether or not it merits inclusion in article. I believe that the debate on due weight should be held without concern for whether or not "supporter" is too weak an affiliation. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC); edited 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC) to use "suspect" language

• And to expand on a point Crossroads made, antifa's notability is derived from its "nonviolent and violent direct action" over the past few years, so it seems relevant to include a killing whose perpetrator's "support" for/"identification" with antifa has been highlighted by reliable sources. But that part has not been highlighted by the sources - it is WP:SYNTH. If anything that is an argument against inclusion, since it implies that the reason people are demanding inclusion for something we normally would not mention in an article of this nature is because they see it as a way to present an argument against the "nonviolent and violent direct action" summary in sources. That argument is absolutely not something we can make ourselves; without that all we have are "an antifa supporter is accused of an unrelated crime", which is plainly WP:UNDUE without more in-depth coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not intend to argue that the shooting is an argument against the "nonviolent and violent direct action" summary; to the contrary, I believe a shooting is covered well by the summary of "nonviolent and violent direct action". I intended to argue against the notion that a shooting by someone whose support for/identification with antifa is well-documented by RS's does not merit inclusion in this article. Antifa's notability is derived largely (not entirely, but largely) from media coverage of its "nonviolent and violent direct action", so I believe this shooting is notable enough for inclusion. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this. It's not our place to debate what constitutes "full membership", he has been associated with the movement by reliable sources and has even in one ocassion self-described as antifa. Again, all arguments against mentioning this person fall under the No true scotsman retort which is a really thin thread. Loganmac (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The only association in reliable sources is that he said he was "100% antifa." He also said, "I am not a member of antifa." The homicide did not occur at an antifa demonstration and there is no evidence he attended with antifa members. We had a similar discussion about Timothy McVeigh. Initially, reliable sources falsely claimed he was a member of the Michigan Militia. But people like him are not people people and it turned out that he was not a member. Anders Breivik on the other hand had extensive connections with the English Defence League and we mention it in that article. And Ted Bundy, who was a delegate to the Republican convention and went on to murder dozens of women is not mentioned in the article about the Republican Party because his crimes were wholly unconnected with his political affiliation. TFD (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ted Bundy's murders shouldn't be mentioned in the Republican Party article, nor should a murder by a Democratic politician be mentioned in the Democratic Party article. But to compare that to this issue is a stretch. The Democratic and Republican parties are notable because each has a history of being one of the two major political parties in the United States for well over a century; given that context, some Democratic or Republican politician committing murder is not notable enough to be mentioned in an article about that politician's party (unless that murder has a significant impact on the party's history as one of two major U.S. political parties). Antifa, on the other hand, is a movement whose notability is largely derived from media coverage of "nonviolent and violent direct action" from those affiliated with the movement. Given that context, a shooting committed by someone whose support for antifa is highlighted by reliable sources seems to me to be notable enough for inclusion.

I should note that the Instagram post that reliable sources are citing doesn't merely consist of the suspect saying he's "100% ANTIFA"; some of the articles I listed (including the Washington Post and NPR articles) include more text from the Instagram post, in which he expresses a willingness to fight alongside antifa. That being said, it's also not my place to judge whether or not the suspect's affiliation with antifa is significant enough based on the Instagram post, or whether the shooting needs to have occurred at an antifa demonstration for the connection to antifa to be significant. Reliable sources have made that decision for us; they've decided that his support for (or, in the language of the NPR article, that he "identified with") antifa is significant enough that it is worth highlighting in articles about the shooting. This doesn't automatically mean that we have to include the shooting in the article; rather, it means that whether the suspect's connection to antifa was too weak to be relevant to the shooting is a moot point in the context of this Misplaced Pages article, because reliable sources have made that decision for us. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC); edited 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC) to use "suspect" language

Reliable sources have also determined that Ted Bundy's membership in the Republican Party is significant enough to mention in books about him. You need to show that articles about antifa mention Reinoehl. Anyway if Reinoehl had had an actual connection to antifa, other than his statements, we would know by now. TFD (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We could argue in circles about what it means to have an "actual connection" to antifa, and whether the suspect fits that criteria, but Misplaced Pages editors' opinions on whether the suspect had an "actual connection" to antifa is irrelevant. What matters is the part about RS's articles about antifa mentioning the suspect; if they do, then the shooting belongs in the article. (We can mention the shooting without mentioning the name of the suspect, given BLP concerns.) And some RS's have already written articles explaining antifa while mentioning the suspect and his support for antifa in the beginning of the article: Deseret News, Indian Express, and The Wall Street Journal.

Comparing an article about a political movement that has only recently gained media attention largely due to its direct action in recent years to the Misplaced Pages article for a party that has had a prominent role in all areas of U.S. politics for over a century is not helpful here. I would like to note that the article on the alt-right mentions the Charlottesville car attack, as it should. I could just as easily make the argument that this should be removed from the article because the Democratic Party article doesn't mention Preston Brooks' attack on Charles Sumner or the Chappaquiddick incident. Of course, the Democratic Party article shouldn't include these acts of violence, because they're inconsequential compared to the Democratic Party's history as a major U.S. political party for nearly two centuries. To be clear, my argument isn't that the Portland shooting and Charlottesville attack are perfectly comparable events; rather, my argument is that in the context of whether or not to mention violent incidents, it is not useful to compare an article on a major U.S. political party to an article on a political movement that has recently become prominent due to its direct actions. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC); edited 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC) to use "suspect" language

The Charlottesville car attack occurred during a demonstration that had been organized by the founder of the alt-right, which was protested by anti-fascists. Since it was the main event that occurred at the rally, it has to be mentioned. If someone is killed in an antifa demonstration, that should be mentioned too. But we don't include every crime by every person who has expressed sympathy for the alt-right in the article. We don't for example list every Trump official who has been indicted. TFD (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not argue that we should include every crime by anyone who has expressed sympathy for the alt-right in the alt-right article, nor did I make that argument for antifa. I agree with you on that issue, but it doesn't answer the question of whether this particular shooting should be included in the article. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally I would look at tertiary sources such as a section about antifa in a political science textbook or a descriptive article in mainstream media. They show what the weight of various topics is. Unfortunately they are not available so we either have to wait or guess, which requires some judgment and different editors may come to different conclusions. The only connection we have though is that Reinoehl said both he was 100% antifa and not a member. But he has no known association with antifa members or attendance at an antifa meeting or demonstration and was not with antifa members when he allegedly carried out his attack. He appears to have had been mentally unbalanced rather than an actual member. TFD (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the solution is to wait a bit to see if some future articles on antifa mention the shooting (assuming my understanding of BLP policy isn't horribly far off here). Also, I'd like to reiterate that any editor's judgment of the sufficiency of the suspect's connection to antifa is irrelevant here. What's relevant is what RS's make of it. (In addition to the sources above, NPR just released an interview with Mark Bray explaining antifa with the suspect mentioned at the start of the interview, so I think there's a fairly strong case to be made that mentioning the shooting is not undue given the nature of antifa's notability. I'm mostly concerned about seeing how articles handle the fact that he's considered a "suspect"; interestingly, that word did not appear in NPR's description of the suspect in this interview, but we can wait to see if future articles follow suit.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In light of Doug Weller's comment below, and given that RS's are referring to the man as a "suspect", I'm more skeptical about including the shooting in the article, at least for now. I'm not familiar with how Misplaced Pages handles individuals referred to as "suspects", but if mentioning this shooting in the article would violate that policy, waiting for more coverage of the shooting before making a decision is probably the best way to go. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How Misplaced Pages handles suspects is encapsulated in WP:SUSPECT: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. In other words, we need to steer clear of this story about a non-public figure who is at any rate marginal to our topic, at least until there is more certainty. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we should wait to see what sources make of this shooting and the suspect. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

On the narrow question of whether Reinoehl should be classed as an "antifa supporter", and whether the killing should be considered "linked" to antifa, Brian Levin and Gary LaFree (both quoted as experts in the present article) appear to take the view that these questions should be answered with "yes", as does Daniel Byman.

Sources:

If Reinoehl is implicated in the case, it would mark the first time in recent years that an antifa supporter has been charged with homicide, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. … Gary LaFree, chairman of the University of Maryland's criminology department, said the case could potentially be included in the university's Global Terrorism Database as the first act of terror linked to antifa. (Voice of America, Sep 1; Reinoehl was charged with second-degree murder two days later)

I asked Brian Levin about this. He leads an extremism research center at California State University, San Bernardino. He's been tracking the left's evolving response to right-wing violence in recent years. And I asked him what went through his head when he heard that the shooter was an anti-fascist, and this was his reply. BRIAN LEVIN: Here it is. For us, it wasn't a question of if; it was a question of when, and here it is. (NPR, Sep 4)

This “arms race” that seems to be starting up among members of the far right and the hard left is extremely disturbing, especially as the nation heads into the thick of the political season, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, pointing out that the Portland shooting was the first known killing by an antifa supporter. (Orange County Register, Sep 7)

... antifa in the United States was not linked to deadly violence until August 29, when self-proclaimed antifa member Michael Reinoehl allegedly shot a right-wing activist who was a member of Patriot Prayer. (Daniel Byman in Vox, Sep 22)

I don't wish to make a case for or against inclusion in this article at this time, but thought that as this specific point was discussed at length above, it would be helpful to post what I've found in relevant sources to date. --Andreas JN466 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

Well there has been a death linked to ANTIFA now, but besides why are killings from white supremacists mentioned? It doesn't seem relevant. On the article about BLM I tried to include the number of police officers killed versus unarmed black men, and it got removed.

References

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-known-of-michael-reinoehl-person-of-interest-in-portland-killing-11599087170

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiod Palaiologos (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The cited source in the article text draws the connection. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the reference in question mentions antifa 10 times (11 if you include a photo caption) I'd say the relevance is rather obvious. FDW777 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to start another discussion thread when it is already being discussed about. As I pointed out, no reliable sources say that Reinoehl was a member of antifa or that the killing took place during an antifa demonstration. All we have is his statement "I am 100% antifa" and now another statement "I am not a member of antifa." I suppose if you want to believe he belonged to antifa that would be conclusive evidence, but that is something we must leave to reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A reminder that our BLP policy covers recently deceased people

And applies to this talk page. It applies to the Portland shooting, both to the victim and the dead suspect - note that he was officially described as a suspect - this source is interesting as it also talks about the victim, although that doesn't belong here. Anyway, if anyone wants to discuss the suspect's guilt or label him, please do it off-wiki. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Comparing apples to oranges

Quote: "A June 2020 study of 893 domestic terrorism incidents since 1994 found only one death that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists (that of the anti-fascist perpetrator himself) while 335 deaths were attributed to right-wing perpetrators" There are several problems with this statement in this article: 1. The term "Antifa" wasn't even in use until 2017, so comparing deaths since 1994 is intentionally skewing the data 2. I noticed several people are arguing that Michael Forest Reinoehl was not Antifa because he wasn't an official member. Well, then by that criteria, NOBODY is a member of Antifa. Also, that criteria isn't applied the other way - few of these "right wing perpetrators" had an official member card for the right wing causes they are linked to. 3. You are comparing a very narrow left wing group Antifa to the entirety of the Right Wing groups all added together. It looks like the only reason for having this statement in the article is to improve Antifa's image in the public. At a minimum, it should have some better context.96.241.129.33 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

We aren't comparing anything. I suggest you direct your complaints to the people who wrote the study and the secondary references that reported on it, such as The Guardian who managed to mention antifa 10 times (11, including a photo caption) while reporting on the study. FDW777 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You can suggest whatever you want, but this page is for discussion of edits to Misplaced Pages, not the study or The Guardian. And the article and the study at least have more context than that snippet. I am simply making that suggestion here as a courtesy before I attempt to edit a contentious article that is protected. And why would it be the least bit relevant how many times an article about Antifa mentions Antifa? 96.241.129.33 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't about antifa, it's about the study. And you can make as many edit requests as you like, if they don't have consensus the changes won't be made. FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Anti-fascists existed before 2017. See Anti-Racist Action. TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think points 1 and 2 are relevant here, as Misplaced Pages isn't in the business of doing original research into whether The Guardian's comparison of the datasets is fair, and point 2 is inconsequential to the article's coverage of the CSIS study. That being said, point number 3 is interesting to me because The Guardian's article actually does distinguish between left-wing violence and anti-fascist violence (the latter being a subset of the former), whereas this Misplaced Pages article mentions no such distinction. In particular, the section "Academics and scholars" directly contrasts right-wing violence with anti-fascist violence, without any mention of the study's broader exploration of left-wing violence. In its current form, it's easy for readers to see this and think that the study only explored anti-fascist terrorist attacks, or that the study used "anti-fascist violence" as a stand-in for all left-wing violence, when this is not the case.

I made what I hope to be some less contentious changes to the study's coverage in the "Academics and scholars" section. In particular, the statement that it found "zero deaths linked to antifa" is false and inconsistent with The Guardian's reporting (should be "murders"), and I don't believe this section provided an adequate explanation of what the study was. I believe that we should add the further context of the distinction between left-wing and anti-fascist violence to fix issues with the Misplaced Pages article's coverage of the study being somewhat misleading, but I have not made that change because I imagine it might be more contentious. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the death was a reference to the 2019 Tacoma attack, but the perpetrator was not antifa and it was not an anti-fascist attack. Also, I have not seen any academic sources that categorize antifa terrorism as left-wing terrorism. That could be because there have been no antifa terrorist attacks, but also it doesn't fit the definition. TFD (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The CSIS article referenced in the lead describes the perpetrator of the Tacoma attack as "a self-proclaimed Antifa", and the Guardian article calls it an "anti-fascist attack". The Guardian article extrapolates information on antifa/anti-fascist attacks (it uses the words "antifa" and "anti-fascist" interchangeably; see the top photo's caption) using the CSIS study's data on left-wing terrorism. We should provide that context. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Van Spronsen wrote "i am antifa" and "i am not affiliated with any organization, i have disaffiliated from any organizations who disagree with my choice of tactics." The object of attack was not fascists, but ICE. The Guardian is not usually the terms interchangeably, but precisely. Van Spronson was an anti-fascist who said he was antifa. TFD (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Which of my points are you contesting here with regards to the article's coverage of the CSIS attacks? I don't see how original research into the perpetrator's words are of any relevance to this particular issue. I (perhaps incorrectly) believe that you're contesting my issue with the "zero deaths linked to antifa" wording, but keeping that wording based on an editor's analysis of the perpetrator's words when the Guardian article never makes a "zero deaths" claim (only zero murders) would be pure original research. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying that excluding him because he said he was not a member of any organization is OR, while including him because he said he was antifa is perfectly fine. I don't really see that this discussion can be productive. TFD (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The words and identification of the Tacoma perpetrator are completely irrelevant to my original comment in this section. You brought up words in which he describes his identification, I engaged that argument, and then I realized that was a mistake on my part, because a discussion of the self-identification of the perpetrator is completely irrelevant to the changes I wanted to see made to the article. I'm still not entirely clear on what your point is, so I asked what it had to do with my original comment. I think this discussion would be a lot more productive if I could get an answer to that question, so that I know exactly what you and I disagree about as far as edits to the article go.

With that said: excluding him from what, exactly? And including him in what? What I care about is accurately reporting the findings of the Guardian's analysis. It states that the CSIS's database included zero murders linked to antifa, zero murders linked to anti-fascism, and one death from an anti-fascist attack (that of the perpetrator). It does not state that the database included zero deaths linked to antifa. You could perhaps argue that the Guardian found zero deaths from antifa attacks because you don't believe the Tacoma attack was an antifa attack, or that the Guardian found zero deaths from antifa attacks because it never explicitly said there were any deaths caused by antifa attacks, or some combination of those two arguments. But writing that the Guardian found "zero deaths linked to antifa" in the Misplaced Pages article based on these arguments would be original research. (And for that matter, I'll grant that the Guardian's article does not use antifa and anti-fascist interchangeably, in which case the Guardian article doesn't report a death from an antifa attack, either, and I have neither a good argument nor any desire for the Misplaced Pages article to say that the Guardian reports a death from an antifa attack.) Fortunately, the Misplaced Pages article correctly reflects the Guardian article's reports on deaths/murders attributed to antifa/anti-fascists, thanks to Davide King's edit. But I figured it's worth explaining my reasoning. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"antifa" is not the name of an organization. It is simply shorthand for "anti-fascist" and has come into common use only in recent years, but that does not suggest it has a different meaning than it did 20 years ago. And because the sentence counts one antifa death that includes only the perpetrator, so should the number of deaths from right-wing attacks also include the perpetrators (335, versus 329 victims). That makes for full apples to apples. soibangla (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I just noticed Davide King's recent edit, which also makes it apples to apples, so that's fine. But note that it doesn't include the guy who got shot in Tacoma. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Davide King -- I would like to ask that you at least partially self-revert your recent edits to the article regarding the CSIS research. The lead in its current state misrepresents the study and the Guardian's coverage of it; the "0 deaths" number refers to how many people were killed by perpetrators in antifa/anti-fascist attacks, while the "335 deaths" number refers to how many people were killed in right-wing attacks (perpetrators included). (The given number of victims of right-wing attacks is 329.) The current "no death that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists or antifa" is vague and does not adequately communicate what the Guardian article communicates; it should be made clear that the 0 number refers to people killed by the perpetrators, and the 329 number should be used to avoid misrepresentation of the data. The 329 number in the "Academics and scholars section" should also be changed to 335, with the "killed" wording appropriately changed.

Further, I do not believe that some of the quotes from the Guardian article belong in this article. In particular, the inclusion of the "California-based organizer and anti-fascist activist"'s quote is certainly not due for inclusion in the article and comes off as coatrack-y. And I believe that the addition of Beirich and Jones' quotes side-by-side only intensifies the issue I raised earlier, where it is inadvertently implied that the study treats antifa attacks and left-wing violence interchangeably. Additionally, the Seth Jones quote is of no relevance to this article, as it comments solely on left-wing violence overall and not antifa in particular (again raising coatrack issues).

I would also like to note that, as far as I can tell from the Guardian's article and the abstract linked in the article (click "politically motivated attacks and plots"), the CSIS research itself did not find zero antifa/antifascist-linked killings (admittedly, this error was present in some of my edits). Rather, the Guardian found zero antifa/antifascist-linked killings in its analysis of the CSIS's dataset of terrorism incidents. This is why it's important for us to give more context to the research, including that it focused on left-wing violence as a whole (among other categories of violence, including right-wing violence); currently, we're presenting the Guardian's analysis of the CSIS's database as the analysis of CSIS itself, which is inaccurate. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hadger, where did the CSIS research itself did not find zero antifa/antifascist-linked killings? If you are referring to them stating ased on a CSIS data set of 893 terrorist incidents in the United States between January 1994 and May 2020, attacks from left-wing perpetrators like Antifa made up a tiny percentage of overall terrorist attacks and casualties, my impression was that the casualties were referring to left-wing terrorism, not antifa, i.e. the 21 deaths reported as "left-wing violence" cince 2010. The Guardian reports only the death of Willem von Spronsen and that Mark Pitcavage said he knew of only one killing, 27 years ago, that might potentially be classified as connected to anti-fascist activism: the shooting of a racist skinhead, Eric Banks, by an anti-racist skinhead, John Bair, in Portland, Oregon, in 1993, i.e. over 25 years ago. Davide King (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The cited CSIS article does draw conclusions on "left-wing perpetrators like Antifa". But as far as I can tell, the CSIS does not explicitly conclude that there were zero antifa/antifascist-linked killings. My understanding is that through their own extensive research, they provided a database of terrorism attacks placed into various categories (left-wing violence, right-wing violence, and a few more). Then the Guardian, through their own analysis of the database, concluded that the database only contained one death linked to anti-fascist attacks (that of a perpetrator) and zero murders linked to antifa or anti-fascism. (Note that the abstract linked in the Guardian article makes no mention of antifa or anti-fascist terrorism.) I think we should make it more clear that the database came from the CSIS, while analysis of deaths and murders linked to antifa and anti-fascism came from the Guardian. (Relevant quote from the Guardian article: "The database was assembled by researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a centrist thinktank, and reviewed by the Guardian.") Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As for the quotes, I do not see why they are undue. We can improve the wording without implying "that the study treats antifa attacks and left-wing violence interchangeably". I think they are especially relevant because The Guardian itself and those quoted discuss the false equivalence that is portrayed in the reactions of the Trump administrations, etc. As for the activist, we report former antifa organizer Scott Crow and I think it is fine to have an antifa view of the George Floyd protests vis-à-vis the Trump et al. view of 'antifa violence'. Davide King (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hadger, you may be attributing to Davide King edits that I actually made. I think the original edit was fully apples to apples, and the recent change Davide King made is also fully apples to apples, although it refers only to victims, per this discussion. soibangla (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, your original edit was fully apples to apples. I was referring to this edit, although Davide King has since edited the article so that it's no longer a concern. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

antifa is not short-hand for anti-fascist, it is a sub-set. antifa wear black, donned face masks before COVIC-19, wave black and red flags, communicate with one another and organize counter-demonstrations. They are a group of people acting with a common purpose under a common name, which is what a group is. There are probably dozens of them in the U.S. There are probably tens of thousands of people who consider themselves anti-fascists. And there were millions of people who participated in the ongoing demonstrations. It is not a monolith controlled by Joe Biden and George Soros as portrayed by Trump and Fox News. TFD (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Special interest group opinions

I feel that the article should not be a platform to exhibit the opinion of special interest groups. For example, the recently added extremely POV opinion Heidi Beirich, a co-founder of the special interest group Global Project Against Hate and Extremism: "argued that "Antifa is not going around murdering people like rightwing extremists are. It's a false equivalence.". That's her opinion. Even though it was properly cited, what good does her opinion do for encyclopedia? Graywalls (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, first, I would not dismiss those as "extremely POV" opinions. They are Heidi Beirich, a co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism; and Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert who led the creation of the CSIS's database. So just because you do not like their opinions, that does not mean their expertness should be dismissed out of hand or even as "special interest group" opinion. Second, they are properly discussed in "Public reactions" and you also did not provide the full quote, which I included, i.e. "I've at times been critical of antifa for getting into fights with Nazis at rallies and that kind of violence, but I can't think of one case in which an antifa person was accused of murder". Third, the SLPC's comment that antifa members "have been involved in skirmishes and property crimes, but the threat of lethal violence pales in comparison to that posed by far-right extremists" has been cited by NBC News' "Florida 'antifa hunter' sentenced to three years after threatening Black political candidate, activist". Finally, it seems like you removed that in retailation for me removing "2020 trump supporter murder" section which does not warrant its own section (it should have been in "2018–2019"; it is badly written (several are uncapitalised, etc.); it includes yellow source New York Post; he has also stated "he was not a 'member' of antifa, but supported the ideology" so we cannot merely state "a self-described Antifa member", or favour one statement over the other; I see no consensus yet on the talk page other than waiting; and it would be better to discuss there first, gaining consensus and working together for how to word it, where and how to put it, etc., yet you put it anyway, despite the discussion on the talk page was still on going and there was some agreement to wait and discuss it further before doing what you did. Davide King (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If we can have Conservative writers such as L. Brent Bozell III labeled Black Lives Matter as "antifa". During the nationwide protests against the killing of George Floyd in May and June 2020, Attorney General William Barr blamed the violence on "anarchic and far left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics" and described the actions of "Antifa and other similar groups" as "domestic terrorism", echoing similar statements by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien. In Twitter posts and other statements, Trump blamed "ANTIFA and the Radical Left" for violence and repeatedly pledged that the federal government would designate antifa as a "Terrorist Organization" and so on, I do not see why we cannot have a comment that is also critical and another by a counter-terrorism expert as part of "Public opinions", especially when they are part of a 2020 study and have been reported in and reviewed by The Guardian; and also another that while arguing "the threat of lethal violence pales in comparison to that posed by far-right extremists", it states that antifa members "have been involved in skirmishes and property crimes". So much for being "extremely POV" opinions. Davide King (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to include context regarding the survey and counterpoints to O'Brien, Trump, et al. FDW777 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Torch Network redirects

Torch Antifa, Torch Antifa Network, Torch Network and Torch Network Antifa redirect here but aren't mentioned anywhere in the article. At one point the article was full of such mentions, then in 2017 most were removed, leaving only a single mention citing this Mother Jones piece (see Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 1#Torch Antifa Network?). I'm not sure when or why that remaining mention was removed, but given the absence of any discussion of the network the redirects aren't helping anybody out. Should we add a mention, citing Mother Jones or something else, or should the redirects go to RfD? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts, that is a good point. I agree it should be either re-added, perhaps in "Background", or the redirect should go to RfD. What is your opinion about it? Do you think it would be good to re-add them? Since I am here, I would also like to point that we have a hidden note stating Plenty more in this source, referring to Cannistraro, Philip V. (Fall 1985). "Luigi Antonini and the Italian Anti-Fascist Movement in the United States, 1940–1943". Journal of American Ethnic History. 5 (1): 21–40. ISSN 0278-5927. JSTOR 27500414. So I wonder if we have added that already and if there is more useful information that is missing. Finally, I did add Vysotsky, Stanislav (2020). American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780367210601. to "Further reading" and I wonder if anyone read it and if you have any proposal on how incorporate and use it in the main body to add more, relevant information about antifa. Davide King (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the redirects should probably be deleted, but always prefer to draw attention to them before nominating in case anyone thinks adding a mention would improve the article. I don't know about the Cannistraro article but certainly agree that the Vysotsky book will be useful – I doubt I'll be able to get hold of a copy anytime soon but the Taylor & Francis website has the introduction available as a preview. His article "The Anarchy Police" is also very interesting but came a bit before the entry of "antifa" into mainstream use in the U.S., so probably can't be used for this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going through the talk and I am starting to wonder if this page, as well as Rose City Antifa truly have actual consensus. Here, the two of you dominate nearly a full 1/3 of authorship; with one of you having 22.2% of authorship. Graywalls (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, this is not the place to make such personal attacks or accusations. I have been more than willing in making compromises and let many changes of wording and other improvements rightful stay. Despite some disagreement, this is what Hadger had to say about me. Davide King (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a personal attack. I'm just pointing out I feel there's a feeling of dominance. Graywalls (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Outside of a few extremely-high-profile articles, that sort of figure is actually not particularly uncommon. Often most of the prose of an article is just written by a few editors. --Aquillion (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook only mentions Torch Antifa. Are we sure they are separate groups? TFD (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I'm not sure what you mean – are we sure what are separate groups? If you mean Torch Antifa, Torch Antifa Network, Torch Network and Torch Network Antifa then no, I'm pretty sure they're different names for a single group. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• I searched for information on the Torch Network when someone wanted to rewrite Anti-Racist Action to focus heavily on it. It does not have much coverage (some, but not dramatically more than many comparable groups) and should therefore probably not get much focus here. I also got the impression that there may have been a WP:COI involved in the extent to which it was, at certain points, pushed as a central topic there, which may also have affected this page in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Going off the discussion I linked above, it seems to have been added by Claíomh Solais who's now blocked, though I can't see any indication of a COI in their case. If in other instances it was added by others I haven't been able to find them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag for Academics and scholars

TrynaMakeADollar, please clarify the reason behind your addition of the unbalanced template. What exactly is unbalanced and what is this particular viewpoint you mentioned in your edit summary? "I don't like it" is not a good reason. Davide King (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the tag. When someone adds one, they are supposed to set up a discussion thread, otherwise it is trolling. TFD (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that WP:Don't like it is not a valid reason for anything on Misplaced Pages, obviously.

The sub section and the larger section as a whole seems to talk about only one view point. What I mean by that is not all reactions are fairly represented. Most of the reactions in that section talk about Antifa favorably, or at least minimize it's threat. I'm not criticizing that viewpoint or reaction. That is a perfectly fine and reasonable view to have. However, there are certainly other public and mainstream reactions that may not be as favorable to Antifa and may view it or react to it negatively. Those should be better represented in that section. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

TrynaMakeADollar, then please provide reliable sources and the phrasing you want to add. Provide an example of text, with a few reliable sources, to be added. Davide King (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

...Honestly, I was hoping that I could identify the problem and then someone else could fix it for me...I'm a bit too lazy to actually go through the trouble of fixing it myself. Tags are meant identify a problem, and warn viewers about it. And eventually someone is supposed to fix it and remove the tag. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

{{Unbalanced}} says This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. FDW777 (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

TrynaMakeADollar, as correctly stated by The Four Deuces, it needs to be discussed because the template should be justified with a valid reason. Since you are the one to added the template, it would be helpful if you could provide an example of text to be added with reliable sources. By the way, there are already negative reactions like Chomsky (despite being a left-winger himself) and others. It seems to be that the right has overwhelmingly negative views; the centre may think of antifa as misguided people whose opposition to fascism and racism is obviously a good principle (while the right may dispute they are even anti-fascists and anti-racists) but their tactics are not, etc.; and the left itself is divided as always. If you can find other academic and scholars' opinions that are not included, feel free to notify us here so we can discuss them. There are already plenty of centrist and conservative reactions in "Public reactions". Davide King (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is no grounds for the tag at this time, as this article is highly active, so it's not like anything is simply unnoticed, and no sources to remedy the issue have been presented. We could probably expand on what Chomsky said a bit though; right now it just quotes him but doesn't explain what he meant. Crossroads 17:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure Chomsky actually belongs to that section. Of course he is an academic and scholar, but he is a linguistics scholar. His views on antifa are expressed in his capacity as an anarchist/left activist. Penny's response is also not that of an academic: she is a journalist who has written on the far right. I would suggest moving this material, and probably that of Kazin (who is also an academic but writing more as an activist) to a new section, entitled something along the lines of "Left perspectives". BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

My proposed compromise lead version

As I wrote here, there is no consensus on left-wing, so I was wondering if it would be fine to remove left-wing from the first sentence as we already mention it later on by stating Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism which gives more context and in my view is a compromise in that the label is used as those in favour wanted, but it is put in the proper context and not as the very first sentence as those opposed argued. Left-wing has even less consensus than all other proposal (13 omission, 10 far-left and only 5 left-wing), so it seems to be still there just because that was the status quo ante, with only the removal of militant as there was no consensus for that. My compromise version proposal seemed to be perfectly fine until Crossroads correctly lamented that the closure stated for left-wing to stay in the first sentence (I thought in the lead, not in the first sentence, so my bad about that) and they were right, so I self-reverted. However, if they are consistent, they ought to support also the removal of far-left and militant as there was no consensus for either and indeed I added them myself to the lead (before the closure), despite voting for omission, because I thought it would be a fine compromise. This is the closure version.
—Davide King (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That does not follow at all. Here is the closure. It does not say there is no consensus for that specific material. Stating "This may involve...militancy" is not the same as calling them "militant", merely that their tactics may involve militancy. While I can accept that word not being in that spot, I especially object to taking "Antifa involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents and the police has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left and militant." out of the lead entirely. It is highly relevant and WP:Due. It is not in violation of the RfC because it is not in Misplaced Pages's voice, and while there was not a consensus about that specficially in the RfC (note: not a consensus against it), there is a consensus for it because it has been there since August 24. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS: Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. This edit should be reverted as a WP:POINTy unilateral ultimatum. We are not obligated to "compromise" in a fashion defined by one person. Even though you did add it to the lead originally, it's everyone's say now; I see no reason not to have both. In the first sentence we say they are on the left half of the political spectrum in Misplaced Pages's voice, and then a little later we explain that they get characterized as far-left and militant. There was significant support for far-left in the RfC, so it makes sense to have it in the lead in this attributed fashion. When even Mark Bray says about antifa, these are self-described revolutionaries. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum. They’re not interested in and don’t feel constrained by conventional norms., I see no reasonable basis for objecting to that statement. Crossroads 17:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, there was even more support for omission. Perhaps the RfC should have made more clear whether those labels should be in the lead's very first sentence or not at all. I thought it was about the whole lead, not just the first sentence. Bray does not call them far-left, that sounds like your own interpretation. The RfC starts stating "How should the lead characterise Antifa, in Misplaced Pages's voice?" No mention of first sentence. Ironically, following WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS may also mean that the removal of left-wing falls under implicit consensus as it was not reverted since at least 24 August (it was already removed). Now, of course it can be argued that the closure overturn this, but my removal of left-wing was removed only by you today and no one else seemed to object to it.
—Davide King (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The closure version is what it is. And I note Rosguill's closure is based on the expanded lead including the term "militant", which you now removed: Thus, this close will reinstate "left-wing" in the first sentence, but will not do the same for "militant", noting as well that the lead has since been fleshed out to provide a more detailed description of Antifa's tactics, militant and otherwise. Crossroads 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"More support for omission" of what? The closure states, I count 13 !votes for omission and 10 !votes for "far-left", with largely the same justifications as the main two camps of the first question, with 5 !votes for left wing. That's 18 to 10 wanting some description of their position on the political spectrum in Misplaced Pages's voice. Crossroads 17:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Just an interjection on the mathematics here. !13 for omission, !10 for far left and !5 for left is a weak 13:15 omission:description (not 10:18). Presumably the inclusion of "far left" within "left-wing" is why the closure restored "left-wing" despite the majority for ommission. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Noting something doesn't make it part of the RFC's consensus; there wasn't much discussion of (and therefore no clear support for) that addition. As I'm sure you're aware, the default in a no-consensus situation is that the status quo holds until a consensus is reached. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Still, omission has the most votes. You are also wrong about the closure, it states that it "will not do the same for 'militant'", i.e. it will not add militant, but only because "the lead has since been fleshed out to provide a more detailed description of Antifa's tactics, militant and otherwise", yet if we are to strictly follow the results as you argue, we ought to remove it, for there was no consensus in the RfC; and if we follow WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, my compromise proposal still stands, for the same 24 August version you cited already omitted left-wing in the first sentence. Davide King (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of a political label has the most votes. I did not endorse the 24 August version in its entirety; that was to show that piece you removed now was long-standing. You seem to be under the impression that it has to be one or the other, and that is not the case. Crossroads 18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The removal of left-wing was also long-standing and had the least amount of votes when considered omission, far-left and left-wing as separate things. You also cannot assume that those who supported far-left or left-wing would be fine with either (a few were, but I cannot tell whether literally everyone of those who voted for either would be; I seem to remember a few others who were clearly in favour of left-wing but not far-left; I myself would have favoured left-wing over far-left as second choice) or favour something else. Davide King (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Unless I'm misreading the history, the section you're defending is a new addition, which means that if someone objects to it you have to demonstrate consensus for it per WP:ONUS / WP:QUO; and Davide King has obviously objected. I'll add my objection to his - the bit you're adding seems fairly WP:UNDUE. It summarizes a mere single sentence in the article, which hardly seems enough to justify inclusion in the lead. And the cites for militant in particular are fairly poor - there is only one academic source; it is cited largely to passing mentions from news media. Even far-left, which has better citations, is not presented as a universal or even widespread descriptor in the sources (part of the reason the previous RFC failed to reach a consensus.) Beyond that the lead is already massive and goes into far more intricate depth on Antifa's ideology, methods, and background, so I'm not sure what a weasel-y "some people say" addition really adds to it. And more broadly, while you're not obliged to accept any compromise, I feel that the split nature of the recent RFC ought to make it obvious that there's a general disagreement - adding such a dramatic thing to the lead, then rejecting a compromise and claiming implicit consensus for your addition, all seems a bit WP:BOLD to the point of recklessness. Slow down a bit - no disasters will occur if the article retains its WP:QUO version for a while longer (which plainly does have implicit consensus backing it, unlike your contested addition.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Aquillion, I agree. In addition, I admit I am fairly surprised there is such an issue with my compromise proposal; it looks very petty. As I wrote above, "Ironically, following WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS may also mean that the removal of left-wing falls under implicit consensus as it was not reverted since at least 24 August (it was already removed). Now, of course it can be argued that the closure overturn this, but my removal of left-wing was removed only by you today and no one else seemed to object to it." My compromise version seemed to be perfectly fine, perhaps even better than the closure. I was for omission (from the whole lead), yet I think my compromise proposal would be better. Davide King (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Aquillion, to be clear, I did not add that text to the lead. I endorse it, but I did not write it or edit it in. Crossroads 18:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Crossroads, my move to the lead was based on the compromise that left-wing was removed from the first sentence as that would be told later and as it was removed before my compromise addition (perhaps I should have specified that addition to the lead was a compromise on my part and I did not necessarily endorse it). I am still not sure the movement itself is necessarily left-wing, although I personally think it is. What I mean by this is what sources such as the BBC stated, i.e. that "as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy". There may well be antifa members who strive for a post-capitalist society, but the movement itself concentrates on fighting far-right ideology, or that its members are overwhelmingly left-wing, but I am unsure whether fighting far-right ideology, even by direct actions, make the movement left-wing rather than anti-fascist. Again, it seems to be left-wing because its members are overwhelmingly left-wing. Hence why I thought and still think it would be better to just use anti-fascist and use left-wing to describe the ideologies most members subscribe to. But it is not a big deal and I am fine either way. However, Aquillion raised an interesting point that "the cites for militant in particular are fairly poor - there is only one academic source; it is cited largely to passing mentions from news media. Even far-left, which has better citations, is not presented as a universal or even widespread descriptor in the sources (part of the reason the previous RFC failed to reach a consensus". So clearly, there is no consensus either way (Aquillion and I reject the addition to the lead and you reject my compromise proposal) and we should simply stick to the status quo. I think that is fine. I hope the change from left-wing, anti-fascist to anti-fascist and left-wing will not cause the same issue. Davide King (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me the "compromise version" is far better and much closer to the spirit of the closure than a first sentence which says left-wing, as was supported by only 5 people in the RfC. It is the members of the movement who hold to a variety of left-wing positions, rather than the movement itself which is left-wing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Far-left politics#Antifa

I'm guessing there's an attempt to add Antifa there. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone see more sources suggesting the government is trying to downplay white supremacists and upplay antifa?

If this is the only one, we can't use it.

Here are a couple that seem pertinent to your question . XOR'easter (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, and the White House denies it, which is as close as you get these days to formal confirmation that it's true... Guy (help! - typo?) 08:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction on Antifa being linked to no deaths

Newsweek has correlated numerous murders directly to Antifa, and it should be noted that Antifa was primarily responsible for the construction of Chaz, where a teenager was gunned down in his car. 173.59.11.121 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

An op-ed written by Andy Ngo? Seriously?? FDW777 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How about non-Andy Ngo then, or are you going to strawman your way out of being a responsible archiver for this one too? 173.59.11.121 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You are the gift that keeps on giving. WP:DAILYMAIL. FDW777 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks kid, I try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.59.11.121 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. So maybe third time’s the charm? — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-far-left-violence-extremism-deadly-year-opnion-1477065
2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8696139/Antifa-protester-linked-shooting-death-Patriot-Prayer-supporter-claims-self-defense.html

FBI Director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization

I know Snopes isn’t an RS, but this article is a reprint of an Associated Press article. Seems like a big deal for our article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Bite Hi friend, I added! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And Trump on debates: "You're fired Wray!" 109.252.55.72 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

If its not an organization then why is there branches of the organization with individual members? The astroturfing on here is amazing. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, where do you get that from? Antifa has no "members" or "branches". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your joking right?Guitarguy2323 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, about wanting reliable sources and not your unsourced opinion? No, not joking. (Also, "you're", not "your"). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok so you are brainwashed got it.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

So, link to a reliable source to evidence your point. Otherwise, why wouldn’t anyone say to you “Ok so you are brainwashed got it.” DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, you seem to be the one who is brainwashed. I can cite sources like this one. What sources do you have? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Rfc about weather to include Supreme Court case in lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following italicized sentence be included in the MOS:LEAD after the first amendment reference? If you would support its inclusion, but request a different source please include something akin to *Support, but with a more objective source. If you would support its inclusion, but not in the lede please include something akin to *Oppose, but only in the lede.

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a law that allowed the federal government to prohibit citizens from providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, the court stated “We ... do not suggest that Congress could extend the same prohibition on material support at issue here to domestic organizations” which has been understood as a hint of the courts rejection of applying terrorist status to domestic organization. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

References

1. FELDMAN, NOAH (June 1, 2020). "Trump's threat to label antifa a 'terrorist organization' is a threat to free speech". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 27, 2020.

• Support To start, the lede for this page is already lengthy and the one sentence is not big enough to make it overzealous. The sentence is notable as the strongest rebuke from the judiciary that Trump cannot do what he is being accused of. It takes precedence over legal experts' opinions since it's from the Judicial Branch itself. The cited source being an opinion piece doesn't warrant removal, as WP:RSOPINION itself notes, but rather a re-wording this is a legal expert opinion. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear and unambiguous violation of WP:LEAD at the present time. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lead. Maybe something like this could go in the body if a non-opinion source unambiguously connects it to antifa. But "has been understood as a hint" looks tenuous, and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY should be followed. The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize. And I note that WP:RFCBEFORE was not followed here. There was no need to go to straight to RfC. Crossroads 21:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I'm under the assumption WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is not an actual policy, because it has not been vetted and that WP:RFCBEFORE is optional and also not a policy because it has not been vetted, but if I am wrong please correct me. Do you think a conversation on a talk page would be more efficient in solving this dispute? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe a talk page discussion (which can grow out of this RfC if it's delisted) would be more efficient. Crossroads 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose in the lead, just way too undue focus on one specific opinion - the broad aspect of the topic that this is relevant to is already summarized in the lead with However, academics, legal experts and scholars, among others, argue that antifa cannot be designated as it would be a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and there is no legal authority to designate a wholly domestic organization, which is more than sufficient and summarizes a broader swath of sources while hitting the central point. It could possibly go in the body but ideally we'd want to find a non-opinion source. The issue with the source isn't objectivity per se, the issue is that it's an opinion piece; and the problem with it going in the lead is that it's going into hyper-specific individual case-law arguments, when the lead is supposed to be a broad summary. Also, just as an aside - it takes precedence over legal experts' opinions since it's from the Judicial Branch itself. This isn't true. Caselaw is a WP:PRIMARY source; we rely on legal experts' opinions to summarize and interpret it. So citing a bunch of legal experts saying "Trump cannot do this because XYZ" is more important, especially for the lead. We can drill into specific arguments and caselaw in the body, but even then we would want higher-quality secondary sourcing to indicate that a particular argument or precedent is particularly relevant, and as secondary sources go one opinion piece isn't the best. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism and defense in the Introduction

Part of the second paragraph of the introduction - starting at "Antifa actions have received both criticism and praise." - and the entire third paragraph are focused on criticism and a defense of Antifa. The wording tends to drift toward describing Antifa opponents instead of containing information about the movement itself. As it stands, these paragraphs seem well suited for a Criticism section, but not for the introduction. I suggest moving them to their own section. I also suggest replacing these paragraphs in the introduction by focusing on Antifa supporters instead of the movement and avoiding references to Donald Trump comments. The following is my suggestion:

The FBI has expressed increasing concern about violence perpetrated by Antifa supporters. In congressional testimony in November 2017, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that the FBI was pursuing “a number of what we would call anarchist extremist investigations, where we have properly predicated subjects who are motivated to commit violent criminal activity on kind of an Antifa ideology.” On June 4, 2020, Director Wray confirmed active FBI domestic terrorism investigations involving Antifa supporters. Later, in September 2020, he reiterated that Antifa is an "ideology, not an organization".

Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/IF10839.pdf

Jared.h.wood (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, that is because this is a summary of Public reactions and Hoaxes. The lead is supposed to summarise the body. Perhaps we may a add one or two more sentences to summarise Activities. Incidentally, your given source says "Some memebers are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protests such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching." This is also supported by Mark Bray in main body, so a sentence like this may be added at the end of the first paragraph. Davide King (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Yes. I think it is a good source and a good example of an impartial description of Antifa. I see your point about the intro summarizing the Hoaxes section below and withdraw my proposal to remove the mention of it. I maintain that the intro still seems defensive of Antifa. Your comment is an example of what I am seeing and pointing out in the introduction. Notice how you quoted the source that talks about violence and non-violence, but you emphasized the non-violence with bold lettering. As I read the current into, it seems to do the same; overcompensating in the attempt to emphasize the defense of negative info instead of just relating the simple information. This is just an observation from a Misplaced Pages fan with a motive to make the article more credible. Jared.h.wood (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, I put it in bold because I assumed, from your few comments, you hold a critical view of it and maybe were not aware of that. See, it goes both way. Also notice how it says some (not most) about violence and much (not few) about non-violence. If it sounds "defensive", that has probably more to do with you holding negative views on it because that is a summary of what reliable sources reported in the body which we summarised. Davide King (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations Davide King and your concern that I may not be aware of the extent or existence of my critical bias. Such a situation if often the case so it is reasonable that you would assume that about a stranger. Instead, please apply a tone of respect and decorum to my posts on this talk page. If you re-read them without implied hostility, you will see that they qualify as genuine suggestions and not trolling. You are correct that my personal views disagree with and are critical of extremist elements on both the left and on the right and that I view the Antifa philosophy at more extreme than moderate. However, I was careful to read and study source material to come to this conclusion. It would seem that my arguments are not sufficient to convey my meaning so I will let what I have said be enough. Thank you again for responding on behalf of the administrators who have privileges for editing this article. Jared.h.wood (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, apologies if I sounded too aggressive or critical. But why should we use once source (the FBI) over all the others in the lead? I think what you want is already at Law enforcement and officials reactions. Again, your proposed suggestion seems to be a good add for the main body, but probably not for the lead; it would need to be either better worded, or with more sources to establish due weight. Also beware of false balance and false equivalence. Davide King (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Antifa in the "Platinum Plan for Black America"

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "rm as recentism -- not clear if it's an actual plan or a PR move". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Change from left to far-left

Pretty self explanatory, not a single person identifying with thus group can be conserved left-wing. They are far left extremists Anonymous 124563295 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed. Also, not a group. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Much more than that is needed, a new RFC would be needed to overturn the consensus from Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20#Lead. FDW777 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. As for Reliable sources, the Ideology section of this article makes the case with sources that Antifa is Far-left politics. Here are relevant sourced quotes demonstrating this:

"has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left"

"Democratic Party leaders, including Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, have condemned antifa and political violence more broadly."

"The Anti-Defamation League states that "ost antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left"

"Mark Bray argues that "t's also important to remember that these are self-described revolutionaries. They're anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum"."

"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"."

All of these quotes together with the sources give ample justification to change the opening sentence of the article from "is an anti-fascist action and left-wing political movement" to "far-left political movement". Furthermore, the end of the opening sentence states, "both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform". Acting outside the established system is the very definition of far-left and far-right. Jared.h.wood (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You can agree as much as you like, it won't be changed unless the previous RFC is overturned, which means a new RFC. FDW777 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood, notice how it says some scholars and news media, not most. I have yet to find a quote of Bray stating antifa is far-left. We have American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism by Stanislav Vysotsky, does it says it is far-left? The final ref does not outright says it is far-left, just that it leans left. Also note that far-left, unlike far-right, is an ill-defined term. What is far-left? Anything left of social democracy? Anything left than the mainstream communist party? For Republicans, establishment Democrats are far-left. I also disagree that "cting outside the established system is the very definition of far-left." I thought that was left-wing, which is for a change of system, like old liberals were on the left and opposed the aristocracy and the old-established order, so it is only far-left because since the 1970s the spectrum moved to the right and the United States really has no socialist or social-democratic party, but I digress. Either way, we would need another RfC to do that. Davide King (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, so? Knowledge and biased are not mutually exclusive. An avid fan is probably knowledgeable on their subject, but their characterization or opinion about the subject would at the minimum have implicit bias. He's categorized as a political activist here: and apparently far from neutral: Bray is not a reliable source on characterization of antifa.

"Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of mostly far-left activists."

"The object of the president’s ire is known as the “Antifa” — shorthand for “anti-fascist” — movement, a decentralised group of far-left activists who advocate using violence to combat white supremacists and neo-Nazis...."Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, what is your point exactly? Many of reliable sources we have at Perennial sources are centrist or are biased in some way; that does not affects their report or reliability, hence they are reliable sources. You say "Bray is not a reliable source on characterization of antifa." But he has been described as an "expert" of the movement by reliable sources as we report in the article. The BBC, among other sources, also used left-wing (rather than far-left), so there is no consistency or agreement among sources other than "lean left." Your given source also says "mostly far-left activists. They include anarchists, but also communists and a few social democrats. What sets them apart is their willingness to use violence - in self-defence, they say." Either way, if you favour far-left, that requires another RfC. See also this comment by Aquillion stating that "I'll add my objection to his - the bit you're adding seems fairly WP:UNDUE. It summarizes a mere single sentence in the article, which hardly seems enough to justify inclusion in the lead. And the cites for militant in particular are fairly poor - there is only one academic source; it is cited largely to passing mentions from news media. Even far-left, which has better citations, is not presented as a universal or even widespread descriptor in the sources (part of the reason the previous RFC failed to reach a consensus.)" Note that both given sources say "far-left activists." They are describing the activists views, not the movement, even if you think there is no difference.
— Davide King (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Only sources (mostly news related) that have been repeatedly asked pop up on the perennial. Fox News appears as reliable, but the current consensus is that they're not reliable on political matters. A book or journal doesn't mean it's more neutral. Books can extend through the entire spectrum between Breitbart and Indymedia.org Expertise does not mean neutral. You poll a panel of master mechanics and there still will be a drastic divide between domestic vs import, Chevy vs Ford even if they can each be considered expert on general automotive topics. "I haven't heard Bray say they're far left" is not a strong argument. Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought reliability was more important and that other sources could be used to balance that. Regarding the far-left thing, Sacco, Lisa N. (June 9, 2020). "Are Antifa Members Domestic Terrorists? Background on Antifa and Federal Classification of Their Actions InFocus IF10839" says that "ts tenets can echo the principles of anarchism, socialism, and communism. Members do not necessarily adhere to just the tenants of these philosophies, however. Among many other things, they may also support environmentalism, the rights of indigenous populations, and gay rights." No mention of left-wing or far-left. Davide King (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-nb2017003735/
2. https://www.post-gazette.com/ae/books/2017/11/05/Anti-fascism-for-beginners-Mark-Bray-Antifa-Hankdbook/stories/201711050030
3. Wendling, Mike (2020-09-30). "Who are Proud Boys and antifa?". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-10-02.
4. "Trump blames 'Antifa' for protests despite lack of evidence". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2020-10-02.

Mark Bray

Here, Crossroads reverted my addition to the lead, stating that "either source verifies it. The Beauchamp/Vox source explicitly attributes that claim to Mark Bray, so we cannot repeat that in our own voice, and the Sacco/CRS source says 'much', not 'most.'" I have no problem with changing most to much. Graywalls also stated above that "Bray is not a reliable source on characterization of antifa." So what is to be done? Bray is a Dartmouth College historian and author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, who has been described as an "antifa expert" by The Washington Post, a reliable source from which he has published several articles. Reliable sources consider him reliable; that he is "far from neutral" as argued by Graywalls (citing this Post Gazette article, how much reliable it is?), even if true, does not seem to affect his reliability. Both Bray and the Congressional Research Service agreed that "much" of antifa activities is related to nonviolent protests. Graywalls also called Bray a "political activist", but given source says "American academic and political organizer" (are "political activist" and "political organizer" the same thing?). We also have Vysotsky, Stanislav (2020). American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780367210601. Maybe it is time to use it too? Or is this academic book not "neutral" enough and too much "biased", too?
—Davide King (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What does a "much" statement add to the first paragraph that is not already there? Crossroads 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding: We shouldn't give undue weight to "hanging posters, delivering speeches and marching as well as activism, flyer campaigns and community organizing". They don't end up in the news because they've been hanging posters and passing out flyers. "Protest tactics" covers that. And most sources on them focus on their activities which distinguish them from BLM and other more mainstream protestors. Crossroads 02:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, for one, you were wrong to claim "either source verifies it." My addition was supported by the given sources, although it could be worded better and changed most to much. And Bray did say that "conventional activism, flyer campaigns, and community organizing, on behalf of anti-racist and anti-white nationalist causes" is the "vast majority" of what they did during the George Floyd protests. It is more a matter on whether it is lead worthy. As for your claim that "hey don't end up in the news because they've been hanging posters and passing out flyers", I think Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anarchism/Referencing explains some of the issues. "And most sources on them focus on their activities which distinguish them from BLM and other more mainstream protestors." That does not mean we ought to concentrate only on those, or exclude those who do not. Again, Bray says "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." Davide King (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Even Bray himself acknowledges he's biased. "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”." from: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/22/antifa-anti-fascist-handbook-trump-us-politics-far-right-charlottesville so his book shouldn't be used to support something that is controversial since he is way too pro-antifa. Graywalls (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That essay has no weight in anything as for appropriateness of sourcing for Misplaced Pages. "as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Graywalls (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained over and over again at this talk page, Bray is a credentialled and respected expert on this subject. Factual claims made by credentialled and respected experts do not require in-text attribution, especially when they're supported by additional reliable sources, as this claim is. The idea that Bray is not a reliable source—indeed, that Bray is not an ideal source—is based on a misunderstanding of the relevant Misplaced Pages guideline, which is very clear that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". It's also based on a misunderstanding of how academic research works. The purpose of published research is to argue a case; the fact that Bray has reached a certain conclusion, based on his research, on this subject in no way casts any doubt on the validity of his conclusions. Serious scholarly sources do not feign neutrality, they make arguments based on evidence. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class anarchism articles
• WikiProject Anarchism articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles