Wikipedia

Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20

< Talk:Antifa (United States)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Davide King in topic Antifa's death toll
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Lead

Latest comment: 4 years ago152 comments37 people in discussion
For the question of militancy, there appears to be a weak consensus against an unqualified description as "militant" in Wikipedia's voice. I count 14 !votes for omission (mostly based on the argument that the term is too ambiguous to be useful), 10 !votes for inclusion (largely "per sources", although this was contested by opposed editors), and 3 !votes for a hedged description such as "sometimes militant" or "often characterized as militant". For the question of political position, there appears to be no consensus: 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. 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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

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

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

Opinions

  • 1.2 and 2.2 per discussions above. The status quo ante was left-wing militant, but I find that militant requires a degree of cherry-picking. Guy (help!) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5), although 1.2. and 2.2 would also be reasonable. In addition, a comment. I think the actual problem in the lead is not exact wording, but this phrase: "Activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, involving property damage, physical violence and harassment against people whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right". The lead suppose to be a summary of content on the page. Does the page say a lot about their "physical violence"? I do not see it at all. "Property damage"? Looks like one occasion, unless I am missing something. "Harassment"? Perhaps, one or two incidents, but I am not sure. More up to the point, this is an accusation of crime. What convictions of the members of the Antifa do we have described on this page? I do not see a single conviction on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 and 2.3-ANTIFA's militancy is well documented. Antifa members have forcibly attempted to prevent conservative speaking engagements and other activities from taking place. They have engaged in repeated altercations with police and right-wing protesters. Many of its members openly identify as communist, which is enough to qualify the group as being far-left. Display name 99 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 and 2.3 Per sources (see my comment in discussion section, as well as PacMecEng's sources below). Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both (1.1, 2.5) The term militant is ambiguous and could refer to anything from someone who has strong enough views to argue on facebook to someone willing to murder for their cause. Also, the term left wing describes ideology, but antifa has only one objective, to confront fascism, which is not a specifically left-wing position. Nor is there any ideological conformity within antifa. It would problem be better merely to say that most antifa are left-wing. It's a single issue group, even if that issue has more resonance on the left. TFD (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both - TFD reflects my views. I am not clear at all what militant means in this context - what activist group isn't militant? And I have no idea why we are discussing the political position of a movement - is anti-facism or anti-white supremacism a political position? It's its supporters who may have, probably do have, political positions, mainly left-of-center. Having members who are communists doesn't make the movement far-left, and although some people may not understand this, there are people who identify as communists who aren't far left. A poll carried out by the conservative Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that "36% of millennials polled say that they approve of communism, which is up significantly from 28% in 2018." 70% said they would vote socialist.[1] Are they all far-left, trying to overthrow the government? Doug Weller talk 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Alternative - I have no issue with either militant or left-wing being used with proper context, but the current layout is badly written. With a small amount of editing it would be easily resolved to better represent both the historic position, and recent broadening appeal / overlap with general protests / opposition to alt-right and far right. The lede is currently a bit of a laundry list rather than particularly well structured. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    Koncorde, Feel free. I am just trying to get us all out of the circular discussion. Guy (help!) 21:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5). Both "militant" and all the variants on "(far-)left" fail to refer to anything specific or unambiguous enough to be a useful in the lede. As far as "militant": I don't object to the term being used in the body of the article with a greater degree of context, but decontextualised in the lede it's essentially a hyperbolic empty signifier and fails to reflect the nuanced picture we would ideally portray. "Far-left" is even worse: as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself, and as I've shown, it very rarely appears in serious scholarly appraisals of antifa by credentialed experts. "(Predominantly) left" is not as bad, but still misleading insofar as it fails to acknowledge the significant political differences within antifa. If we're looking to sum up antifa's politics, "anti-fascist" is accurate, unambiguous, and clearly supported by the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 & 2.3 That is how most sources old and new refer to them.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] There is an argument that this these terms are recentism, the issue with that is these terms have been used for years to describe them by these RS. Modern usage is just confirming and refining past usage. Though I could see a case being made for 1.2 and 2.4, which I would accept as alternatives. Basically anything less is just a form of white washing. PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Not all of the sources you cite say what you say they say. For example, ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary" and mentions "its militant followers' provocations", which is not the same as calling it "militant". CNN says "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left", which is not the same as calling it "far left", and says "Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across", i.e. some not all. PBS says "far-left-leaning movements" and doesn't use the word "militant". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Some of the sources are for support of militant and others for far-left. Noting that some say well it can very does not distract from the majority view that they are described as predominantly far-left. For example you cite the CNN "a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left" when it is often far left that means mostly far left. Again because a minority are not far-left that does not mean the majority cannot be described as such. That kind of argument is not based on policy, RS, or logic for that matter. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, please see my analysis of sources below at Sources for why they are inappropriate for the first sentence. I have added this at Ideology. By all means, feel free to add more there and sources that [o]ften characterize [antifa] as militant or some variant thereof but the lead should simply state Antifa is an anti-fascist which is the only thing all sources seem to agree on. You also did not reply to any objections this SPECIFICO's comment. Again, the main thing of antifa is anti-fascism and we already write about the ideologies of antifa activists in the lead; in other words, many individuals may well hold far-left views but that does not make antifa far-left and it is contradicted by a significant amount of sources that do not use it or use something else like left-wing which is not the same thing as far-left (which seems to be used more often in American news outlets), hence we should write given facts.--Davide King (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Here, The New York Times says The Trump administration blamed what it called the radical left, naming antifa, a contraction of the word "anti-fascist" that has come to be associated with a diffuse movement of left-wing protesters who engage in more aggressive techniques like vandalism. So which is which? The only agreement among sources is anti-fascist which is exactly what we should report in the very first sentence.--Davide King (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Notice how it says left-wing protesters? In other words, individuals within antifa are described as generally holding left-wing to far-left views, but that does not make antifa itself as left-wing, certainly not far-left, for their purpose is anti-fascism, not a specific ideology.--Davide King (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The difference between antifa and the broader, wider anti-fascist movement is not that antifa is militant; it is that antifa aim to achieve their objectives through the use of direct action rather than through policy reform.--Davide King (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Bobfrombrockley, that was something I noted too when I actually read them, so accusing those who are for neither of white washing when one cannot even check given sources to support one's argument is not very good-faith like, although I assume good faith and believe it was a simple mistake. I did an analysis of all those sources. Please, let me know if I missed something or if I wrote anything wrong.--Davide King (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 & 2.3 PackMecEng's sources are persuasive. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5), per Arms & Hearts, Doug Weller and The Four Deuces' rationale. Just to clarify, in before I get falsely attacked for the fourth time of being an anarchist or antifa apologist, or for the second time of whitewashing (despite in the end being right to add this, at least per My very best wishes), I am not opposed to have militancy in the lead as it is now. I am also not opposed to add the political positions in the main body, perhaps in Ideology or as a subsection titled Political position in which we write something along these lines News sources have variously described antifa as anti-fascist, far-left, leftist, left-wing, militant, militant left-wing and radical left and whatever other political position, or none political position, while at the same time nothing sources such as this saying [as their name indicates], Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and that terms like far-left very rarely appears in serious scholarly appraisals of antifa by credentialed experts and that "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself which is why it would not be used in the lead.
To clarify, that was more of a paraphrasing; I am not advocating us to use literally this wording, just along those lines. The lead should summarises key facts and the only fact that seems to be a given, notwithstanding several IPs arguing that antifa are the real fascists (which seems to be more of an euphemism for authoritarian than for the real thing) without providing any source, is anti-fascist. Finally, I am especially opposed to far-left being in the lead for the reasons I am going to expose below.
It is contradicted by subscribing to a range of left-wing [which is correct or right per above point] ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism.[27][34] A majority of adherents are anarchists, communists and other socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries,[40] although some social democrats and other leftists adhere to the antifa movement.[40] The Anti-Defamation League states that "[m]ost antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks".[22] and Antifa describes a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often [not always] the far left. (the latter is wrongly used to support the far-left claim).
Besides, I agree that "Far-left" is even worse: as has been pointed out several times on this talk page, "far-left" is a bit of tabloid sensationalism most often used as a pejorative to refer to anyone left of oneself and that [m]ore than half of these are sourced to Trump himself which was exactly my point for why I boldly removed that in the first place and which is why I believe sources given to support the far-left claim do not actually support it, certainly not being in the lead, much less the very first sentence and even before anti-fascist, which is the only thing we, all who agree with the consensus of fascism being far-right, may agree on.--Davide King (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue I have with that argument is that it is basically saying well a few RS say some people that identify as Antifa are only left not far-left. So even with the examples you list giving something would 2.1, 2.2, or 2.4 be more appropriate than no information at all? that is of course ignoring most modern sources describing the vast majority as far-left. Also if you are not opposed to militancy in the lead why vote to remove it? Wouldn't 1.2 or 1.3 be a better fit for what you are arguing for? PackMecEng (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You did not get it. I am opposed to militant, whether far-left or left-wing (i.e. a militant, far-left, anti-fascist or a militant, left-wing, anti-fascist), because decontextualised in the lede [is] essentially a hyperbolic empty signifier and fails to reflect the nuanced picture we would ideally portray (as argued by Arms & Hearts). I am not opposed to us writing protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy as it is currently done or discuss it further in the main body as proposed by other users. Many of the sources used to purposely show that antifa is far-left do not actually say why is far-left and seem to have jumped on far-left due the ongoing the protests, of which there is not even agreement on what part did antifa play, if any, rather than on factual basis; and thus academic sources would be far more preferable. Either way, I do not see why we have to say far-left, anti-fascist or left-wing, anti-fascist as the very first sentence. As argued by Doug Weller, it is individuals who have a political position and this is reported in the lead; the only political position of the movement and which all sources actually agree on is anti-fascist. The fact that far-left is clearly contradicted in the main body and that the lead needs to be a summary of it does not seem to concern you; if there are clearly individuals who are not far-left, it makes no sense to use far-left like that and the only alternative that would not contradict the main body would be left-wing as both the far-left and the centre-left are left-wing; this may be further complicated if there is also a decent portion of libertarians, which may not fit on the political spectrum; and mainstream liberals, which may well be more centrist than left-wing as argued by JzG here, so clearly far-left is inadeguate as the very first sentence without any context.--Davide King (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add another option for your version of militancy? Also the lead is for broad strokes, what the majority of Antifa is. Yes there are some that use only left wing, but that does not invalidate that most sources use far-left. The other political positions besides anti-fascist are anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few so we cannot just say anti-fascist and hope the reader understands. Where have libertarians been mentioned as members? Finally with Guy's post you mention, it also starts with Just because we don't say "Antifa are a bunch of radical far-left terrorists" doesn't mean we're trying to pretend they are something they are not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Militancy and militant are two different words and we are specifically discussing militant and whether it should be in the first sentence of the lead, are we not? What you do not seem to realise, or maybe is just my impression for your reply, is that anarchism, communism, and Marxism to list a few are not antifa's political positions; they are individual antifa activists' political positions. Considering the history of the wider socialist movement, how would you think could they all co-exist, if antifa is really promoting anarchism, communism, and Marxism as you seem to imply (apologies if I misunderstood you)?
The only political position of antifa is anti-fascism, which is why you see socialists of all stripes coming together and agreeing on one thing. Antifa activists' political positions may well be those of anarchism, communism, and Marxism but they are not antifa's political positions; the main thing antifa promotes and engages is anti-fascism. This is supported by the academic sources we use and by the BBC's comment that Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and the weight of sources should not simply be based on quantity but by their quality too. Academic and experts of the movement should be prioritised over news sources. Why all sources listed to support far-left are news? Is there really no academic source supporting far-left?
In this specific and controversial case, I do not think the mention of far-left in those news outlets means much, if they do not actually explain what they mean by it and why; they seem to use far-left the way it is often used, i.e. to refer to something more left than a given party; and yet, every time there is no agreement on what is the party that is compared to (the Democrats? The DSA?). Just because they use far-left in an article that mentions antifa, it does not mean it has enough weight to be used to support the claim; we should look at articles that specifically discuss antifa and its political position. Do we list the Democrats' political position as left-wing just because a certain amount of news outlets, in articles not even discussing the political party and its political position, use the word left-wing as a quick way to get to the point? I have read so many news outlets that have referred to centre-left and centre-right parties as left-wing or right-wing (like the centre does not exist), respectively; those are not useful to describe a party's political position. I believe this also what SPECIFICO was arguing when writing [t]hese labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers which is a pretty good summary of what I meant but which I probably did not explained very well.
Most of those sources you listed talk more about what is going those days with protests, of which antifa may or may not even been involved; and Trump and others' comments. Merely a quick mention of far-left simply is not enough; you would need sources that specifically discuss antifa and its political position, not merely those that mention antifa and use the far-left qualifier which tell us nothing about it as you wish it would. I am sure other users could just find a significant enough number sources that merely mention antifa but use the left-wing qualifier instead. By all means, add sources that specifically discuss antifa (like What is antifa? as is done for What Is Antifa, the Movement Trump Wants to Declare a Terror Group? which is fine, not Trump Lays Blame For Clashes On 'Radical-Left Anarchists', As Trump vows crackdown on 'antifa,' growth of right-wing extremism frustrates Europeans, Barr threatens to bust 'far-left extremist groups' in Floyd unrest, or What we do and don't know about the extremists taking part in riots across the US) and its political position (i.e. the article is only about antifa and its political position, not Floyd protests, Trump's comments, or other) and that use far-left. Finally, I agree that far-left may be appropriate if it were a centrally-managed organization or institution but not for antifa, which is neither.--Davide King (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG did mention [r]eports suggest that it includes libertarians, mainstream liberals, anarchists and more and I do not understand what you meant by reporting that statement.--Davide King (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
All the sources I gave support militant and far-left. I gave almost a dozen of them and could produce more if you would like. So on the one hand we have your personal feeling on what you think Antifa is, which btw is contrary to this very article, and on the other we have tons and tons of RS supporting what I said. I have to say, policy wise, you do not have a convincing argument. Which unfortunately is the case with most of the omit votes, a lot of personal feelings and fairly short on RS or policy backing up those assertions. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
No, they do not, for all but The New York Times are simply passive mentions in articles that are about antifa's role in protests and Trump and others' comments about antifa in accusing them of turning the protests into violence and labelling them as terrorists. So it has nothing to do with personal feelings; your sources do not seem to actually support your stronger implications.--Davide King (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both - First off, the lead is incorrect to claim antifa "is a predominantly ... an anti-fascist political activist movement in the United State." The RS along side that sentence do not support that verbiage. The RS are merely discussing the anti-fascists in America but do not claim it is a movement "predominately" in the USA. For example, one RS writes, "antifa gained new prominence in the United States after the white supremacist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, in August 2017" but that RS does not claim that Antifa is predominately in USA.
Second, being "anti-fascist" is not left-winged or right-winged. RS in the lead, ADL [14] writes, "though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks."
So, that makes me think there needs to be a subheading for "Antifa Pre-2016 election" and another subheading for "Antifa Post-2016 election." Washington Post writes, "Antifa veterans [pre-2016 election] are wary of newcomers raring for a fight, however. "A lot of people are coming into antifa because of the thrill of violence, and that's not what we're about," said Mike Isaacson, an anarchist PhD student and adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Anti-fascists are community oriented, and we do make the effort to keep everyone as safe as possible." I think that what makes Antifa so difficult to write about is because it is not an official organization that has it's own platform to outline it's ideology, "Interviews with a dozen antifa activists show they come from a variety of backgrounds and are only loosely affiliated." [15] BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both These labels are not clearly verified by the weight of RS. The labels are not well-defined and are sure to be misinterpreted and differentially interpreted by our readers. Labels such as these might be appropriate for a centrally-managed organization or institution, but Antifa is no such thing, and the use of such labels suggest a level of organization and unified mission that is not documented by the sources. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 & 2.2/2.3 This article is about the loose network Antifa that has certain defining charasteristics. Militancy, and left-wing to far-left membership are among those characteristics (per the sources collected by PackMecEng above). This article is not about general opposition to fascism (anti-fascism) that does not have those characteristics. This network is influenced by the German Antifaschistische Aktion that was established in 1932. The emblem used in this article is a direct copy of the German 1930s Antifa - what the red and the black flags symbolize is obvious. If these defining charasteristics are removed and you're arguing that they're only defined by "being anti-fascist", then this article is meaningless and could just as well be a redirect to anti-fascism. But reliable sources do offer us those charasteristics. --Pudeo (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both There is clearly bias in the way this Rfc is framed. Smith0124 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)— Smith0124 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Peterjack1 (talk • contribs).
  • Omit any militancy and left-wing would be fine. "Militancy" implies cohesive organization, which does not apply to something that isn't actually an organization. The general left-leaning politics of various antifa-related groups is undeniable however. ValarianB (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.2 & 2.5: 1.2 because not all of the tactics are militant; for example data gathering is not. 2.5 because it's not a defining characteristic, and is best discussed in the body where the movement's lean can be put in proper context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both (i.e. 1.1 and 2.5) because too heterogeneous to be so simply characterised. "often described as" terminology (1.2, 2.4) acceptable. Far left (2.3) completey unacceptable as not NPOV and goes against many sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both The lead does a reasonable enough job of summarising antifa and their activities, as well as them being a broad-based movement with people of many different backgrounds including but definitely not limited to far-left. Deliberately ignoring the many references to the contrary to describe antifa as "far-left" in Wikipedia's voice is a proposal unlikely to gain consensus, and it is a waste of time to constantly debate it. FDW777 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both use of the terms is so ill-defined that they have become meaningless. They both are used disparagingly in the media, but fail to elucidate. We are doing our readers a disservice by using the term. If it can be said that antifa is in favor of something (doubtful) then just say what that is. If they are opposed to something, other than the equally poorly defined fascism, just say what that is. Are they insurrectionary anarchists, do they support illegalism? Do they, like the Red Army Faction (that we call far-left militant), use bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and bank robberies? Then just say that. Don't lump everything together in a way that explains nothing.Vexations (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.2, 2.2 & 2.4. The sources are included in the article. As per WP:LEDE, It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Alcaios (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.2 and 2.2 this is consistent with their own self identification and actions, perhaps the only definition that matter. Jettparmer (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support for 1.3 and Strong support for 2.3 Per RS. Vox: "militant left-wing movement", WaPo: "far-left 'antifa' movement", Al Jazeera: "Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is a far-left ideological movement", NYT: "antifa, the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists", Guardian: "Antifa is a useful umbrella term that denotes a broad spectrum of groups and individuals of far-left or anarchist tendencies." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 and 2.3 per above ~ HAL333 04:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 and 2.1, .2, or .3 Antifa groups (yes, they have groups and are not simply a nebulous movement of random people) are both widely described and widely shown in countless riots, clashes with other protesters, and clashes with law enforcement to be militant. The ideological leanings of these groups are typically Marxist, communist, anarchist, or some variation of left wing progressivism, justifying any of the terms leftist, left wing, or far-left as a description. MWise12 (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 and 2.2 as per a recent article in the media, which describes them as left-wing militants. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both although 1.1 + 2.2 (ie. just saying left-wing) wouldn't be terrible; particular opposition to the combination of 1.3 with 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3 ("militant far-left", "militant left", etc.), which are unacceptable WP:SYNTH. The second paragraph's 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 is more accurate to the sources and should be sufficient. There definitely isn't enough unity among the sources for the more strident far-left (which often, when it appears in print, is actually quoting or paraphrasing descriptions by politicians on the right rather than in the article voice), especially since some sources specifically express skepticism about it by putting it in quotes or noting the more detailed breakdown. My opposition to "militant far-left" and related phrasings as WP:SYNTH in particular is because few sources use that exact combination of terms - people are taking disparate sources that use "militant anti-fascism" and "left" or "far-left" (neither term of which is particularly universal and both of which are contradicted elsewhere in any case) and synthing them together into "militant far-left", which has an extremely different meaning than being militantly anti-fascist. More generally this is a reason to reserve talk if militancy for the body where it can be more properly characterized as how they are militant, but "militant far-left" definitely isn't common enough to be the first sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It is not synth when sources explicitly make the connection and call them such as demonstrated numerous times in the article, this discussion, and all past discussions on the subject. It is basically the main defining thing about them, their far-left militancy is how RS define them as a group. PackMecEng (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral on 1, but support 2.3. We go by the sources. The excellent sources by AmbivalentUnequivocality and PackMecEng are clear that "far-left" is the most common description. I'm not seeing "militant" too often, and the argument that the term is vague is compelling to me. Whatever "militant" is trying to say is well covered by the latter part of the opening sentence: "non-violent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform." Crossroads -talk- 07:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Noting that this source, a New York Times article, came out today. It defines antifa thusly: Antifa, which stands for anti-fascist, is a radical, leaderless leftist political movement that uses armed, violent protest as a method to create what supporters say is a more just and equitable country. This supports "far-left", as "radical...leftist" is the same thing as "far-left". It could also be argued to support "militant". To clarify my comment above, I am in fact neutral on question 1 about the term "militant"; I do see the points in favor it as well, not just points against as I said above. Crossroads -talk- 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
      Crossroads, how does that entails far-left? It may simply entails radical left-wing politics which is not exactly the same thing. Many sources also describe them as very broad and the BBC says they are more interested in fighting far-right ideology than promoting left-wing policies. I believe this is a better way and summary to say it:

      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. Both the name antifa and the logo with two flags representing anarchism and communism are derived from the German Antifa movement.

      Also better, scholarly sources say:

      Antifa involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents or the police has led some scholars to characterize the movement as far-left and as militant.

      This is the proper context. They are not far-left by themselves and far-left is not the same thing as far-right which has an agreed, literature meaning. It is their violent actions that causes them to be labelled as such, but antifa is broad and sources include non-violent direct action. In other words, it cannot be easily labelled the same way a far-right group is. As Mark Bray wrote, the "vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists." Davide King (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Not seeing how "radical left" is meaningfully different from "far-left". I haven't seen any sources say they are very broad in their ideology. The stuff about not being far-left by themselves and not being the far-right (who said they were?) just seems like opinion to me. I believe they are labeled far-left not only because of the violence, but also their rejection of policy reform, and especially their symbolism invoking anarchism and communism, as well as their name and symbolism being taken directly from German antifa, who label liberal democracy as fascist and are considered by modern Germany to be violent extremists. Mark Bray himself said to Vox about American antifa, these are self-described revolutionaries. They’re anarchists and communists... While Trump-esque false equivalency has no place here, as I said below, antifa is not the same thing as anti-fascism generally. It is a specific and particular ideology and a very small subset of people who oppose fascism. As for what Mark Bray says about nonviolence, he is just one scholar, with his own political biases, whose book offers a roadmap for putting antifa principles into practice. [16] (Note how this Washington Post source is yet another that uses "far-left" to describe antifa.) I mean, every political movement says all sorts of things about themselves, but most of the independent sourcing is not so much about activities that don't distinguish them from run of the mill leftists, so we can't put WP:Undue weight on stuff that most sources don't talk about. My reading of the due weight of a variety of sources requires calling them far-left. Crossroads -talk- 15:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC) partially rewrote Crossroads -talk- 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I see we have two scholarly sources cited calling them "diverse", but neither one says they are ideologically diverse, and this one is yet another calling them "far-left". Crossroads -talk- 15:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, well, then why did they say radical left rather than far-left? The same news outlets do not even agree among themselves, so which is which?
For example, here The New York Times says:

antifa, a contraction of the word "anti-fascist" that has come to be associated with a diffuse movement of left-wing protesters who engage in more aggressive techniques like vandalism.

They simply agree they are left-wing but we already say that without using empty labels. By the way, there was no need to strawman my position as reverse false equivalency. You did write that Mark Bray himself said to Vox about American antifa, these are self-described revolutionaries. They’re anarchists and communists [...] but Bray does not actually say they are far-left. You see revolutionaries, anarchists and communists and you think that is far-left, but I believe Aquillion concisely made a good point here about the problems of far-left. The scholarly sources you mention are already in the main body and the use of far-left and militant is put in the proper context. You do not seem to realise how diverse the left actually is even without being ideologically diverse (in the sense that it is still the left). You also do not seem to be aware of the differences between the American and German antifas. Davide King (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 & 2.3 per User:PackMecEng and others above. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Omit both per the arguments above to that effect. Language like "often described" is a touch too weaselly in this context, and "militant" is one of those words that has too many different senses to be clarifying here. Sometimes it's used to mean "strident" (e.g., "militant vegan"), and other times the meaning is more like "violent", and bad-faith rhetoric is apt to equivocate between the two. Best if we simply decline to go down that rhetorical path. XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    @XOR'easter: Sorry, do not want to badger you, but I'd be interested to hear the rationale for omitting "leftist" from the lead, which you did not give. It seems odd given the enormous back-up from RS'es (listed by PackMacEng) and even the latest NYT piece mentioned by Crossroads just above. --Pudeo (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    It's highly unspecific and not particularly informative. I find the arguments above against its inclusion at this particular point generally persuasive, and I don't have much to add to them. Brief epithets, even when employed by generally reliable sources, count for less than the more in-depth analyses which show how difficult it is to attribute any fixed ideology, strategy or mission statement to a leaderless dis-organization. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, but numerous reliable and highly mainstream sources certainly didn't consider the term "unspecific and not particularly informative", so I don't see why we should handle it any differently than they did. And "in-depth analysis" is what the rest of the article is for. As for antifa ideology (which is not the same thing as anti-fascism generally, as the existence and sources of this separate article show), sources are quite clear to me that this is aptly described as far-left. Crossroads -talk- 00:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delayed reply — I didn't have much time for WP over the weekend, and it seems like whatever time I do find always gets split between too many different things. Anyway: various sources that are generally reliable have used "leftist", "far-left", "far-left or anarchist", etc., particularly when they need catchy headlines or brief descriptions/parentheticals in articles mostly about other things. We are not trying to write headlines, but rather, to craft an introduction that summarizes the body text. I don't think that "far-left" is a fair summary of language like a varied range of left-wing ideologies that is elaborated upon with anarchists, communists and other socialists ... some social democrats and other leftists. Moreover, even though the article is about an American movement, it ought to be comprehensible internationally, and "far-left" is not a description with a fixed meaning across the Anglosphere. I see the rationale for including "far-left", but my old, dull centrist soul isn't convinced. XOR'easter (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    XOR'easter, I agree with pretty much everything you have written here. By the way, far-left and militant are in the body and I am not opposed to that, but they are put in the proper context:

    According to Dartmouth historian Mark Bray, an expert on the movement, the "vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists". Antifa involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents or the police has led some scholars to characterize the movement as far-left and as militant.

    Davide King (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Militant and far-left per sources cited. This does not require every source to require these terms, merely a consensus, which we seem to have, as even left-of-center sources frequently describe them that way. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 1.3 & 2.3 I was persuaded from the many good sources presented by PacMecEng that "militant" and "far-left" are the best general designations for this group. These terms are widespread and can be used as statements of fact.DIACHRONY (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The status quo ante was left-wing militant.

  1. Militancy
    1. Omit militant
    2. Often characterized as militant or some variant thereof
    3. Militant, without qualification
  2. Political position
    1. Leftist - e.g. Andy Ngo in the WSJ
    2. Left-wing - e.g. Reuters
    3. Far-left - e.g. Bill Barr, NPR, NYT, WaPo, Politico, and CNN.
    4. Often described as far-left - e.g. ABC says "While antifa's political leanings are often described as "far-left," experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism." [17]

Omit both - left-wing and militancy are already mentioned in the lead; far-left and militant are both vague terms whose meaning is unclear, especially for far-left; given sources used in favour of both wording are passive mentions in news articles and only a few are about What is Antifa? (see my comment at Sources below) In the main body, we do mention far-left and militant already but we do summarise sources as saying Antifa involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents or the police has led some scholars to characterize the movement as far-left[7][44][45][46] and as militant.[47][48][49][50] That is the very specific context in which those terms are used by scholars, who should be favoured over news sources, no matter how reliable. Note that I am basing this on the assumation that those in favour of us using both terms want the article to start Antifa [...] is a militant, far-left, anti-fascist which those for omitting oppose. I believe those who favour omitting both do not oppose the use of left-wing and militancy as is done now in the lead.--Davide King (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, you already voted in the previous subsection on 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC) (use your browser's "find" tool to find it). To avoid confusion on the part of the closer, I have to strike your double vote. And to briefly address your point, these matters are worth addressing in the first sentence. Crossroads -talk- 22:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, you completely misunderstood my good faith intentions; this was not a second vote. It was simply a summary; since all the other positions are summarised with several sources, I wanted to give a summary of the Omit both position since that was missing. Davide King (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but you're adding at this late hour to a mostly-neutral list of options with a detailed argument for one particular option, which doesn't really fit. That together with the bolding looks too much like a second vote. Crossroads -talk- 22:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, I used the bolding just because the other positions are bolded too. Since there are users who are for omitting, it makes no sense to cite sources the same way was done for the other positions, especially when those same sources have been disputed or criticised, among other reasons. So I simply made the shortest summary I could make of their arguments. See also how 2.5 was added 19:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC) per request below but it was not added here too and I did not notice it until now. JzG, may I ask you if you could add 2.5 here too? Davide King (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I look forward to JzG's input, but I don't see why we even have the options here; the survey is supposed to be above, and I'm not seeing any votes below, just discussion. Crossroads -talk- 23:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, I guess or thought that this is supposed to be a summary to support each position and option, or something like that, whether with sources or a summary of arguments. Davide King (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Not sure if I understand your comment correctly, but... Considering most notable events, such as Unite the Right rally, yes, the right-wing guys were undoubtely extremists who did committed the Charlottesville car attack. They did kill someone during the rally, using the classic terrorist tactics of Vehicle-ramming attack. The "counter-protesters" including members of Antifa? Not at all. That was just a demonstration [[18]. That is what I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I was saying that there is no need for us to state against people whom they identify as because, as you noted, [c]onsidering most notable events, such as Unite the Right rally, yes, the right-wing guys were undoubtely extremists and sources did not dispute antifa's identification of them as such, they said they were held by right-wing extremists and white superemacists without any qualifier.--Davide King (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree. If these sources are considered authoritative for how we use "left"/"militant" labels, we need to drop any scare-quoting wording about them "identifying" their targets as far right. EDitors arguing these sources justify "far left" and "militant" from these specific sources are not being consistent if they insisst on the "identify as" qualifer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Well, I can also see this. So whatever RS on the subject say. However, do they openly proclaim the revolutionary terror as one of their tactics? If so, that need to be stated, with refs. If no, such cases can be regarded as crimes by individual members of the movement, which need to be included if notable and reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) NedFausa, we would need a better source than the New York Post for that.--Davide King (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. You are of course welcome to dispute that source when I use it later today in adding the incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions, and then we can open a new, separate discussion on this talk page and await consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It is striking that only unreliable sources (Daily Mail and NYPost) calls this protestor "antifa".[19] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Here are some previous discussions about it. I hope it is helpful.--Davide King (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, as one could expect, the current text is a result of previous discussions and consensus. If it does not include something, this is probably for a good reason. Hence the lead must summarize the current version of the page. It does not. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
To be sure, past consensus (or lack thereof) is helpful in considering present contributions. However, consensus changes over time, as subsequent events unfold and opinions mature. If no one else does so, I will add the Ngo incident to subsection 5.1 Notable actions. We can then open a new, separate discussion and seek fresh consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it possible to add None for political position? Or simply Anti-fascist (which could be worded as militant anti-fascist or simply anti-fascist in relation to the militant wording and depending on whether to include it or not)? For instance, one source, despite writing of left-wing militants, also notes However, as their name indicates, Antifa focuses more on fighting far-right ideology than encouraging pro-left policy and we may choose Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views and subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism as the statement regarding its political position in the lead. This may be enough and does not imply the whole movement or every single individual is left-wing or far-left. However, this would be more of a compromise in case there is going to be no consensus for other positions; and I do not exclude us using left-wing, far-left, or other positions.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: It should be noted that 'far-left' is not primarily Bill Barr's characterization; I also find it in these sources in a two minute google search:
NPR: The president has said that members of the loosely defined far-left group Antifa...
NYT: ...President Trump said on Sunday that the United States would designate antifa, the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, a terrorist organization.
WaPo: The day that President Trump declared he would label the far-left “antifa” movement a domestic terrorist organization last week
Politico: Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups...
CNN: Antifa describes a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left.
Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, so add them. Guy (help!) 19:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
More than half of these are sourced to Trump himself. And the last one is ambiguous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG and Shinealittlelight, did you guys review these sources? I assume Shine did since they’re quoting parts of the article beyond the headline. But none of these, without the exception of the Politico one, are appropriate. And three of them are WP:PRIMARY. All three excerpts are quoting President Trump. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed them. I do not understand why you say that they are primary sources. These are news reports about Antifa, and they characterize Antifa as "far-left" (or "often [lean toward] the far-left" in CNN) in their own voice. Perhaps you will claim that NPR, NYT, and WaPo mean to attribute this characterization to Trump. But it's not reasonable to read the sources in this way. For one thing, Trump didn't call them "far-left". Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, Shinealittlelight and Symmachus Auxiliarus, see my analysis and review below.--Davide King (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Contrary to what Arms & Hearts and Davide King say above, it is not plausible that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, and NPR are all engaged in the same tabloid sensationalism by using the term "far-left" to describe Antifa. These are paradigms of RS, and we should therefore follow their lead. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Except, now that I have actually read them, only The New York Times is good as it is about antifa and the headlines are actually accurate of what they are talking about and their main topic; only The New York Times's main topic is antifa and can be used to support the far-left claim. All the others are literally reporting on the protests and Trump and Barr and others' comments, as their headlines imply; so I find it absurd you even believe those sources, outside The New York Times, can be used to support the far-left claim. Forbes talks of radical left. If this was the best you could find, I am sorry to write I am disappointed.--Davide King (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
According to what policy is a characterization of Antifa RS only if it reflects the content of the headline? I have no idea where that comes from. Headlines are typically not RS, as they are written from a promotional perspective. To repeat: all of these sources are paradigm RS and call Antifa "far-left" in their own voice, as the closer for this RfC can confirm by looking at the sources themselves. Note well again that Trump did not call them "far-left" in his remarks; that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that is a strawman and a mockery of what I actually wrote. Do you not realise that the main topic of all but The New York Times are the protests and Trump and others' comment? Yes, that characterization came from NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others but in articles that talks more about protests and report more about Trump and others' comments than they talk of antifa and its political position, with far-left being nothing more than a passive mention. We can just as easily find sources that use left-wing or another qualifier in articles that merely mention antifa. Antifa needs to be the main topic of the article; we cannot simply use an article that mentions antifa in one passage and use far-left (this is for every other qualifier, whether far-left or left-wing).--Davide King (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Just a few sources that use left-wing rather than far-left. Besides Reuters, The Independent and The Week use left-wing rather than far-left; and only The Week is appropriate because, like The New York Times, the main topic is antifa and actually talks about antifa, what it is and its political positions, while The Independent is exactly like the other sources supposed to support the far-left claims, i.e. they report more on the protests and Trump and others' comments. Yet CBS News does not mention neither, it only talks of antifa as a collection of loosely connected groups that organize against fascism.--Davide King (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Glad we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. Good to have agreement on that. As for the rest, I don't understand what WP policy you're appealing to. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A similar issue came up in discussions about far right groups. Per extraordinary claims we decided that such claims required academic sources, since news media are reliable for reporting news but their journalists are not necessarily experts in political science with published academic papers. Barry Goldwater for example was routinely referred to as far right or a right-wing extremist in mainstream media, but not in academic writing. That's because he was to the right of the mainstream Republican Party of the time but not in a global spectrum that runs from revolutionary anarchists on the far left to fascists on the far right. The important thing is that these terms only have meaning when context is understood. Otherwise they confuse readers. TFD (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
No, we do not agree. You wrote [t]hese are news reports about Antifa but they are not; they are only marginally about antifa and far-left is nothing but a passive mention. They are news report about what is happening right now with the protests and the comments of Trump and others about antifa and the terrorists label. Seriously, compare The New York Times to all others. There are only three paragraphs about the current events and Trump, then all the other paragraphs are about antifa and this is a source that can actually be used to support the far-left claim because it is specifically about antifa and what it is, not a marginal or passive mention in reports that are more concerned about the protests and other people comments. If we ought to put those qualifier, I agree with The Four Deuces that they should be academic, not any source found on Google after typing "antifa" "far-left" because I am sorry but that is what you seem to have done; you have not actually read the sources, you simply saw they mentioned far-left and jumped on it. If you have actually read them all, I do not see how you cannot see that all but The New York Times are spending much more paragraphs reporting on what is happening than antifa and what it is as outlined by The New York Times. Finally, one thing I seem to have noticed and I believe is worth mentioning and analysing is that it is mainly American news outlets that use far-left while internationally either left-wing is used (The Independent and The Week) or there is no mention (CBS News), so it seems to be that American news outlets have either indeed jumped on far-left merely because of what is happening (of which we now know how much misinformation there has been), or they use far-left because the American political spectrum is skewed to the right compared to most Western countries.--Davide King (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, unless you want to take back what you said before, we agree that NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others have characterized Antifa as "far-left" in their own voices. The rest of what you say here doesn't have any clear relationship to WP policy as far as I can tell. I can't imagine that these sources, when they all agree on Antifa being far-left, are not reliable for that characterization. We need to follow RS here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean unless [I] want to take back what [I] said before? You did not reply back to my main poiint which is that those linked articles, besides The New York Times, are only marginally about antifa and a passive far-left mention is not enough to support us writing Antifa is far-left as the very first sentence. In the main body? Sure. If I was reverted for this because antifa was not the main topic, then I do not see how we can support Antifa is far-left as our very first sentence when all but The New York Times report more on the protests and comments of others than about antifa or what it is. We would need What is antifa articles that specifically say far-left rather than any article in reliable news that may give only a passive mention and talk more about something else than antifa. Even then, I do not see why we should use news sources for this claim in the lead rather than academics or experts like Bray who do not say far-left (again, in the main body where we can give the appropriate context? Sure. As the very first phrase, when all but one given sources talk more about the protests? No). Nor any of those who support a mention in the lead have replied to objections such as SPECIFICO and others raised. Here, The New York Times makes no mention of far-left and only call protesters left-wing which support the argument that antifa is anti-fascist and that it is its activists that have political positions, ranging from the left to the far-left (majority) to the centre-left and other (minority). The BBC and CBS do not use far-left, only anti-fascist; and the BBC talks of its members being left-wing.--Davide King (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I replied to your point. We agree that Antifa has been called "far-left" in a broad range of central RS. You have then made an argument about "passive mentions" that does not refer to any WP policy. I am unmoved by this, and I encourage you to relate what you have to say to WP policy in the future. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Davide King do you mean "passing mention"? If so, Shinealittlelight the WP policy here is WP:DUE. Jusst because an RS says something doesn't mean it should be in our article. If the weight of RS coverage of antifa use this language, then it would be appropriate to include; if it is passing mentions in RS coverage of other topics, then it has no place. Even the examples you cite urge caution because they add caveats: "lean toward the left", "loosely defined far-left", etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bobfrombrockley, yes, that was exactly what I meant; thanks! I do not think that passing mentions of far-left in articles that cover more the protests or other things should be used in support of Antifa is a far-left, for the articles should be explicitly about antifa and its political positions like The New York Times. Also, please do not act like there is not a significative amount of sources that do not use far-left or any qualifier; and even when they do add a qualifier, there are caveats as pointed out by Bobfrombrockley. Again, I pointed out an article by the same New York Times and others that do not use far-left or other explicit qualifiers, something which you have yet to address. Therefore, your claim that Antifa has been called "far-left" in a broad range of central RS is misleading, for of the sources you gave, all but The New York Times are passing mentions; and I believe that since you keep mentioning Wikipedia policies, I guess WP:DUE applies. Just because far-left has been used as passing mentions in articles that report more on the protests, it does not mean they are due for support Antifa is a far-left as the very first phrase; nor does this negate all the significant other sources that either do not use it or use another qualifier, which is why the only qualifier we should use and which is supported by all sources is anti-fascist.--Davide King (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks. Well, in that case, my reply is: the claim that Antifa is "far-left" is not a minority viewpoint, as it is a view that has been published by central, prominent RS, including NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others. The policy WP:DUE is meant to keep us from over-emphasizing minority viewpoints, so it does not apply here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I wrote the above comment before your reply and there was edit conflict, but I do not think this answer the question for why we should use articles that have far-left as a passing mention (it is usually just mentioned once) and that report more about the ongoing protests, Trump, Barr and others' comments, labelling antifa a terrorist organisation and so on.--Davide King (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand your position and there's no need to keep repeating yourself. You think that although this term "far left" was used by NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, NPR, and others in their own voices, and therefore it passed all of their professional editorial and fact checking processes, nevertheless it's a minority view that is UNDUE in the lead of our article, and your evidence for this is that these are "passing mentions". I find this implasuible. These central and prominent news outlets do not all assert something in their own voice that is a minority view, "passingly" or otherwise. I have nothing else to say to you on this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
No, you do not. For once, I never claimed or wrote that it is a minority view. Please, show me articles from those that are specifically about antifa (they are usually titled What is antifa or something like that). For one, it has already been noted that the CNN wording is ambiguous. Finally, reply to this for why most of given sources are ambiguous and can be used in the main body (some of which I already included) but not support a far-left claim (not clearly verified by the weight of sources or not well-defined) in the lead sentence, even before anti-fascist, much less the very first sentence.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
For example, here Politico says Antifa, short for "antifacists," is a loose movement or collection of far-left groups that espouse anarchist views and argue that the social change they seek requires radical measures such as violence and this does not support Antifa is a far-left but it may support Antifa is an anti-fascist movement in the United States comprising a diverse array of far-left autonomous groups which is not exactly the same thing.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
You referred to WP:DUE which relates to over-emphasis of minority viewpoints (I recommend that you have a look at it). That's why I interpreted you that way. If that's not the policy you want to appeal to, then you're right, I don't understand how your argument relates to WP policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it is very simple actually. We cannot use articles that give a passing mention for far-left; if we want to use those sources to describe antifa's political position, we need the articles to be about antifa's political position (again, they are usually titled What is antifa; we need to find them and compare them), not any article that have a passing mention of antifa as far-left. I gave you the example of Politico, whose wording does not support the claim of antifa being far-left, just that its groups are, which is a different thing.--Davide King (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Here, Politico is like The New York Times which has one article that say far-left and another which just say anti-fascist, so which is which? There is not even agreement between the same source on whether antifa is far-left or not, which is one more reason we should simply say anti-fascist.--Davide King (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Uh, what WP policy are you appealing to again? Lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not appealing to any Wikipedia policy in particular (I guess due, original research and synthesis may suffice because the sources do not support your implications and talk more about protests than antifa), I just think they do not support your implications and are contradicted by other articles from the same reliable sources. You did not reply to any objection raised by me and other users. Why should we use those sources when it is just an article passive mentioning far-left when of the same news outlet (The New York Times and Politico in this case) I just found two articles that support simply anti-fascist? I am tired of this discussion as you do not reply to any objections and just keep saying RS, even when I have shown you how they contradict each other or do not support your proposed implications. I hope Bobfrombrockley can continue this discussion because he may explain my points more clearly since you keep asking questions without actually responding to any objections that have been raised by those who support omitting both. I think I have been pretty clear.--Davide King (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not appealing to any Wikipedia policy in particular. Thanks for clarifying that. If there are sources that characterize Antifa in additional ways to 'far-left' then we should include those characterizations as well. The things you're pointing at (e.g. their being called 'antifascist' in some sources) do not contradict their characterization as far-left. According to sources, they're far-left and antifascist. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
How the same news outlets simply using anti-fascist does not contradict far-left? They either are far-left or they are not. If they are overwhelmingly far-left as you seem to imply and suggest, why two different articles from The New York Times and Politico only say anti-fascist and make no mention of far-left? Anti-fascist does not imply far-left, I am sure on this we can agree on. Also it is according to some sources that they are far-left and anti-fascist; according to others, they are left-wing and anti-fascist; according to other still, they are militant left-wing anti-fascist; yet according to some more, they are militant anti-fascist. Notice how the only thing in common is anti-fascist?--Davide King (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Lots of reliable sources call them all these things: left wing, far left, militant, and anti-fascist. So sources say Antifa is all of these things. The most specific description with lots of reliable sourcing is far left, anti-fascist, and militant. Should we include all three of these descriptions? Well, the current RfC only asks about 'far left' and 'militant'. But yeah, I think we should include all three, based on the massive amount of sourcing for each description. This description is not undue given the sources, and it isn't contradictory. This isn't hard. Let's stop, ok? Nobody is going to read all this, and we're not going to agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
There may be reliable sources that call them all these things but not all at once, so it is indeed original research and synthesis, if you want a policy guideline. The only agreement between sources is anti-fascist and left-wing is not the same as far-left so while left-wing includes the far-left, it also includes the centre-left, so all sources that simply say left-wing should not be considered as supporting far-left; that is indeed original research. But I agree, let us agree to disagree.--Davide King (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not original research or synthesis. When RS1 says A, and RS2 says B, it is not synthesis or OR for us to say: both A and B. I am not taking sources that say "left wing" as support for "far left". I'm only taking (lots) of sources that say "far left" as support for "far left". And sources that say "left wing" do not contradict the sources that say "far left", obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that is exactly what it is because in some ways left-wing does actually contradict far-left which is not the same thing. We cannot say that Antifa is [...] far-left militant anti-fascist unless sources call it exactly like that, but that is not what they do. Some simply say far-left, others say left-wing, others still use left-wing militant, others simply say anti-fascist and others more say militant anti-fascist so the sources which do not use far-left and militant contradict those who do and it is indeed some form of original research and synthesis for us to write Antifa is [...] far-left militant anti-fascist when no source actually use this wording at once and contradict each other. You have yet to answer for why news outlets that use far-left in one article do not use it in another. In other words, there is no consensus among them, nor is there this overwhelmingly consensus in favour of far-left; the only consensus is anti-fascist which all use.--Davide King (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You can't be far left without being left wing. So obviously they don't contradict. Some reports are more specific than others. This is all obvious. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It does contradict that because, as noted by other users, far-left usually implies government overthrow and this is not what antifa is about. Left-wing does not imply far-left in this sense, hence it is a contradiction; left-wing may also imply centre-left or simply a moderate left that is to the left of the centre-left. So no, sources that use left-wing rather than far-left do indeed contradict the far-left claim, just like those who do not use militant or simply say anti-fascist contradict those who do and hence it is not as clear or simple as you imply. Just because far-left is still left-wing (the same could be argued for centre-left), it does not mean they are the same thing or even has to imply the same thing. The bottom line is news sources contradict each other.--Davide King (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Obviously I never said that left wing implies far left. Left wing is a spectrum that includes far left. Some sources just call Antifa left wing. Others further specify that they are far left. No contradiction here, just additional specificity. Similarly, if I say that something is an animal, and you further say it is a horse, we have not contradicted each other. And it would of course be silly to reply that "horse" and "animal" contradict each other, or to infer this from the fact that some animals are not horses. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
That is a strawman because that is obviously silly as you noted and that is not what I was implying. Do you agree that if this was a political party, the political position would be Left-wing to far-left? Or would you push for just Far-left? No, it is not just additional specificity in my opinion; those who simply say left-wing does not mean far-left, so it does contradict the far-left claim, not that the movement is still left-wing, whether far-left or left-wing, did I explain it better this time? Anyway, as it was already noted, some of those sources are ambiguous; it is not clear, for example, whether the CNN wording implies far-left or simply left-wing. I still believe anti-fascist is the only given fact we should say as the first thing; note how militancy and left-wing are already in the lead; and me and other users added more to Ideology, including mentioning the far-left claim. As was noted by one user, the BLM has also been labelled far-left; I do not think we should add that to the lead either, certainly not as the very first thing. So unless you give me a clear example on how far-left should be used in the lead without being a hyperbolic empty signifier, if it has to read Antifa is far-left as the very first thing, even before anti-fascist, then there cannot be any solution or compromise and we will have to continue to agree to disagree.--Davide King (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you've said here, which seems to me incoherent. But I am no longer interested in discussing the matter with you. Best wishes. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Can I just say that the whole idea of assigning a value to an attribute of a diffuse, amorphous set of people is overly simplistic. We shouldn't be debating whether they get a 7 or a 10 on the scale of leftism. None of extreme-left, far-left or left-wing are right. They're all wrong. I doesn't really matter how many mentions in more-or-less reliable media we can count. It doesn't tell our readers anything other than: "Oh, that must be BAD", they're at the same measure on the scale as actual murderers. Stop doing that. Vexations (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like you have an argument with CNN, NYT, WaPo, and various other RS to me. Sorry you don't like what they've published. I sympathize. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, I don't. I have an issue with editors who are trying to narrowly focus on the wrong problem. If we say that we must decide which grade of leftism we assign antifa, and focus exclusively on all the sources that specifically mention those terms, you exclude, by the design of your method, all the sources that say they are diffuse, amorphous, not easily classified. See what you're doing there? Vexations (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to report what RS say. If you have sources that say what you suggest, provide them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, I'm trying to show you that you are using a rhetorical device that is unfit for a discussion. You've created a dilemma that works something like this:
1) Everyone has a political position
2) That position is on a scale from left to right
3) antifa has is somewhere on a scale from left to right
And then it looks like all we need to do is count mentions in RS to determine how far to the left on the scale antifa sits.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that is completely forgoes any analysis. All it does is stick a label on a subject without explanation. That's a disservice to our readers. I'm sure that, after all you've done here, you've seen sources that say that antifa is an made up a folks with a variety of viewpoints. I don't have to prove to you that such sources exist. We've discussed them before. I'm here to argue that our readers deserve better than the reductionist labeling that you propose. Vexations (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I never made any such absurd argument. I and PackMecEng provided a large number of RS for far-left, and supported that content based on those sources. So look, you're right, you don't have to participate at all, so you certainly don't have to provide sources for what you say. It's just that this is how we determine content. The rest is hogwash not relevant or helpful in any way. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, hogwash, huh? That's not a very nice thing to say. You can do better. It's fine to summarize what RSes have to say about a subject, but it is misleading and dishonest to stage a discussion in such a way that the outcome has been predetermined between a binary choice, without acknowledging that, as you well know, there is another, well-documented point of view that neither is true. That view is that it is not possible to ascribe a political position to a movement that defines itself negatively; they're anti-fascists. You've read those sources, so I don't need to list them again. It's true that RSes label antifa as *-left. I'd be willing to accept that we can use sources that provide something more than mere labeling. Any source that actually explains how, or analyses why, they consider antifa *-left will do. Sources that don't do that should be dismissed. Vexations (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I only meant by 'hogwash' that arguments having nothing to do with sources aren't relevant or helpful in any way; I will alter the remark. I'm not aware of sources in favor of your view that they are not left-wing or that they are not far-left. Feel free not to provide sources if you don't want to. Participation is not required. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
There is absolutely no moral judgment in stating that a movement is far-left, far-right, communist, anarchist, libertarian, fascist or whatever. Those are just political positions or ideologies mentioned by reliable sources when describing a movement, party or figure. Alcaios (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The current wording of the page is simply unacceptable, in part because Antifa does not simply target "fascists" or "the far right". They target a wide variety of people, and many sources have noted this as others have pointed out here. They're certainly militant and certainly "left wing" or "far left". MWise12 (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
You of course meant to say "unacceptable to me", because the current wording is quite acceptable to many Wikipedians, including myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Well a majority of respondents above also agree that the adjectives left-wing/far left and militant should be returned to the lead. MWise12 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
MWise12, I do not see a majority, I see pretty much an equal number between those who are for omit and those who are for adding something. By the way, we already write in the main body Antifa involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents or the police has led some scholars to characterize the movement as far-left and as militant. And we already mention militancy and left-wing in the lead. It may not be in the position you prefer, but it is mentioned and I assume the current lead is supported by both sides, or at least is better than it was at the time of the discussion. Davide King (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a majority for directly calling them left and militant over omitting both. But even if it was an even split, that would make the previous status quo is the default. The previous status quo directly stated left and militant. MWise12 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
MWise12, or maybe the current lead is better than that and satisfy both sides more? Maybe we may simply add militant left-wing to comprising a diverse[6][7] array of militant left-wing autonomous groups? We already do mention left-wing and militancy and no one has really addressed the issue that the term is vague. You may not like this, but far-left and far-right are not the same; there is a clear literature on the topic of far-right but there is not even agreement about the far-left other than being more left than thou, usually either to the left of social democracy or the left of communism/communist parties. There is not a Handbook of the Far-Left the same way there is a Handbook of the Far-Right. Davide King (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

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

  • Overview of Antifa by the Anti-Defamation League [20].

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

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

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

Nice list. WP:NEWSORG reminds us however that Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. I have checked the authors. Except Mark Bray, none of them is a scholar. The L.A. Times article does not provide an author (it's been copied from the Associated Press). In my viex, those articles should be used for factual events, not scholarly analysis. What do you think? Alcaios (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Alcaios, thanks for your comment. I think that we should use scholars on whether antifa is far-left, left-wing, or whatever. As noted above, most of those sources are passing mentions and in quite a few cases antifa is not even the main topic as much more paragraphs are used to report on the protests and Trump and others' comments. You did provide some scholarly sources below, so I think we should discuss them there. I did note the majority are more comparative works with the alt-right, at least that is what the abstract is saying. I still believe those qualifier should be better addressed in the main body and that the lead mentioning protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy and that Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold [...] a range of left-wing ideologies is fine.--Davide King (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, I have provided instances of scholars describing the movement as far-left while admitting at the same time that other scholars use the denomination "left-wing". Note that I'm not trying to push a particular point of view. As I have said elsewhere on this talk page, I'm only arguing that both denominations should be mentioned in the article. Alcaios (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Alcaios, I absolutely support mentioning that in the article and I hope we can give more context, for example why those denominations are used, etc. I simply believe the current lead is fine and already does mention militancy and left-wing denominations.--Davide King (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Davide King Thanks for your feedback. I have just added quotes within the references to provide more context. Alcaios (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a simple point... If the Boogaloo Movement is classified as Far-Right though it extends the left right spectrum. And Libertarians who for the most part are full left to right spectrum, and involved in both movements. Shouldn’t Antifa be classified as a Far-Left Movement, only slightly eschewed right of the Black Bloc Movement? DocShortBus99 (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not play that kind of false equivalence game "Oh, if this group over on this side is described as X then this group on the other side must be anti-X." We go by what reliable sources say, period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
One of the issues that has come up several times on Far-left politics is that the the entire category of "far-left" isn't used as often in academia (at least compared to far-right, which is an entire field of study.) There is a huge amount about individual movements or ideologies classified as far left, but few studies of the "far left" as a whole - most people would be scholars on anarchism or communism or whatever specifically. Luke March (one of the few academics to focus on this) speculates that this may be because the far-left hasn't been as successful in the western first world. Another possibility is that it's because the far left encompasses a broader range of ideologies, making the term less useful (eg. both anarchists and communists are generally categorized as far-left, even though they agree on very little beyond opposition to capitalism; given how sharply they disagree, few academics find it useful to clump them together in a group the way eg. the KKK is clumped together with neo-nazis.) A third possibility is that the fairly rapid defeat of Fascism means that the far-right lacks a unifying banner, so academics group it under "far-right". Either way, the term simply isn't likely to be used as often when categorizing groups, which we have to reflect here. One thing worth pointing out, in fact, is that several of the more in-depth sources above both attribute far-left (often to sources on the American right, like Barr, who have a reason to push equivalency) while noting the complexity involved in using the term or assessing political views that cover such a broad spectrum. --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Another reason is that the left is generally much more fractious than the right is, although the right can certainly be fractious as well. It's hard to imagine a "Unite the Left" rally being organized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The addition of the definition of the terrorism; “unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” 72.28.36.147 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not done You need to cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source that explicitly ties that definition to Antifa. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "murder to killed" in the second paragraph of the "Hoaxes" section of the article (with reference to the killing of George Floyd). "Murder" is a legal conclusion which has not yet been determined, Floyd's death is right now considered a homicide pending the outcome of the trial of the officer accused of his death. Until then, referring to the death as "murder" is both premature and inappropriate. Mattgabler (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The word "murder" is used in the cited source:

The FBI’s Washington Field Office “has no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence” in the violence that occurred on May 31 during the D.C.-area protests over the murder of George Floyd, according to an internal FBI situation report obtained exclusively by The Nation.

Our text is reporting what the source says. It's describing the protests as "over the murder of George Floyd". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the 'Academics and Scholars' subsection within the 'Public Reactions' heading there exists a citation to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies which claims that there have been zero deaths linked to Antifa in the US. This needs to be updated to reflect the August 29, 2020 murder of Aaron Danielson which was committed by a self-described member of Antifa, Michael Reinoehl. The perpetrator's self-identification as a member of Antifa is sufficient to qualify the murder as an Antifa-linked murder given that the group lacks a formal structure and does not have formal membership. As of this date, it is presumed that Michael Reinoehl was a member of Antifa absent verifiable facts to the contrary. Please update this to reflect that Antifa is linked to a murder. 2600:1702:E10:4BF0:A04B:77C7:5812:6D46 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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/)[1] is a left-wing, anti-fascist political movement in the United States[2][3][4][5][6] 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.[7][8][9][10][11]

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 -talk- 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 -talk- 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.[21][22][23][24] 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 -talk- 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 [[diversity of tactics|tactically diverse]], but that seems redundant with the "both nonviolent and violent" part. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Well there has been a death linked to ANTIFA now[1], 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

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.[25] 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)

Antifa's death toll

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

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 [Heidi] 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_20&oldid=982610944"