Talk:Antifa (United States)

revisit far-left

would like to revisit the opening sentence - it really should be updated to far-left-wing

Stossel tried: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA

is he not a reliable source? 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

John Stossel is not a reliable source for anything other than what his own personal opinion is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

ok great, can we still revisit the fact antifa is far-left-wing ? 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not if you're basing that on a self-published YouTube video by John Stossel. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

is reuters a reliable source? https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-antifa-profile/ 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

far-left is mentioned 5 times in the article.. 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This one actually would be useful toward the label "far-left". EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reuters is reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an RS which does use "far left". However, a single source is not enough when we have repeatedly established a strong consensus that the preponderance of RSs either say that not all antifa are far left or do not use the term. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

no, is forbes a reliable source? https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/06/01/what-is-the-difference-between-antifa-and-the-radical-left-it-depends-on-who-you-ask/?sh=3578a25f5533 108.189.240.40 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Forbes articles by staff are considered generally reliable. See WP:FORBES. This particular article strongly argues against using "far left"for antifa: Comments like Barr’s raise an important question — what exactly is the difference between Antifa and the far, or radical, left? Well, like everything in America right now, it depends on who you ask. Officials like Trump and Barr are using the terms interchangeably, blurring the lines between the two. By doing so, administration officials are attempting to inject volatile language into an already combustible situation. As a result, they are sowing deeper seeds of confusion about who might really be engaging in criminal activity. In the section entitled "What exactly is Antifa?" no version of the term "far left" is used. Reading on, the article strongly cautions against the conflation. In other words, in President Trump’s mind, and the minds of his supporters, the radical left and far left are interchangeable terms for Trump’s political adversaries. Using this term has been a tried-and-true tactic of the President since his election in 2016, and as a result, the terms have become divorced from their more classical political meaning... Which is why the interchangeable use of the terms Antifa and radical left is so troubling.... By conflating Antifa and the “left,” President Trump and his followers are leading the country down a confusingly perilous path with no easy way to define its future. Yet among all of the complexity of the past several months, one thing remains abundantly clear: In crisis, language, like leadership, matters. Thank you for bringing to our attention a source which adds evidence to the current consensus against adding "far left". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

We have sources that say that some supporters are other than far-left. Which should be obvious. In any case the Forbes source does not say Antifa is far left, it says " Antifa and the so-called “far left” " - distinguishing Antifa from the far left. It calls Antifa a " a loose group of radical activists t It says correctly that some are violent. And it says that "By conflating Antifa and the “left,” President Trump and his followers are leading the country down a confusingly perilous path with no easy way to define its future." So we can't use it to call Antifa far-left.

We need to stop these duplicate threads, possibly all by the same person or group. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

what about reuters? they specifically say antifa is far-left 71.44.156.129 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"we have sources that say that some supporters are other than far-left" - you can say the same exact thing about far-right groups.. 71.44.156.129 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Examples please. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The ADL states that "most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left"

Similarly, Bray argues that "it's also important to remember that these are self-described revolutionaries. They're anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum." ABC News notes that "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." According to CNN, "Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."

Anarchism is often considered a far-left ideology 84.247.97.14 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant of right wing groups. We can’t use sources about anarchism that aren’t about Antifa. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

there's only one source about "anarchism" - the rest (1-5) are sources clearly showing antifa is a far-left group. 84.247.97.14 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a group, for the start, and the sources don't say what you claim they say. This is a waste of time. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

As usual when people keep pushing this narrative. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think they meant "movement" not group 50.242.166.193 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I like how most of the sources you cite here contradict the point you're trying to make, 84.247.97.14. The ADL states that "most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left"... ABC News notes that "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." According to CNN, "Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."

In other words, they say some or most antifa are "far left" but others aren't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

you can say the exact same thing about right wing groups that have the "far" label added. Can we remove the "far" label from those articles? 50.242.166.193 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Those are other articles with other sources about other groups, generally actual organizations. If you have a suggestion on those articles make that in the TPs of those articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a RFC on whether to change it to far-left makes sense, since this keeps getting brought up --FMSky (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It keeps getting brought up because pundits and politicians have pushed an agenda to label all of antifa "far-left" via Red Scare rhetoric. We've had this debate multiple times over the years (see the archives), and consensus is that the majority of reliable sources adhere to treating antifa as a broad spectrum of leftist groups, not solely "far-left". This is tiresome and becoming repetitive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've warned FMSky about his behavior here and an edit summary. Note that contentious topics includes all pages and also edit summaries, we expect a greater emphasis on civility in these areas. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We have had seven RfCs about this now. I think the most recent was 2020. What has changed since then? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree we need a NEW RFC on this, things change. Why is Doug and The Hand That Feeds You afraid to have another RFC ?

There's no pushing of anything, right wing articles on wikipedia all have the "far" label added, It's only fair to have this looked at again. Thanks. 50.242.166.193 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Whataboutism. This article talk page is about this article, not other articles. How many times must we go through the exact same discussion? This is a waste of editor time -- which is WP:disruptive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Reason for revert?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifa_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1197320560 Hi @Objective3000: why did you revert this edit? FMSky (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I explained it in the revert -- despite the claim that you made otherwise. And please watch your edit summaries: i love how the most important thing was listed last to hide it a bit, this article is so disgusting and biased its insane . Suggesting that editors are including "insane" text, accusing editors of bad motivations, and snarky edit summaries ain't the way to collaborate. WP:AGF WP:CIV WP:REVTALK O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So why is the current version better than the one i proposed? --FMSky (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you quickly edited your initial response to remove some untoward text. Doesn't appear to be a good time for a discussion. My bedtime anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So basically you dont even know it yourself. I'll restore it then unless you can make a convincing argument --FMSky (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Another snark. The onus is on you to present your case for a change. Calling the article "insane" in an edit summary is not an argument. Good night. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, per WP:REVEXP you should explain your reason for your revert. You didn't do that --FMSky (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Violence was listed last because the next sentence reads Most antifa political activism is nonviolent, soibangla (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd object to the proposed re-ordering for that reason. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Good that you brought that up, i looked at the 3 sources and none even remotely stated that, and i have requested a citation. --FMSky (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. So, the local NBC news source certainly has nothing to back up the questioned language, but the other two sources do. Vox includes these sentences, which are the strongest support: Members of antifa groups do more conventional activism, flyer campaigns, and community organizing, on behalf of anti-racist and anti-white nationalist causes. This type of work, according to Bray, makes up the “vast majority” of antifa activity. So, point there. The Congressional Research Service includes this: Some members are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protest such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching. So, we have a good source (if one with a partisan valence) saying "most" and a source I consider quite good saying "much." I am kind of wobbling--I don't hate the language as it is now, but I think a case could be made for changing the 'most' to 'much.' Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Have a good weekend, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So the only thing we have to support "most" is this Bray guy it seems --FMSky (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a secondary scholarly source to the body referencing work by Bray and Vysotsky showing that antifa is mostly nonviolent. I would recommend dropping the analysis from the first paragraph so that it says:

Antifa political activism includes non-violent methods like involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing. Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage.

At the end of the third paragraph, where we're discussing scholarly views, I'd add "Some research suggests that most antifa action is nonviolent." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The most neutral version would be: Antifa political activism includes non-violent methods like involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing, but also doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage. --FMSky (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say we have enough for some sort of 'much' qualifier with the nonviolence, maybe a 'most,' but reasonable minds may certainly differ on the issue. Dumuzid (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with "Much of antifa political activism uses non-violent ...". I think both my proposal, amended with "much" or not, and FMSky's proposal are improvements over the status quo, but I'm wary of a Chesterton's fence situation with the whole "Some who identify" bit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

But the sources (which were removed from the lead after being requested!) specifically say "most" or words to that effect; just saying that it saying "includes" non-violent methods is misrepresenting them. I also disagree with characterizing it as "some research", which violates WP:NPOV, Avoid stating facts as opinions. If it were only Bray saying this it might make sense to use attribution, but we have several sources, including a peer-reviewed paper; just describing it as "some research" (which carries the uncited implication that there is other research that disagrees) is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Which sources say most? I know of ADL, Bray (in a few places), and Vysotsky saying so in their own voices, and other sources quoting them. I'm not sure which peer-reviewed paper you're referring to, but if it's Jaccoud et al., they are attributing to Bray and Vysotsky. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

These, to start:

• For sure, even if most of their “everyday anti-fascism” is non-violent, militant anti-fascists use violence in confronting targets. (Context makes it clear they are talking about antifa.)
• A rally organized by far-right political groups led to a violent clash with counter-protestors, including Antifa—a historically nonviolent movement that primarily takes collective action in opposition to fascist movements.

I'd have added more but adding citations from the body for a CN tag seemed simple enough. --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

First one is great. Second not so much, since "historically" doesn't mean "majority". Are you saying that you know of more? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

well there's these:

Most antifa counterprotesters tend to be nonviolent but several encounters with far-right groups have turned violent, according to the ADL.[1]

Broadly labeled antifa, for “antifascist,” such protesters are part of a loose affiliation of far-left groups and individuals who unite around a willingness to confront, sometimes violently, anyone they perceive to be an agent of racism, anti-Semitism or fascism...[2]

Most people who show up to counter or oppose white supremacist public events are peaceful demonstrators, but when militant antifa adherents show up, they can increase the chances that an event may turn violent. There have been instances where encounters between antifa supporters and the far-right have turned violent.[3]

But the antifa label is most often applied to smaller-scale groups of like-minded people who live in the same community, working to prevent fascists from threatening their targets and from attracting new followers. These groups are rarely militant or violent. Most of them engage in commonly accepted forms of political activism. For instance, anti-fascists often work to find out where fascist groups and people are active in an area, and then share that information with the wider community, bringing that activity to public attention.[4]

The FBI nevertheless assessed that criminals—not Antifa or other ideologically motivated individuals—perpetrated the vast majority of looting and violence.[5]

A review of recent cases and an interview Friday with senior FBI officials shows most of them, with a few exceptions, appear to be instances of people capitalizing on the chaos rather than those engaging in violence orchestrated by ideological groups. “Most of what we’re seeing is just that opportunistic individual that’s taking advantage of the peaceful protests, almost as cover as a way to conduct their criminal behavior,” said Jill Sanborn, assistant director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counterterrorism division.[6]

soibangla (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This also again shows the need to label them far-left outright, its definitely the most common descriptor --FMSky (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

but we're not talking about far-left, we're talking about violence, aren't we? soibangla (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, will you drop the stick already? One of those cites mentioned the far-left, and that's the only thing you could focus on, distracting from the point of this discussion. It's becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Unhelpful, toxic comment --FMSky (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Tbh i will probably not comment here anymore or make anymore edits to the article. Im tired to getting swarmed by a toxic mob everytime i express an opinion that differs from the accepted mainstream standard. I'll just let you guys live in your little echo chamber where you can pretend antifa is a "left-wing nonviolent group". no-one takes this site seriously anymore anyway. bye --FMSky (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any value to add besides being a bully? Knock it off please. PackMecEng (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no bullying, just frustration with someone POV-pushing. Since they've disengaged, so did I, until you dragged this back out. I'm done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've warned FMSky about their behavior here and an edit summary/. We expect a high standard of civility and good faith in CT areas. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller You are giving formal warnings to a user you are in a content dispute with?[7] That seems unwise. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@PackMecEng Nah, I just can't sanction them. Anyone can give a warning. They didn't reply, just reverted it. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller No, a formal warning is a threat of tool use and you know that. Period, full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. Anybody can warn. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not so much, a threat to use tools when involved in a content dispute, not great. Anyone can warn, that is not the problem. The problem is threatening tool use when involved. Like seriously, is that even a question for you? PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If your premise was correct, an administrator could never edit in a contentious topic. They just have to avoid using administrative tools. Administrators have no special status that you're trying to imply. It's not a threat, and there is no administrative involvement created by issuing a warning. . Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If I am involved with someone I can’t sanction but nowhere does it say I can’t warn, And even involved Admins can take people to ANI, AE, Arbitration, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

But that is not what you did is it? No.... You said Consider this a forema warning - this is a Contentious Topics area and you can be blocked or topic banned (if editing in the topic arda) if you continue in this vein anywhere. Of course you are welcome to bring them to any of those place, but you didn't. Also Acroterion, you completely wrong. The hyperbole of if you cant threaten tool use when involved means you cannot edit anything is just plan wrong. Again, the issue is threatening a block while involved. PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a warning that someone can impose a sanction, not the editor giving a warning. And your comment that The Hand was the bully in this thread is way off. FMSky could have received a logged warning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a standard warning anyone can give. The argument that this was a "threat" of action by Doug is something that's never been upheld in all my experience on Wikipedia. If you really thing Doug overstepped, take it to ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention WP:INVOLVED. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I added the bit about the ADL to the body. I think most of the other quotes are in the vicinity of what we're talking about here, but maybe not all the way i ? The "But the antifa label" one is Visotsky summarizing his book, which is now cited (indirectly) in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Editor Bias

"Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage."

Why is it worded like this? The article clearly says that they are highly decentralized and autonomous and the cited articles mention they are anonymous, but then uses word play to suggest that those who do perpetrate the bad acts aren't actually Antifa, but then says all antifa, and antifa members, all stand for the same thing and go about it the same way and if they don't they aren't necessarily antifa? The intent is questionable at best. You can't use such broad strokes and generalizations for all Antifa. The wording should be along the lines of "Some Antifa Members are known to protest using the following methods" or omit the word "some", you can't pick and choose what forms of protest are Antifa approved, there isn't some membership book that says who is and isn't antifa and retroactively revoke it when they do something that isnt "antifa approved" by a non-existent governing body. The preceding sentence states that (all) Antifa use *These Methods* but some people who identify as antifa use *These Methods*. I read the cited articles and none of them mention this facet, no paraphrasing or anything. It's a complete sentence making a bold and specific claim with no citation, or worse, an unrelated citation. HoadRog (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If there is no membership, then we cannot call anyone a member. United States anti-abortion movement#Violence says, "A small extremist element of the [pro-life] movement in the US supports, raises money for, and attempts to justify anti-abortion violence, including murders of abortion workers." Maybe the broader movement in both cases encourages violence and should be held responsible. But that's not for us to say. Instead, we report those claims with attribution to whomever made them. TFD (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This new editor has made 20 edits in all, the last edit being at Talk:Fake news 29 months ago. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

And who made the claim? there is no citation for this. The writing says almost verbatim that members of Antifa do this but that some people who identify antifa do this as-well, why is there this distinction? What is the source for saying Antifa members take action A but some people who identify as Antifa take action B instead? What is the justification for making it a stand-a-lone sentence that insinuates that people who take action B might not be antifa but that ALL antifa take action A? It should be grouped in the sentence that came directly before it.

As with what you said, why not make it say, "Some/small extremist elements of Antifa are known to protest using (List methods)." HoadRog (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The writing says almost verbatim that members of Antifa do this but that some people who identify antifa do this as-well, why is there this distinction?

Er, no, it doesn't. It doesn't make a distinction, it specifcially uses people who identify as antifa precisely because it's a voluntary label, not a formal membership. You're reading a distinction that isn't there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If membership is voluntary or self identifying, then why does the sentence that lists negative attributes prefaced with the self identifying moniker, but none of the preceding sentences are? Why is that not established earlier? It should be, "some people who identify as antifa take part in antifacist and antiracist political movements." If it's voluntary and self identifying, then I can easily provide anecdotal evidence that there are members of antifa that do not take part in antifacist and antiracist political movements by self identifying as Antifa. It's literally a no true Scotsman fallacy. Either give pretext for the entire article about this distinction clearly or don't do it at all. Shoe horning a disclaimer into a separate sentence listing negative actions taken by the group is disingenuous. The actions need to be added to the ones already listed, not made into their own without any independent main idea, the sentence exists only to say those actions are committed by some people who identify as antifa, hinting at them not actually being antifa. All the while the previous sentences make no mention of the self identifying characteristic of Antifa. If the group is self identifying, why is it only said in the fourth sentence, but the editor opted to not put it in the next or previous sentence about the exact same topic- actions taken by the group? Without a source, mind you. There should be a full complete sentence somewhere in the first paragraph noting this facet of Antifa, being that the group has no formal membership or that anyone can self identify voluntarily to be Antifa. And then remove the "Some people who identify as Antifa" part :) HoadRog (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If it’s self identifying, then the first half of the sentence is redundant. You can’t say there is only one group when you also say “antifa” and then “some people who identify as antifa” you made two distinct groups by adding that to the sentence unnecessarily. If you want to say “antifa=people who identify as antifa” that must be said very early on in the article, and then pick which term you want to use throughout the article, either antifa or people who identify as antifa. If you absolutely want to use them interchan geably, and I can’t ever imagine why in good faith you would, you need to establish that they are the same when talking about them before you do. HoadRog (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)