Jump to content

Talk:Antifa (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extremist organization

[edit]

Antifa should have extremist in their description They took part in many violent atacks,from normal assaults to assaults with deadly weapons (the "bike lock incident") 213.233.85.208 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making a claim based on original research. It would be more compelling if you could point to reliable sources that use the terminology. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/08/08/eric-clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-berkeley-rally-bike-lock-assault-case
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/professor-charged-berkeley-trump-protest-assault/ (a trusted wikipedia source btw)
youtube video linked by cbs news
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg&ab_channel=SHUTTERSHOT (the incident in question WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT AHEAD)
should i provide more data on antifa's violent activities? 78.96.206.170 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested in the YouTube as it's not an RS or someone random person's label, neither of the reliable sources mention Antifa, and believe it or not, you can be a violent anti-fascist and have nothing to do with Antifa. And of course one person's actions can't label everyone in a movement, that would be like calling the old civil rights movement because one person, or even a number of people, were very violent. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at your posts at Talk:White pride. Looks like you are on a bit of a mission. You seem to also be the IP who started that complaint. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you see any bias on my arguments please notify me of them so i can further learn from my mistakes
maybe i did a mistake when asking for a definition before stating its use by extremists groups but i didnt intend to justify discrimination in any way shape or form 78.96.206.170 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just as disingenuous however to omit violence that can be attributed to antifa. I agree the extremist prefix is a needed addition. The ADL sources already highlight that antifa violence is significant enough to be mentioned. Just because some antifa don't use violence doesn't mean the instances they do need exclusion from the article - harking back to the other discussion of a no true Scotsman fallacy, you know, the one where the editor lead the reader to the conclusion that violent antifa is not actually antifa. HoadRog (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Last year, police searched Clanton’s apartment and seized flags, pamphlets and other paraphernalia associated with Antifa and anarchist movements. He was arrested following the search, Berkleyside.com reported."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-professor-accused-of-hitting-trump-supporters-with-bike-lock-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-gets-probation.amp
His association with antifa is corroborated here. It's a high profile case. His use of Black bloc tactics and violence is also evidence of his affiliation with antifa. Neglecting to mention this high profile incident would be a serious issue for the writers & readers.
I would also add absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. antifa violence and black bloc in general is to make identification hard, so repeat violence is easier and consequence-free. HoadRog (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it "high profile"? Maybe on right wing social media, but not outside of that. Reliable sources have mostly ignored that one event, six years ago. If reliable sources treat that one event as a specific example of why antifa is "extremist", then propose those sources. One brief news article which barely even mentions antifa and says nothing about antifa's ideology or politics is useless. Your WP:OR about black block is also useless. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reply and source were specifically to highlight Eric clanton as both a political violence user and antifa member, as a pertinent example of antifa violence that editors have argued doesn't exist or is insignificant. You talked past that.
Honestly I am losing a lot of respect for a cabal that charades itself as an unbiased encyclopedia. I don't know why Ideological bias on Wikipedia and Media bias in the United States that is well documented both anecdotally and academically is coincidentally ignored when it comes to writing contemporary articles. Editors generally don't turn over stones they think will challenge their confirmation bias. I advise you not to reply to this second paragraph to prevent derailing and further strawmanning and deflecting.
https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa
Extremist antifa exists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/05/29/a-man-clobbered-trump-supporters-with-a-bike-lock-the-internet-went-looking-for-him/
WaPo covering the attacks
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-professor-accused-of-hitting-trump-supporters-with-bike-lock-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-gets-probation.amp
Fox covering the attacks
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/professor-charged-berkeley-trump-protest-assault/
CBS covering the attacks
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/26/eric-clanton-former-calif-professor-arrested-in-vi/
Another source covering the attacks
https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Eric-Clanton-takes-3-year-probation-deal-in-13142123.php
California based news site covering the attacks and also verbatim says the assault(s) "drew widespread attention" so that quip about it being a big deal only on "right wing social media" is moot and kind of speaks to a potential lack of wanting to do sub-superficial research. HoadRog (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that source 5 also mentions that some antifa members do take violent actions, cited sources back my claim here 78.96.206.170 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't care. There's a narrative the editors are playing into. You can't change the article to be unbiased but you are welcome to try and make an edit request through the proper channels. If you are up for it, you can submit a new article covering the bike lock attacks. HoadRog (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead 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."
What parts of that do you think are not true?
Your sources are also pretty old. The Eric Clanton one is from 2017, one individual anti-fascist person out of many thousands, Antifa has no members, the sources don't say he is even an Antifa supporter so far as I can see, just an anti-fascist. Even the right wing Washington Times says "went viral in the days following clashes between Trump supporters and so-called anti-fascists."
Our MAGA article doesn't even mention violence - but there are a lot of sources out there that show it is often violent. Do you think there's no violence involving MAGA supporters? Doug Weller talk 09:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the lead supports the content and could use a tweek, seems to be what everyone is talking aboit so thsgs a nothing.
Old sources is a cop out and meaningless here, thats also about the age of most of the sources since Antifa kind of pettered out.
No true Scotsman is another tired argument, they have no members, everyone is a member, only a member if self identified, only a member of RS say very specific things, only if the RS says it and the person and their mother agrees, and so what worming around the point. But only if it's negatove.
Finally the broader article doesn't mention it but the article dedicated to the thing probably shoild. Again that is just an OtherStuff argument and means nothing for the content that should be here. PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng So we don't need sources to show someone supports Antifa and isn't just an anti-fascist? Doug Weller talk 14:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that? The issue is your interpretation of sources. PackMecEng (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is often discussed if you look at the history of this specific article, but it perfectly illustrates the horrible left wing bias Wikipedia suffers from. Articles about politics from like 2015-now are the worse in my personal opinion. The issue is that the allowed sources on this site are voted on and they usually most any left leaning tabloid (stuff like Salon or Mother Jones or Daily Beast) while not even mainstream right wing publications, like Fox News. What this means is that most things get defined on here through a heavy left wing lenses and this article is a perfect example. Its just a naked propaganda puff piece for Antifa by describing them as moderate left wingers and erasing all negative press about them. Its not uncommon to find editors self identifying with this organization as well. I dont expect much change other than Wikipedia will lose more and more credibility, what little it has left. Friedbyrd (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa Nazi?

[edit]

Ridiculous. Author is Paul Gottfried editor in chief of Chronicles (magazine) :Chronicles has had close ties to the neo-Confederate movement. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) said in 2017 that Chronicles "caters to the more intellectual wing of the white nationalist movement".Chronicles has had close ties to the neo-Confederate movement. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) said in 2017 that Chronicles "caters to the more intellectual wing of the white nationalist movement". Read for instance [1] - dated to probably when he was writing his book. @3Kingdoms: please follow WP:BRD Doug Weller talk 07:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. TFD (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Book was published by Cornell University Press, meaning it went through academic peer-review Gottfried is considered an expert on Fascism and his book was endorsed by a Stanley G. Payne the leading historian of fascism alive today. From the reliable sources page:
“ When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources”
I made clear in the post that this was only to show Gottfried’s views as opposed to wikivoice.

For reference Gottfried’s book can be accessed via jstor [2] 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why this can't be included. It is an alternative viewpoint from a well-known historian and scholar. The mere fact that he edits an obscure (to me at least) conservative magazine does not preclude his expertise, especially when it's explicitly marked as an alternative viewpoint/criticism by the author of the quote. Just10A (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
White nationalists are now "alternative viewpoints'? Acroterion (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author is Jewish lol. I have no opinion on his views, but he clearly is both prominent and a scholar. Just10A (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That changes nothing. Read WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except its not fringe. It's language is broadly similar to other quotes already in the section. The notion that the ANTIFA movement can be counterproductive or ironic is widely discussed by both scholars and layman alike. Just10A (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still fringe. See Nouvelle École which he edits. "William H. Tucker and Bruce Lincoln described Nouvelle École as the "French version of the Mankind Quarterly", a scientific-racist journal published in Northern Ireland. Historian James G. Shields described it as the equivalent of the German scientific-racist journal Neue Anthropologie." Doug Weller talk 16:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make the content of the quote fringe. These are completely unrelated subjects to ANTIFA dialogue and the quote. If James Watson makes a statement about DNA, the fact that he has connections to other fringe theories doesn't make DNA a fringe theory. By this same logic, the Noam Chomsky quote that is critical of ANTIFA should equally be removed for his biases. I think we can agree that would be ridiculous. You are not addressing the content of the paragraph at all, which again, is not a fringe theory and The notion that the ANTIFA movement can be counterproductive or ironic is widely discussed by both scholars and layman alike, including the same section of this wiki page. Just10A (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the point is, that “Anti-fascism” was published by a university press, again one of the highest marks for a reliable source. With previous works such as “The Strange Death of Marxism” & “Fascism career of a concept” I feel Gottfried’s has enough credentials to warrant including his views. Regarding his associations it is worth pointing out that James A Gregor also associated with certain fringe groups, but was still considered an expert on fascism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs) 13:04, September 6, 2024 (UTC)
Jews aren't white? Odd, the ones I know are. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. It's almost as if many white nationalists don't consider Jews to be white and the movement has a clear history of connections to antisemitism. Just10A (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would removing the block quote work as a compromise? I was on the fence about including it but decided to go forward to see other’s thoughts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs) 13:04, September 6, 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to always sign your comments with four ~ symbols, so we know who we're talking to. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is from a borderline fringe figure, is written in vague and inflammatory language, is making a fringe and contrarian claim, and was cherry-picked from the middle of a chapter without any surrounding context. The formatting is irrelevant to this discussion. Nothing about this is due. Grayfell (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not signing. I do not agree about the supposed lack on context. Gottfried is simply making the contention that "Antifa" has little in common with historical left-wing ideologies and in his opinion its actions (not beliefs) bare some resemblance to National Socialism. Agree or disagree (I have a few disagreements with the charge), but it comes from someone with expert knowledge and published in a peer-reviewed university press. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@3Kingdoms Perhaps "contextualizing" the statement would make it more suitable. That should sufficiently help. Just10A (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to do so.3Kingdoms (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote says far, far more about Gottfried's fringe worldview than it does about antifa in the US. In this article, the quote seems arbitrarily selected and inflammatory. Context cannot fix that, unless this context comes from an independent source. That any particular far-right (pseudo-)academic holds a negative view of antifa is boring and uninformative. Of course he does, and who cares? Framing it as an 'alternative viewpoint' seems like false balance at best and euphemistic at worst. Including this specific quote in the article would imply that this specific opinion is somehow encyclopedically important, but as editors we cannot explain why it's important, and neither does the primary source for the quote itself- because it isn't important. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your position seems to be based upon thinking that the position of the ANTIFA movement being at times counterproductive or ironic b/c it adopts similar strategies as the groups it seems to oppose is a "fringe theory," but that is simply not the case.
The conversation over antifa's violence and its irony has been at the forefront of the dialogue surrounding it almost since inception, and any cursory research supports that. Mainstream, not fringe, conservatives and moderates have referenced it numerous times in the political dialogue, and yes, many have even gone so far as to compare them to other historical groups. I could go on a citation spree, but I really don't think that's necessary since it's even alluded to in the current wiki article right now. Just10A (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really understand your point since it could easily be applied to the mostly left-leaning figures already there. Bray's book is called "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook" of course he would hold a positive position of Antifa. Furthermore Bray's book was not published by a university press (nothing inherently wrong with that), but again Gottfried's book went through peer-review before publication. If you object to the quote itself I am fine with it being removed and instead just having: "Historian Paul Gottfried found Antifa to have little in common with historical anarchism or Marxist-Leninism saying its "It bends whatever leftist cause is ascendant and treats whoever opposes it as fascist. " He attributed conservative labeling of the movement as a form of Marxism to "partisan opportunism, historical ignorance, or possibly both" with Antifa being too "irrational and nihilistic" for Marxism." Would something like this work?3Kingdoms (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A Ok, AGF is not a suicide pact and I am have to say that your edit history pretty shows your political position and your comments here. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's 1.) not true and 2.) an ad-hominem personal attack. Please contribute to the talk page conversation or go elsewhere. Just10A (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said AGF is not a suicide pact. And I believe your edit history supports it. I agree with those who oppose its inclusion, I see no reason to copy their arguments to show I support them. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." Come back when you can read or contribute more. Your rudeness has been completely unwarranted. I have done nothing to you. I see no reason having a dialogue with someone who refuses to substantively contribute. Just10A (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Doug, can I ask that you step away from this article for a little while? you seem to have a mission in this talk page, just looking at your history. HoadRog (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given your own history on this talkpage, no. Acroterion (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is an opinion, the main issue isn't reliability, it's weight. In order to establish reliability, we only need to show that Gottlieb actually wrote this. The fact that he wrote it for an academic book rather than posted it on his website does't make it more reliable.
In order to present the opinion we first have to establish its weight and mention its weight in the article. Is there evidence this text routinely mentioned in subsequent books about antifa?
Also, if we include the text, we need to explain who Gottlieb is. Clearly Gottlieb is a certain type of U.S. conservative which affects how he sees fascism and anti-fascism. We don't want to falsely imply this is a widely accepted view. It's not that jarring to hear that extreme conservatives in the U.S. consider antifa fascist. They consider fascists and the Biden administration to be socialists after all.
While Payne was a significant fascism scholar, he has not published any academic writing lately and therefore we cannot assume that his support of the book means anything. Recently for example, he broke with the other main fascism scholars to declare that Trump was a fascist, reversing his previous stance. TFD (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Payne call Trump a fascist? I think you are referring to Robert Paxton who said Trump was one after January 6. Gottfried does not consider Antifa to be a form of Nazism, but he believes that their methods resemble them. Also I am confused by what you mean by “ we only need to show that Gottlieb actually wrote this. “ I’m not sure what you mean. A letter link to the book is provided in my first post. I see no reason to doubt that he wrote it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gottfried does not consider Antifa to be a form of Nazism, but he believes that their methods resemble them.
That is a distinction without a difference. Overall I agree with TFD, this is an issue of WP:DUE, and I don't believe we need this in the article, as it gives undue weight to a minority view.
I’m not sure what you mean.
TFD is not arguing that the paper is nonexistent. He's saying that the paper exists (WP:V), but "it exists" does not justify its inclusion in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the primary issue people are bringing up seems to be Gottfried personally and his minority views, a better way to add this perspective might be to instead add this Senator Ted Cruz quote [3] in the "members of congress" section. It substantively says a similar thing, but it's pretty clearly applicable and mainstream. Just10A (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's even more WP:UNDUE, as it's just a politician saying things to whip up his base. Not to mention it's pure nonsense, with statements like asking the Department to open a RICO investigation into Antifa, as if antifa were an actual centralized organization. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's undue in the section explicitly labelled "public reactions" under "members of congress?" It's the public reaction of one of the most prominent members of congress in the country. This is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Just10A (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 100 senators and 435 representatives. We re not obligated to promote fringe views just because a politician said it as a political talking point. Acroterion (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Part 2. You've shown nothing to suggest the statement is fringe beyond WP:OR. And again, he is one of the more prominent congressman, not one out of 535. This is getting repetitive. You need to provide actual support/sources that state such a position is fringe. You have not done so. Just10A (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the onus is on those who want to include something to show that it does conform with policies and guidelines. You have several people here saying it does not meet DUE, so it's on you to show otherwise. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due and Fringe are separate. I agree we have the burden on the due point. Vice versa with the fringe point (which hasn't happened). As for Due, it's very simple and has already been explained. It's a section of the article dedicated to members of congress's public reactions to ANTIFA and the quote is one of the most prominent member of congress's public reaction to ANTIFA. It literally is directly on point. I don't even think that's controversial.
Then, the only rebuttal to that quote has been that 1.) it's "fringe," and that has not been substantiated/supported at all yet; or 2.) your (despite not being a lawyer or legally educated at all) legal opinion on the merits of a RICO investigation, which is WP:OR. The quote clearly meets the criteria on the basis that it is a public reaction by a prominent congressman. If it is to be excluded on the grounds of WP:FRINGE the person bringing that assertion needs to substantiate it, not just declare "fringe" with 0 evidence to support it. In that scenario it would just be WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Just10A (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"That is a distinction without a difference." I disagree it is common for historians to compare the methods of the Bolsheviks with the Nazis despite their ideological differences. More recently after 2016 there were comparisons to Justice Democrats/DSA and the Tea Party despite their very clear differences. Gottfried is not claiming Antifa are not Nazis, but their alleged "nihilism" warrants comparison. I do not fully agree, but that is beside the point. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3Kingdoms, because it is an opinion, rs requires that the source reliably report the person's stated opinion or accurately presents their words. In this case, there is no question that he actually wrote the book, so rs is not an issue. I pointed this out because I don't think we should argue about whether the source is rs. Instead, the main issue is weight. TFD (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I misunderstood your point. My apologies. However could you clarify your remark about Payne and Trump? I feel on the issue of weight, Gottfried seems warranted since it’s one of the most recent books on anti fascism published by a university press. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent is irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the exact opposite. Given it went through peer-review by academics this implies it is represents an important contribution in the field of study. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to insert undue emphasis on a fringe POV espoused by a writer who caters to white nationalist POVs. Unless this particular writer's POV has been covered significantly in other reliable sources, or cited by other reputable academic studies, it's not appropriate for inclusion. And dial back the sniping at other editors. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no sniping at other editors. Please reframe from making such insulations. As mentioned before University Presses are considered some of the highest standards for reliable sources.  3Kingdoms (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
":And honestly, this is just another variation on Jonah Goldberg's assertion that the Left are the real fascists, which has been rejected across a broad spectrum of Wikipedia articles for years as a mere talking point. Acroterion (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it absolutely is relevant. As the movement matures and we get more strong secondary academic sources on a subject that will tend to replace breaking news articles that might be close to an event. PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gottfried in his book has a whole chapter (Chap 6. 108-123) criticizing Goldberg's assertion and like-minded conservative claims that Fascism=the Left. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WINARS. @Acroterion Just10A (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite Wikipedia, I cited longstanding community consensus on this general subject of left-right and fascists alignment. The trope that the Left are actually the fascists has been conclusively rejected by community consensus for the last 20 years. Acroterion (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which no one, including Gottfried, is saying. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Community consensus” on what website? Just10A (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read Gottfried's introduction and the first pages up to the quoted text. Gottfried is clear that his views go against the mainstream. Therefore the relevant guideline is Fringe theories. We can mention it provided that there is coverage in secondary sources and we are clear it is a fringe theory.
Gottfried claims that antifa is neither socialist nor anarchist, and draws on support from American big business, the media (including Fox News), the universities and government officials. That, along with its use of street violence, is how it resembles the Nazis. As in Germany, these elites look to antifa to crush legitimate dissent. Ironically, unlike in Germany, the dissenters are anti-Semites, anti-Islamists and opponents of open borders. Most of this btw is in the passage suggested for this article.
We should not summarize people's writings, which requires a degree of judgment, and instead should use reliable secondary sources that do this. Another advantage of secondary sources is that they often explain how acceptable their views are. So even if we include Gottfried's opinions, they should be sourced to a reliable secondary source.
I don't mind saying that the extreme right, or whatever one prefers to call to them, compare antifa to Nazis. But again we would need secondary sources for that and evidence it was due. TFD (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful response. This source cites Gottfried's book, but I cannot access it at this moment. [Antifa: Anatomy of a Movement | SpringerLink] 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try the Internet Archive, where I got full access to the book. TFD (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was able to get to the needed section on google books. Reading the source reinforces my belief that the book is worth mentioning since it has now been established that other sources in the literature have cited it.  3Kingdoms (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mere existence of independent sources is not a valid justification for citing this book as a primary source. We are looking for context. Look at what a reliable, independent source says about this opinion as a fringe opinion and as that opinion relates to antifa in the US and summarize that source. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A peer-reviewed book being mentioned in other peer-reviewed articles gives strong weight to the inclusion. Given that its use here is not for wikivoice, but to give Gottfried's opinion I see even less reason for opposition. I would also argue Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not applies here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Antifa: Anatomy of a Movement" cites Gottfried only once, as a source for what another writer (R,R, Reno) wrote about the post-war consensus. One would expect that if Gottfried's book had been influential, there would have been a discussion about his opinions.
The article does mention the claim that George Soros funds antifa and says it is unfounded. But it attributes the claim to Candice Owens rather than Gottfried. TFD (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar has the book cited in 9 different places, some critical, some positive. It might not be the most, but seems enough to at least warrant mentioning especially since it is not even being used for wikivoice. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to show that these papers listed in google scholar mention Gottfried's views on antifa that you want reported in this article. Bar-on's article for example is about supposed overreaction to fascism and mentions antifa only in passing: "Contemporary anti-fascists such as Antifa fail to [adopt] the traditional Marxist suspicion of the state as an instrument of the ruling class and thus saw few problems with "using the state to suppress allegedly fascist ideas."" (Gottfried, 2021, p. 27) Even then, I could not find this passage in Gottfried's book. TFD (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This all feels rather excessive given what is being argued. What we have is a book that was published by a peer-reviewed university press, one of the highest marks of a reliable source, and has been cited in other peer-reviewed sources. Because of that I have added Gottfried's view of Antifa, not in wikivoice, just what he thinks. The book received a positive review from Stanley G. Payne the leading scholar of fascism today who has also written on anti-fascism. Given all that, some of this comes across as moving the goalpost and "I don't like" I am perfectly willing to remove the quote comparing their methods to the Nazis since that seems to be the main issue, but I see no reason not to include his view that ideologically Antifa has little in common with historical anarchism or Marxist-Leninism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Due and undue weight: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Unless reliable sources report his viewpoint on antifa's ideology, it lacks weight for inclusion.
Usually book reviews do not establish the significance of a viewpoint. All books from reputable publishers get reviews.
Also, as I pointed out, reliability is not an issue about whether the viewpoint should be included. Not everyone opinion that can be reliably sourced should be in this article. Alex Jones' opinions for example can be reliably sourced to academics who write about him.
What btw does Payne say in his review? Do you have a link? TFD (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Payne's review can be found here Antifascists after Fascism by Stanley G. Payne | Articles | First Things. He also called Gottfried's prior book on fascism "the best book on fascism to appear in a decade or more."
"Unless reliable sources report his viewpoint on antifa's ideology, it lacks weight for inclusion." We may be speaking past each other here. My point is a University Press published work is usually considered a reliable source:
"If available, academic and
peer-reviewed
publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
  • University-level textbooks
  • Books published by respected publishing houses
  • Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones
  • Reputable newspapers"
If you would like to create a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, I would be happy to discuss there. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question at RSN would be: Would a book written by Gottlieb and published by Cornell be a reliable source for his opinions? Since no one questions that, it would be a waste of time. The only issue is whether those opinions have weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that Payne says little or nothing about Gottlieb's opinions on U.S. antifa. The article is devoted to mainstream anti-fascism. TFD (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gottfried’s book mostly covers Antifa in the first chapter before moving on. The article is a review where Payne gives a positive assessment. If we agree this is a reliable source than I feel that it is due with being included, but I think the quote can be removed. Would simply saying that Gottfried believes the group has little in common with anarchism or Marxism be a reasonable compromise? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it is an unusual claim that antifa has little in common with communism and anarchism extraordinary? And if we mention that conclusion, shouldn't we explain how Gottfried came to it?
My understanding is that antifa members hold a range of ideologies, but that most of them are left-wing, even if lack understanding of ideology, which I suppose separates them from card-carrying Communists. Do you really think they are just willing agents of capitalist elites? TFD (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I am sorry I confused Payne with Paxton and thank you for pointing that out. But Payne seems to have moved away from the mainstream and his opinions may no longer have the authority they once did. TFD (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. No problem about names happens to all of us! I would disagree about Payne. Richard J. Evans still cites him as a leading authority on fascism and he has been mentioned in reliable sources like Vox so I feel he is still mainstream. I disagree slightly with your view of Gottfried. I take his argument is more that capitalism/elite opinion is more friendly to Antifa than them being willing agents. Gottfried believes that Antifa’s focus on racial and social issues is at odds with the more strictly economic view of anarchism and Marxism (many historical Marxist and anarchist held socially conservative views on women and sexuality). Hope that clears it up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is expecting modern antifa to be identical to some nebulous group of "historical Marxists and anarchists", and noting that "many" historical groups held regressive views is obvious and inane. If you have to sanitize Gottfried's opinions to present them on this talk page, that is a sign that something went wrong. Per your own quote, Gottfried isn't diplomatically saying they were 'at odds' with these groups (modern or historical), he is calling antifa irrational and nihilistic and comparing it to Nazism. Gottfried's opinion needs context. So why, according to reliable sources, is this opinion encyclopedically significant to this topic? Grayfell (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was published in a peer-review publication, referenced in other peer-review papers, and received a positive review from the leading historian on fascism today (Payne) 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable enough given the circumstances brought up. I would support inclusion if it's explicitly qualified as his specific analysis. Just10A (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. That was always my intention l. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how consensus works. You do not appear to understand what I and others are saying, or you are not engaging with this in good faith.
Being peer-reviewed doesn't legitimize cherry-picking a single, editor-selected opinion from a 200+ page book, nor does it justify misrepresenting the context of that opinion. What are reliable sources saying about Gottfried's opinion, and how does this one opinion reflect the entire topic enough to justify including it at all? This context needs to be clear to readers, not just to us on this talk page. The existence of citations is the first step in this process, it's not the conclusion. Among other things, we also have to deal with WP:PROFRINGE. I'm sure that many of the sources which cite Gottfried also directly dispute his claims or contextualize them as being a fringe and far-right perspective. To use these sources to include this opinion as-is would be misrepresenting what those sources are actually saying.
I still don't see the point of this, either. Including this without a lot more context than is justified would be filler and false balance. In order to include this we need to indicate, via independent sources, why a disinterested reader should care about this. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sure that many of the sources which cite Gottfried also directly dispute his claims or contextualize them as being a fringe and far-right perspective." Then produce them. Don't just arbitrarily say that and walk away. If so, we will consider it in to the consensus judgment. Take a note from@The Four Deuces and actually engage. Just10A (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is not assent, and editors aren't obligated to engage at extreme length, having stated their concerns. I have seen nothing in TFD's very patient analysis to alter my view that you're advocating inclusion of a fringe POV, at extreme length. Editors aren't obligated to match word counts. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I did not say otherwise. But they are required to back up and cite their claims, (using something other than Wikipedia, mind you) instead of just saying, "I'm sure xyz." Just10A (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, none of the nine sources that cited Gottfried were concerned with his views on antifa. His book after all was about anti-fascism, which is a view shared by mainstream polticians and media on both the left and right, according to him. Antifa is just a small fringe.
Gottlieb's writing is clear on how today's antifa differs from yesterday's. They are funded by George Soros and protected by the mainstream politicians and their media supporters in the two main parties. They are an "astoturf" group rather than committed revolutionaries. Their objective is to protect American capitalists.
We cannot just say that Gottfried thinks they are different without providing his reasons. But alarm bells go off when someone says that something is secretly funded by George Soros. TFD (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor quibble, but Gottfried does not say Soros is secretly funding Antifa. On page 25 he says a major "sponsor" of Antifa is the Alliance for Global Justice which in turn collects money from progressive groups like Soros's Open Society.  3Kingdoms (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the source mentioned in footnote 27 and it just says, "The coordinated violence raises questions about how Antifa is financed." It then says that the Alliance supports some left-wing groups, without naming antifa. TFD (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, although Gottfried also says that more study is probably needed. While a fair point on contention I don't think it invalidates the source especially since, what was added is not about alleged funding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of saying that Gottfried says modern antifa has little resemblance to communists and anarchist movements of the past without explaining what he meant? TFD (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Gottfried is an historian and Antifa claims the legacy of those groups I think it's worth mentioning his counter that they are not to show differing views 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we have a huge discussion about this (with the same editor, specifically, trying to add Gottfried to the article) three years ago? Gottfried is a WP:FRINGE figure and his opinions here have no secondary WP:RS coverage. Obviously he's completely unusable; this has been explained repeatedly. I think that this is well past the WP:DROPTHESTICK point - what has changed since the last time this was discussed? If anything, the continued lack of reliable secondary coverage only reinforces the fact that we made the right call the first time and that his opinions remain fringe. --Aquillion (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We did. My actions during that debate were very poor, which I regret. I understand limitations of Chronicles as a source so instead of that I am using Gottfried's actual book that was published in a University Press (a high standard for reliable source). I also provided sources that show the book being cited in other peer-reviewed publications (both positive and negative) again a high mark for reliability. On a side note, Gottfried is cited on [[PragerU]] criticizing one of their videos on fascism. There was a discussion on the reliability of Gottfried Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 273 - Wikipedia where it was agreed he was reliable for a discussion of fascism. I felt given the change of time it is worth reexamining since the book in question can be accessed for free on jstor and showing its publication by Cornell. Hope that clears it up. Cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability relates to accuracy. Are the facts in the book accurate? That issue is wholly irrelevant if you are using the book as a source for the writer's opinions. In that case the only rs issue is whether the book is a reliable source for the author's opinions.
The main issue is weight. Are these opinions worth reporting?That depends on their degree of coverage in reliable sources about antifa in the U.S.
Should there be any confusion, Palm Beach State College has a useful distinction between facts and opinons:
"A fact is a statement that can be verified It can be proven true or false through objective evidence.
"An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that is neither true nor false. Or it may feel true for some, but false for others." TFD (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that a lot of Gottfried's views are already presented in the article. TFD (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Gottfried's views are due weight. It would not take up a major part of the academics section and Gottfried's writings on the post- war left "The Strange Death of Marxism" and "Antifascism" being published in a university press indicate that his views have some weight/ expertise on the matter.
What views of Gottfried's do you think are already in the article? 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming late to this discussion but just wanted to say that I fully agree with the majority of editors weighing in here who see this book as UNDUE at best and FRINGE at worst. I've been looking for positive reviews and found three: in the yellow-flagged Washington Examiner by one James McElroy, a novelist and commentator who also writes for The American Conservative and has no discernable expertise in anti-facism; in yellow-flagged The American Conservative by one John M Vella, the editor of Crisis Magazine, "A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity", and he also has no discernable expertise on anti-fascism; and the one by Payne mentioned above in the fascist-adjacent First Things. Payne is indeed a scholar - a historian of Spain who hasn't written about America. His review does not mention American antifa (the topic of chapter 1 only of Gottfried's book) and opens with an almost certainly fake quote from Huey Long. Nor are there many negative reviews: one by Jet Heer on his Substack and one by Shane Burley. Heer is self-published and not an SME on anti-fascism, but at least is a non-fascist SME on contemporary American politics. His review is more a review of Vella's review than of the book itself, but he sees them both as trash. Burley is of course an actual expert on American antifa. He interviewed Gottfriend for the article and says this: While Gottfried’s skills, as well as ideology, may have been evident in Fascism, in 2021’s Antifascism: The Course of a Crusade, also published through Cornell UP’s Northern Illinois University Press imprint, he fails even the most mediocre standards of scholarship. The book is allegedly on antifascism, yet Gottfried speaks with no antifascist activists, attends no antifascist events, and seems to know almost nothing about antifascist history. When asked about this, he mentions some former colleagues from Elizabethtown College who described themselves as antifascist and that there was once a Black Lives Matter protest in the rural Pennsylvanian town, but also that his book was more about literature and that his “work shows that.” The problem is that in the entire book he only cites two books written by antifascists, one by Mark Bray and one by Alexander Reid Ross, and the discussion on actual antifascist groups only amounts to a few pages in the whole book. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burley is not an expert. He is a writer and filmmaker. The part you quoted is pretty much the only part of the review that actually reviews the work. Furthermore the website publishing his review is an obscure one (has it ever been discussed in reliable sources?). My point still stands that it went through peer-review one of the highest marks for reliability. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of searching so I might as well post here. While this book is from a reputable academic press, I'm shocked that I can't find any academic reviews of Gottfried’s work. One would normally expect a half dozen reviews, at least, from academic journals about a typical work from a prominent academic press. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything, of course, but it is a huge red flag in my professional opinion as a book jockey and is an indication that it is not taken that seriously by academia. One prominent scholar of fascism, Nigel Copsey, dismisses Gottfried’s "tendentious reading" as "revisionism" in a brief passage.{Copsey, Nigel (2023), Pirjevec, Jože; Pelikan, Egon; Ramet, Sabrina P. (eds.), "Afterword: "Are you a communist? No, I am an anti-fascist."", Anti-fascism in European History, From the 1920s to Today, Central European University Press, pp. 269–279, doi:10.7829/jj.4032515.20, ISBN 978-963-386-657-3, retrieved 2024-10-10) So oppose inclusion unless more academic reviews turn up. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On google scholar I found about 9 mentions in both positive and negative. As a counterpoint Stanley Payne, the leading expert on fascism, gave it a positive review. However I get your point and I agree the lack of academic reviews would be more helpful in assessing it value. Thanks for the input. Cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Payne is not “the” leading expert on fascism. But even if he was, he’s a scholar of 20th century Spanish fascism. The topic here is contemporary American anti-fascism, on which he has no expertise and which he does not mention in his appreciation of the book, which is published in a far right magazine not a scholarly journal. (In contrast, contemporary American anti-fascism is exactly Burley’s area of expertise.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your claims. Payne is one of if not the leading experts on Fascism. Major historians like Richard J. Evans all mention his stature in the field. A History of Fascism 1914–1945, is this frequently cited as one of the leading resources for the issue. On anti-fascism he published articles on the subject [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14690760412331326118] Given Antifa's connection to historical anti-fascism I see no reason not to give weight to his view.
There is nothing to indicate that Burley is an "expert". I can not find anything on his educational background that would indicate calling him that. No degree in history, political science, etc. Let alone an expert on fascism and anti-fascism. A quick glance shows he's mostly written for a few minor left-wing publications. The closest thing to academic credentials for Burley has is association with Alexander Reid Ross a relatively minor lecturer of geography. His book " Against the Fascist Creep" was published by AK Press an obscure left-wing publication house. No evidence of extensive academic peer-review, unlike Gottfried's book. Burley is an minor writer/activist for a few obscure left-wing magazines.
Gottfried for good or ill has at least been discussed in academia on political ideology including the direction of the post-war left in the Western world.[http://www.jstor.org/stable/20202698.] [http://www.jstor.org/stable/20131500.] [http://www.jstor.org/stable/43280841.] [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1315514591973964606&as_sdt=20000005&sciodt=0,21&hl=en]
The fact that you flippantly call "First Things" a "far-right" of which there is nothing to indicate, but dogmatically oppose saying that Antifa is "left-wing to far left" does not make sense to me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, I didn't say Payne is not "an" expert on fascism; I said he is not "the" expert on fascism. Being an expert on fascism does not automatically make someone an expert on contemporary US anti-fascism. Payne's expertise relates to a different place and time. He has written about interwar European anti-fascism, in particular on Soviet anti-fascism, and never until this piece on contemporary America. (Actually, this piece doesn't talk about contemporary America either, because his review focuses on the European history, which makes sense because Gottfried's book is mostly about European history, with only one chapter on the topic of this WP article.)
Here is our article on First Things, a journal aimed at "advanc[ing] a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society". It is obviously not an academic journal. I wouldn't want a WP article calling it far right in wikivoice, but it's clear it is at least far right adjacent and not going to be a neutral source for left-leaning social movements. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Antifa draws on the historical anti-fascism of Germany, the Second Spanish Republic, and the Soviet Union. That is more than enough to warrant Payne's view on the subject.
There is nothing to indicate that First Things is " far right adjacent" library of congress labeled them ecumenical, conservative, and neoconservative. You have provided no evidence to substantiate that claim despite adamantly opposing labeling Antifa "left-wing to far left" despite numerous sources calling them that. In any case this is getting off topic. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Burley is a journalist rather than an academic.[4][5][6][7] However, he has written a large number of articles on contemporary US fascism and anti-fascism for Political Research Associates, imho the most reliable thinktank working on these topics.[8] He has written about contemporary US anti-fascism for a Routledge book on this topic, in the main scientific book series on the far right.[9] Burley's books on anti-fascism is widely cited.[10][11][12][13] With Reid Ross he has written on fascism for a peer-reviewed history journal.[14] He has guest edited a peer reviewed journal special issue on contemporary antisemitism.[15] He has reviewed scholarly books on contemporary American fascism for scholarly journals.https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/12/1/article-p103_5.xml] He has conducted an interview for Patterns of Prejudice, one of the best academic journals about racism, of one of the leading scholarly researchers on the far right.[16] I could go on but you get the point.[17] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PRA is a progressive think tank with little on their wiki page about their academic sources. Two of the academic sources you list only cite Burley once. The other is a book by Michael Vavrus with this being his only work on fascism. The review and article with Reid Ross are the only two academic articles he has written. Does that mean he can't be used as a source? No, but little reason to call him a leading expert. Since some of his works were in reliable sources/ presumably peer-reviewed journals it is not unreasonable to include him just as it is not unreasonable to include Gottfried since his own works including his book were published in a university press. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should antifa be marked as far-left?

[edit]

Currently it’s marked as just “left wing” despite it not only including far-left elements such as communism, but also the movements practice of extremist tactics such as rioting and doxxing. The points are listed are from the article itself, but the CSIS also describes the movement as being in the far-left. If anyone has concerns or questions, I’m all ears, but as far as I know, antifa should be marked as far-left on the opening page. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page there is a Q1 explaining the reason. The issue has been debated multiple times with overall argument going to just left-wing as opposed to far left. I personally would be fine with saying "left-wing to far left" especially if the CSIS article says so, but at the same time it has been debated so often that I think other users do not want to relitigate the whole thing nor do I blame them. I think you would need more a few more reliable sources using the term "far left" to persuade people. I hope that explains it! 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Far left" means farther left than the writer finds unacceptable. An organization like CSIS is obviously going to find a large segment of the Left to be unacceptable. TFD (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as discussed on multiple other articles that's not the case as it's a recognised term to refer to many Marxist and anarchist movements, but still – OP will indeed need to refer to the previous RfCs and find new arguments if they want it changed on this article. — Czello (music) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were right about terminology, then one would expect "far left" academics to describe themselves and people who share their views as such in reliable sources. Can you point to any?
After all, Marxist and anarchist writers actually use those terms. TFD (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What they label themselves doesn't really matter, just as the same as with far-right academics. The use of the phrase doesn't necessarily denote acceptability, just what sits furthest to the left of the political spectrum. — Czello (music) 12:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just said that the term far left has is a well-defined concept in academics but now make an exception for far left academics. So what do far left academics call themselves?
Incidentally, there are no academics supporting far right positions, because holocaust denial, climate change denial, anti-Semitism, Nazism, the KKK and conspiracy theories cannot be defended in academic sources since they are based on false information and faulty reasoning. TFD (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, people you consider far left may use the term far left to describe people further left than themselves. In both cases, the meaning is the Left that goes further than what the writer considers acceptable. But where that line is depends entirely on the writer. TFD (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the majority of academics are not far-left (despite what the far-right might say), so concerning ourselves about what they call themselves would be undue weight (and for the purposes of Wikipedia bordering on primary sources). There most certainly have been far-right academics, but equally the things you say can't be defended in academic sources could also apply to the far-left; both political extremes conjure political fantasies. While I would be interested to see what "further left" than communists or anarchists would be (before we start entering horseshoe territory), ultimately the term is pretty unanimously used to describe most Marxist/ML groups and certain anarchist trends. — Czello (music) 07:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the term when used is always relative to the writer and meaningful only in context. For example, the book "History of Socialism" refers to groups that became involved in terrorism and the Gang of Four as "far left." IOW groups that were already outside the Communist mainstream are referred to as far left. But your personal dividing line between acceptable and far left may be different.
Just how far to the left must one be to be considered far left?[18]
Also, it you can find academic papers defending holocaust denial and other far right positions, I would be interested to see them. TFD (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of this distracts from the point. Far left is typically seen as the furthest left one can go on the political spectrum (so again, usually applied to communist and anarchist groups). Yes, there will always be people or groups that people will debate over whether or not they fall into the "far-left" category. Exactly the same happens on the far-right. That doesn't mean that far-left doesn't exist or that it's a term solely used to describe views we're uncomfortable with.
Well I feel you've moved the goalposts somewhat by focussing solely on academics who deny the holocaust, but nonetheless Robert Faurisson is a good example. Regardless it's beside the point and getting into the weeds a little bit - "far-left" is still a recognised and used term to describe those furthest left on the political spectrum. — Czello (music) 15:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say that people will debate [in reliable sources] who falls into the far left category, you are agreeing that the term is relative. If it were not, then fact-checkers would have objected to referring to the Gang of Four as far left, because all Communists are far left.
Faurisson did not deny the holocaust in any academic publications. The relevance of academic publications is that they use fact-checking.
The terminology left and right is not symmetrical. The reason for that is that researchers had to develop terminology to describe right-wing ideologies which was not the case for the left. If as you say, far left means communist or anarchist, why not use the more precise terms of communist or anarchist? OTOH, there are no similar terms to group together the KKK, Proud Boys and the 3 percenters. TFD (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in your first paragraph could equally apply to far-right, but no one disputes that exists.
As for the second, as I said making it about only holocaust denial seems arbitrarily narrow (and also beyond the original point).
As for your final paragraph - well, the far left is known for being incredibly factitious. Between MLs, Trots, various anarchist groups that don't agree with one another, and then the more nationalist leftist groups - that's the reason we have a term like "far-left", to represent the fact that they are all on the farthest left of the political spectrum. Also we do have a term to group those organisations you mentioned together, it's "fascist" (just how "communist" can describe both MLs and Trots). We still call them far-right, though, because they're the furthest right on the political spectrum. Ultimately, you're arguing that far-left is a term which is invalid or doesn't exist, which clearly isn't supported by academic reasoning given how often it's used. — Czello (music) 21:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make interesting arguments but the reality is that there is no body of literature about the "far left." I would appreciate if you could provide me with a source that tells us what groups, political parties, etc. are included and which aren't because basically it depends on the author.
BTW far right is a term that includes but is not restricted to fascism. The KKK for example drew no inspiration from Musst solini.
Although I mentioned holocaust denial, I also mentioned climate change denial, anti-Semitism, Nazism, the KKK and conspiracy theories. Academic sources do not publish far right beliefs because they cannot be defended. They do however publish what you consider far left positions such as universal health care, raising the minimum wage, re-nationalizing railways and land distribution. TFD (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a pretty good breath of sources in the body to cover the far-left part Antifa activists' ideologies, as well as their involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents and the police has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left and militant. Lots of really good high quality nested sources there. PackMecEng (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what you just described in the final part of your comment isn't typically considered far-left. That's fairly standard socdem policies, typically associated with the centre-left. Again, far-left beliefs are, for example, MLs. There's an abundance of examples of the far left being discussed in academia on our article on the subject.
Ultimately, we're beating around the bush here. What matters is that "far-left" isn't some insult that's solely used to describe something undesirable, it's a commonly accepted term to describe most communists and anarchists. — Czello (music) 22:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that there is no definition of where far left begins, it's subjective. If you can provide a source for the taxonomy of the Left, it would be greatly appreciated. TFD (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of Communist parties support democracy. They aren't far-left. They even govern some states in India. Again, this is a movement - I'm pretty sure not all people who take part in Antifa activities consider themselves far-left. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's why I've been careful to say "most communists". Even still, being far-left isn't inherently anti-democratic.
Nonethless, I'm not suggesting antifa should be labelled as far-left. — Czello (music) 14:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa activists' ideologies, as well as their involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents and the police has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left[1][2][3][4][5][6] and militant.[7][8][9] That should about cover it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of providing a lengthy list of sources to back up your claim, which is original research, you should use a source that says what you want to add, viz., that some scholars and news media characterize it as far left. Incidentally, the conclusion you present also violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
While that may seem onerous, there is no reason to present conclusions unless they appear in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I presented numerous, high quality, sources backing the claim. No OR is found here. No more moving the goal posts here TFD, not looking to define what is is, we go by RS and this plethora of strong RS say just that. PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IOW you have lots of evidence for your conclusion, so maybe it is good original research. But you need a reliable source that reached the same conclusion you did.
BTW. did you read WP:WEASEL? It mentions, "some people say, many people remember, many scholars state, [etc.]," which is exactly the language you want to use, viz., "some scholars and news media...characterize."
Instead of arguing, just get a reliable source that supports what you want to say. I could explain why these policies exist, but if you don't like them, get them changed. TFD (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the sources I gave? Forget the text from the article it is supporting. Those sources supprt what this section is talking about. I'm not sure you quite understand that. There is no original research here nor is there a lack of reliable sources given. So unless you can give a reason why the sources supplied do not support channging it from left wing to far left there is nothing left to do here but make that change. PackMecEng (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[19]"We spoke to secret Antifa groups in Oregon. They said they come from a variety of political backgrounds but they were united in their opposition to fascism, and they have an anti-government streak." [20] "Mostly, people aligned with antifa are on the left of the political spectrum. " [21]"Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of mostly far-left activists. They include anarchists, but also communists and a few social democrats.+[22]"Most antifa adherents today come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, people with other political backgrounds have also joined their ranks." [23]" Anti-fascists of the movement tend to be grouped on the leftward fringes of the US political spectrum, many describing themselves as socialists, anarchists, communists or anti-capitalists.'"
And then there is the lead of the aritcle:
"Individuals involved in the movement subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies, and tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views. A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries, and have little allegiance to liberal democracy, although some social democrats also participate in the antifa movement"
So no, we do not have to make that change. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you gave a lot of quotes from the article and sources that support the change, but you say no we do not have to make the change. That makes no sense, especially when stacked against all the RS I provided. Clearly the majority support far left vs just left. Again, not sure the argument you are trying to make, but it seem contradictory to policy. PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My quotes don’t support far-left nor does the lead. How then does policy back you? Doug Weller talk 17:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup quoted 3 times in your section where they were explicitly far-left by RS and then all the RS I gave, and the quotes from the body that I gave. So yes, they do and yes it does. All from the sources I gave here, the sources in the article, and about half the sources that you gave. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources you provided I support adding "far left" to the lede and to political positions. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say that antifa includes people from the far left, not that it is far left. Six out of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices are Catholic. That doesn't mean that it is a Catholic organization. TFD (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but it is enough to say the Supreme Court is largely made up by Catholics. So that works. PackMecEng (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideology differs from religion. There is to my mind sufficient evidence that the organization contains a sizeable number of far-leftists to justify saying it is a "Left-to far left group" and to have far left beside left wing on the political positions table. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text already says, " A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists."
It's OR to say that because most members come from a specific background that is a defining feature of the group. Antifa membership is not restricted to the far left, nor does it pursue far left objectives. The only possible disagreement would come from someone whose view of the political spectrum places anyone to the left of the Freedom Caucus as far left. TFD (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only original reasearch is what you are saying. I dont care what you personally think about them or how the operate. Present RS that say it, which is what we have sone over and over. Also what is this crap about freedom caucus? Are you a member or something? That forsnt make it okay to disregard our sourcing polices and engage in OR like you are doing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. My "original research" is that we should only say what is supported by rs and not our own conclusions. TFD (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point, i am presenting RS that back the content we are talking about, you are not. You are only stating your personal views devoid of RS. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable reader would get the impression that antifa has a far-left membership and agenda, which is not what the sources say. To far right sources that of course is true because opposition to the far right is by definition far left. But using terms as understood by most people, that's not necessarily true. TFD (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the issue, you are wrong on soucres. Thats why I gave so many that support what I am saying and by my count you have given none. PackMecEng (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the reason people provide many sources is that while none of them say what they want to say, they believe that as a whole they do. And that is synthesis. TFD (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, so no sources or anything to back your position. Got it, so no good reason to oppose? PackMecEng (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact I said there were no sources to back your position. Since you are the one adding the material, it's up to you to provide the source. TFD (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there are about a dozen above that support it. Against your zero I think its best we collapse this and ignore your objections. I guess you could try RSN or the OR notice board since its not working here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting long winded. @PackMecEng, I support adding it since you (and even others) have provided sources.
Also, since SCOTUS was brought up, the reason the "catholic" analogy doesn't work is because SCOTUS is not a religious organization. If it was, then it would definitely be perfectly acceptable to state that it is mostly catholic, or has catholic connections, or etc. In this scenario, we are talking about political leanings of members of a political organization (or quasi-organization), so it is more relevant. Just10A (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we adding it? End of the first paragraph, perhaps? — Czello (music) 06:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards the first sentence saying “left wing to far left”. Also adding it to the political position part of the info box. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would think just updating the existing verbiage. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide text from one reliable source that supports your claim? Please don't expect me to read through multiple sources which you probably have not read in the off chance that somewhere one of them may support your position. TFD (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done a bunch of times already. Not our problem if you dont feel like reading the sources. Unfortunately you are expected to read the sources you are arguing against. Lol PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the onus is on you to provide the specific edits you want to make, not on us to go through every damn source thrown at us to figure out which part you're using to support your argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And its been done a bunch of times above. PackMecEng (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can scroll down to sources and the second one is an academic paper calling Antifa “far left”. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SCOTUS is a political organization in the sense that its decisions have political consequences. One of its most recent decisions on abortion was perhaps influenced by the traditional Catholicism of most of its members.
Or to use another approach. Most of the justices are conservative with a different view of the law than the liberal judges. The result has been a change in direction from previous courts. That does not mean that it is a conservative institution, just that it is dominated by conservatives. We would not therefore begin the article on the court as, it "is a conservative institution that serves as the highest court in the United states." TFD (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roe v. Wade was overturned because some of the justices are Catholic...Yeah, welcome to WP:Fringe. I think that speaks for itself.
Anyway, going back on track, still support the inclusion. Just10A (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in AP, "The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade at a time when it has an unprecedented Catholic supermajority. That’s not a coincidence. Nor is it the whole story." The whole story is that the subscribe to a particular version of Catholicism.[24] This has been covered in numerous mainstream publications.
If you think mainstream media is fringe, then you may think that opposition to fascism is inherently far left. TFD (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the entire rest of the article says: "But that alone doesn’t explain the justices’ votes." And goes on to be completely dedicated to saying that it's not merely because they're catholic, as many catholics disagree with them. It's because of their specific worldviews beyond just being catholic.
Regardless, 1.) this is totally tangental to the talk page convo and 2.) Clearly a fringe view. Nowhere on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization wikipedia page or any reliable sources consensus is there the belief that maintains that Roe v. Wade was overturned merely because the SCOTUS justices were Catholic. I'm not going down this tangential topic with you.
The KKK called, it wants its conspiracy theories back. Just10A (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is getting off topic and skirting on thin ice. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we would not call SCOTUS a conservative institution is that neither its objectives nor its membership qualifications are conservatism. This would be in contrast to for example the Heritage Foundation.
Similarly, antifa does not have a left-wing agenda nor does it limit membership to leftists. TFD (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not being sarcastic when I say this, but do you have a source for that? Antifa might not have an official platform , but unofficial/ related works all show a pronounced left to far-left stance. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"What is antifa?" (CBS News March 29, 2021), I believe, accurately reflects the consensus view in reliable sources:

"In general, people who identify as antifa are known not for what they support, but what they oppose: Fascism, nationalism, far-right ideologies, white supremacy, authoritarianism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia. Some antifa activists also denounce capitalism and the government overall.
"Mostly, people aligned with antifa are on the left of the political spectrum."

TFD (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how this source shows Antifa does not have generally left-wing views (the whole oppose X is rather meaningless since many conservatives and moderates would say they also oppose X, but they differ over what is X) or that it does not limit membership, which they technically don’t even have. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between what antifa consider fascism etc. and mainstream opinion. The main area of contention by conservatives has been about homophobic and Islamophobic groups. They have been categorized as such because they present false information in order to incite hatred against them. The type of literature they produce could result in criminal prosecution in most countries.
But conservatives bring the same sort of accusations against the SPLC. TFD (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really my point, but I think this is getting us off topic.  3Kingdoms (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument if I understand it is that antifa has left-wing views not because they oppose fascism etc. but because they use a left-wing definition for it. However, since they use standard definitions, there is nothing left-wing about their opposition. There is therefore nothing left-wing about their shared belief system.
Csn you name any group antifa has demonstrated against that you think doesn't fit any of the standard definitions? TFD (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we aren't saying that, and we don't have to do any of that. We're saying antifa is far-left because multiple sources already listed by multiple editors say so. That's it. End of analysis. Just10A (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that the sources support that. Could you please pick one of the sources provided so we can determine if it works. That will save us from going through all the sources in the off chance that one of them does. TFD (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "on the off chance." It's part of the sources that have already been posted by @PackMecEng as well as Doug if I remember correctly. Some of the time the relevant quotes are even part of the links so you don't even have to click on them, just hover. I'm sorry, but the sources have been explicitly cited multiple times. If you don't want to read them, regardless of reason, that's on you. You can't ask for sources, be provided sources, and then just say "I'm not reading all that."
@PackMecEng@3Kingdoms@LordOfWalruses, I'll leave this to you. I support inclusion, and I think you've sufficiently met the burden here. Just10A (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is what the sources are saying then we should not censor it just because people do not like it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that this discussion hasn't been closed yet (or even archived); people are trying to edit-war in this change based on what was discussed here, but it's still ongoing and nobody has bothered to reply or rebut me or Bob's points. If someone wants to request a formal close to see if there's a consensus here, WP:Requests for closure exists, but I'm not seeing it currently. Remember that there was a previous RFC that touched on this here, so it would be necessary to overcome that consensus per WP:CONLEVEL; it might be necessary to start an RFC to get wider opinions if not enough people have weighed in. --Aquillion (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not also my contribution was moved to a new section which might make it look like this conversation had closed. I’ve just changed the new section to a subsection of this one so it is clear the discussion was ongoing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas (July 2, 2019). "What Is Antifa? Explaining the Movement to Confront the Far Right". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 24, 2020. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
  2. ^ Academic sources: News sources:
  3. ^ Roston, Aram (August 25, 2021). "American Antifa: From Girl Scout to anarchist street warrior". Reuters. Archived from the original on November 18, 2021. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
  4. ^ Dale, Daniel (March 2, 2021). "Anatomy of a lie: How the myth that Antifa stormed the Capitol became a widespread belief among Republicans". CNN. Archived from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
  5. ^ Jones, Seth G. (June 4, 2020). "Who Are Antifa, and Are They a Threat?". Center for Strategic and International Studies. Archived from the original on September 2, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  6. ^ Ormiston, Susan (2017). "Antifa and the rise of far-left activism in the era of Trump". CBC. Archived from the original on September 25, 2017. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
  7. ^ Cammeron, Brenna (August 14, 2017). "Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise". BBC News. Archived from the original on May 21, 2020. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
  8. ^ Savage, Charlie (August 16, 2017). "Justice Dept. Demands Data on Visitors to Anti-Trump Website, Sparking Fight". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 16, 2017. Retrieved August 16, 2017.
  9. ^ Academic sources:
    • Vysotsky, Stanislav (2020). American Antifa: The Tactics, Culture, and Practice of Militant Antifascism. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429265174. ISBN 978-0-429-26517-4. S2CID 243163820. Since the election of President Trump and the rise in racism and white supremacist activity, the militant anti-fascist movement known as antifa has become increasingly active and high profile in the United States.
    News sources:

Far-Left AGAIN

[edit]

Isn't this a pointless conversation? We've had numerous RfCs about this, which have all reached the same conclusion. A non-RfC discussion can't change that very solidly acheived consensus so rehearsing the arguments here again is a waste of time. If the minority of editors who support a change want to make a case, they need to first argue that there is a compelling reason to open this up again, such as the weight of WP:BESTSOURCES published since the last RfC differing substantially from those available last time consensus was reached. Without a compelling reason to re-litigate this issue, they should drop this and the majority who support the current version should not make the effort to respond. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently recently added to the lead, here, with the argument that there was an "overwhelming consensus" here for it (which I'm certainly not seeing, but which shows the problem of not re-engaging every single time this is re-litigated.) I don't think that it's a primary focus of coverage and therefore isn't really leadworthy, certainly not in the first sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is clearly no consensus for the change, I've removed it from the lede and infobox. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest y'all make a new talk post if this issue needs to be readdressed. This post is already long enough and had already reached its natural end. Just10A (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and its natural end was no consensus. I don't know how you're arguing there was a consensus for the change in order to justify reverting me. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It did not. But even assuming you're correct, again as cited in the edit, the resulting edit(s) of the talk discussion sat on the page for weeks without issue. Even if there wasn't direct consensus from the talk page (and I disagree with that characterization anyway), it clearly got consensus via WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Just10A (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sat on the page because we didn't want an edit-war during the discussion. Once things calmed down, it just got missed. Repeating IMPLICITCONSENSUS is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry if you feel that way, but I’m afraid that’s Wikipedia policy. Just10A (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation is idiosyncratic.
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement... Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not combat and capitulation.
Just declaring "it was still there after the discussion, therefore there's consensus" flies in the face of the page you quoted. It was disputed, and eventually removed. This pedantry is not a good argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re more than welcome to refer to the flow chart next to the passage. It pretty clearly outlines the issue here, and also explicitly supports it applying to the edit in this instance.
If you view precisely following Wikipedia policy as “pedantry” then, again, I’m sorry you feel that way, but it’s just policy we’re following here, and it’s pretty clear in this scenario. Just10A (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flowchart is not the policy. It even says it's "simplified." The edit was made and we went straight to the "discuss" step, which the flow chart seems to think doesn't happen. Using it to justify this is just asinine. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not solely using the flowchart to justify it. I suggested you look at the flowchart for an outline to help convey the policy. The alternative was to just repeat myself that your position is clearly at odds with any plain-view reading of Wikipedia policy and to just re-read it until you get it. That would’ve been asinine.
The incivility is getting pretty tiresome. Policy is clear here. You’re more than welcome to revisit the issue in a new talk post. I don’t know how much more I can assist you. Just10A (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly isn't a consensus to add this, and this edit isn't justified by policy. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Then I submit to you, how long exactly would a reasonable time be before implicit consensus takes effect? Do you honestly maintain that if a user came along, say an entire year from now, that they could just change the article under the guise of "there was actually never consensus in the first place?" Of course not.
So, if we agree that after a certain period of time (as well as other edits and views) after an edit is made that consensus becomes implicit, the question moves to: How long is a reasonable time to say discussion has ceased and implicit consensus applies? WP:CLOSE does not give an exact time period, it just says "Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious" or "When the discussion is stable". In this scenario, the outcome was clearly obvious (as the literal page was changed), and was changed very late into the discussion, then sat there untouched and undiscussed in the talk page (aka stable) for 3 weeks.
Just for reference, the only exact time period that WP:CLOSE gives for closing a discussion is 7 days, and that's for deleting entire articles which, if anything, have a higher burden. What we're discussing here is triple that. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no basis or precedent at all for saying that 3 weeks of complete radio silence is insufficient for implicit consensus. If you can cite me a single persuasive thing that says otherwise, I'd be happy to see. Otherwise, your actions are clearly against policy. You have not cited a single policy or norm in support.
Also, @HandThatFeeds, If you ever stop typing your personal attacks, I'd love to see you answer this too. Just10A (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A: you're begging the question. There is no period of time after implicit consensus takes effect, because that policy doesn't say what you imply it does. What it actually says is An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. so the policy you quoted is not applicable here. VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, one more time just to be clear. Under your analysis in this scenario, a user could arrive to this page an entire year (if not a decade) from now and unilaterally change the page because "consensus was never reached" because "it was disputed when the edit was made"? So because it never gained consensus in your view, the article could just sit for the rest of time and would never gain consensus? I think that speaks for itself. Just10A (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition doesn't and won't negate the fallacy. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implicit consensus is not about time; it is about the number of editors who have seen and implicitly approved of the edit by leaving it in place. Edits to the relevant section of the article by numerous editors with diverse perspectives who left the text in place, say, would be a sign that something has implicit consensus. On a high-traffic article it could occur relatively quickly; on a very out-of-the-way low-traffic article it actually wouldn't be unreasonable to say that something lacks implicit consensus even a year later due to few people seeing it. But even on relatively fast-paced articles, a few weeks wouldn't usually be considered enough; and the fact that multiple prolific editors who have a long history on this page immediately objected when they noticed the edit implies that it was simply not widely seen until now, which is the opposite of implicit consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you've not been helping at all. Your reading of policy is off, and you refuse to listen, you just keep insisting you're right. This smacks of a POV-push. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I did not say there was "overwhelming consensus", I said it is "overwhelmingly sourced" and that there was "large agreement", which is still the case. — Czello (music) 06:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it was, at best, 3-to-4 even at the time (and now it's very obviously lopsided against the change.) 3-to-4 is not a "large agreement" in any sense of the term; while WP:CCC, that is obviously not enough to overcome the much more heavily-attended discussions listed up top. I feel that you were misled by the fact that a bunch of people who wanted the change replied rapidly to you in a short timeframe, while most of the people who have discussed this in the past only weighed in briefly if at all due to believing that the issue was settled, which gave the appearance of a consensus that you didn't actually have. --Aquillion (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I see no such agreement. When you consider it in the context of the previous dicsussions (which had, generally, larger attendance) it is clear that there wasn't a sufficient consensus there to add it. You WP:BOLDly added it anyway, and because the topic has been discussed to death people weren't paying close attention and didn't notice at first; but once it was noticed, your bold addition was reverted, and now you must actually demonstrate that you have consensus... which seems unlikely at this point. --Aquillion (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no ambiguity about this. The edit was there three weeks, and was made towards the end of a conversation in which a clear minority of four editors argued for a change from a long-established version, against a clear majority of three editors in favour of the status quo. The long-established version was in place for four years since the last RfC on the topic, as indicated in the FAQs added at the top of the page (closed by Rosguill 28 August 2020), which in turn formalised consensus achieved in no fewer than six previous discussions in the previous three years (and almost certainly confirmed in subsequent discussions every time an IP comes here and makes the same point, which is why the FAQ got added). An against-RfC that wasn't reverted for a couple of weeks does not trump a long process of formally achieving community consensus. To achieve new consensus, you'd need a new RfC, and for a new RfC you'd really need to show what has changed since the last one to justify re-opening this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding that when this round of conversation was opened a month ago, by a new user who has been blocked twice this year, 3Kingdoms immediately and correctly responded that The issue has been debated multiple times with overall argument going to just left-wing as opposed to far left. and Czello also correctly noted that OP will indeed need to refer to the previous RfCs and find new arguments if they want it changed on this article. So I think we can all agree that there was a situation of consensus on 10 September.
    However, I was incorrect in my previous comment that a clear majority of editors argued for the status quo. I count three users for the RfC-confirmed status quo and four for change up to 20 September, although four others (including me) have subsequently joined in the defence of the status quo, so it is now a clear majority. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Consensus is not the result of a strict vote, and consensus can change (especially for a modern topic when the last RFC is nearly 4 1/2 years old.) Finally, I know of no policy which states anything like "To achieve new consensus, you'd need a new RfC". Without citing anything, that's just a completely arbitrary standard to meet. We've already hashed this out nearly a month ago and the sources are pretty clear. Just10A (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Czello just reverted me by saying If you want to overturn consensus, please start an RfC so presumably recognises that's the way to change consensus. A month after this was raised here, we have a majority of editors against a change and the only basis for a "consensus" claim is a couple of weeks that nobody edited, so the onus is on pro-change editors to achieve consensus for a new version. Please self-revert Czello and find a way of achieving consensus if you want to undo seven years of constantly re-affirmed stable agreement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he is saying to get an RfC to resolve the current dispute going on if you feel that way. Not that an old RfC sets a new article standard in stone for the rest of time. But like I said, I'd be happy to see any policy that says that. Just10A (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC would certainly put an end to this. Last time this was discussed an abundance of sources was provided to support far-left, and there was general agreement to include it. If there is now a dispute, and indeed a dispute about whether or not there was a consensus, then let's resolve it with a fresh discussion. — Czello (music) 13:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC would certainly put an end to this.
    Judging by the last few RfCs I've seen, it'll result in re-litigating the RfC close for months on various fora by whomever is upset with the closing rationale. But if it's the only way to end this intransigent dispute, then fine. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there was clearly no consensus in the previous discussion; given the lengthy and far higher-attended discussions in the past, it would be absurd to suggest that that brief discussion with a near-even split could constitute a consensus. You WP:BOLDly added it without consensus anyway, but this was reverted as soon as it was pointed out; the fact that it took a few weeks for it to be noticed doesn't change that fact. Now you must obtain, or demonstrate, consensus for your disputed addition to the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: can you link the RFC please? VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Q1 in the FAQ at the top of this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted" does not mean that editors cannot edit existing text, especially after a discussion about that text. If a discussion finds that there is consensus to remove "far left" or no consensus to keep it, then its removal becomes the new presumed consensus.
I cannot think of any other single-issue group where editors argue about how to place it in the political spectrum. No one has argued for example that Focus on the Family be called a far right group. TFD (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been my understanding for decades, but a few people here seem insistent on very peculiar readings of the site rules to justify their desired edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has said that "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted" means that editors cannot edit existing text. But once new content has been disputed, the article is correctly reverted back to the stable version, and the onus for seeking consensus is on those wanting change. If the stable version has been affirmed repeatedly in multiple discussions over seven years, a ten-day conversation between seven editors is not sufficient to generate a new consensus. If you want to start a new RfC (ideally explaining why things have changed since the last one), go ahead. But in the meantime, the current version is not supported by consensus and needs to be reverted to the version supported by consensus.
By the way, Focus on the Family is not a relevant comparator as that is an organisation with a coherent position, whereas antifa is a de-centralised movement composed of many very fluid non-formal groups. For comparison, you'd want to look at other heterogeneous movements such as United States anti-abortion movement, Occupy movement, Animal rights movement, Right-to-life movement, Black Lives Matter, Idle No More, the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, United States abortion-rights movement, or possibly the Tea Party movement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RFC discussed the issue; while it was four years ago, it had high attendance and clearly considered the issue. Obviously another RFC would be required to overturn it, or at least a discussion with something approaching the ~23 editors who weighed in on that aspect there; the idea that a brief 3-to-4 discussion could overturn it isn't reasonable, especially given how stark the objection was as soon as the WP:BOLD edit stemming from that discussion was pointed out. In longstanding discussions it is not unusual for people to tune out WP:DEADHORSE discussions of things that have been settled many times over and over; this is part of why WP:CONLEVEL emphasizes the significance of the number of people who participated in a discussion. To overturn something that had a relatively higher-attended formal discussion, you need to make enough noise (or start a formal RFC) to ensure that you're getting an actually representative sample of editors capable of reaching a new consensus of comparable strength. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted yet another attempt to force this change into the article. This is becoming tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was immediately revert-warred back in once again. I can understand that it's disappointing for people who wanted to add this new addition to believe they had consensus and find out they didn't, but that's the reality; the brief discussion above was obviously not enough to overturn the RFC, and even if it had, more people have now weighed in a way that makes it clear that there's no consensus for this new addition. People who want to add it need to start an RFC seeking a consensus to do so; that is what we do when consensus (or lack thereof) is disputed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You’ve cited nothing to support this increased standard. If you can produce anything that says something similar to “only a new RfC can overturn an old Rfc” I will completely agree. Just10A (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONLEVEL: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The RFC ran for a month and had 23 editors weigh in on that topic (with 13 opposing the addition.) The initial discussion over whether to add this now had only 7 editors (with 4 supporting it), which is not enough to overturn it; and more editors then weighed in within a month. Again, as you've been informed repeatedly, you never had an actual consensus for this addition - if you disagree, and want to demonstrate otherwise, an RFC is useful to demonstrate this. --Aquillion (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note, since this has been going back and forth and some people have left it in: I also think that the massive citation bundle that was added as part of the proposed change isn't really appropriate. WP:OVERCITE in the lead can't overcome the fundamental problem that it's not a central part of the topic; these are largely passing mentions at best, which isn't sufficient given how much has been written about Antifa as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not passing mentions of Antifa. They are labels that reliable sources uses to explain to lay audiences what "Antifa" is. Once again, numerous reliable sources have been provided that show that many of said sources label "antifa" "far-left". This honestly feels like Wikipedia:I just don't like it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this, and would add that the abundance of sources was as a direct result of people saying there was not enough sourcing. We went from that to a larger number of sources being provided, to now the criticism of WP:OVERCITE. It indeed feels like one can't win here owing to personal resistance among some editors to the far-left label. — Czello (music) 07:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

[edit]

It's not pronounced anteeeefa. That's just how Trump says it. Instead, the i is the least stressed syllable Jikybebna (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no agreed upon pronunciation. People pronounce it both ways. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a European perspective, Americans such as Trump say it wrong, but this is the article about the US manifestation so it's right to have both versions.
See interesting discussions from Mirriam-Webster and the Guardian. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should "far-left" be added to the lead?

[edit]

Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • No. The second sentence'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. If we must cover left-right politics in the lead, the preponderance of sources describe Antifa's politics as broad and ambiguous in a way that is better summarized as just left-wing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No . The opening section presents the article's subject accurately, i.e. per sources, and, moreover, is well and carefully written. -The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my suggestion to Yes, and I declare my sincere apologies to all concerned for my previous, inexcusably hasty one. Sources quoted herebelow, along with additional ones found (e.g. on BBC, in Forbes, in PBS, or even amongst the original antifascists, in Germany), strongly support the change to far-left. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC says Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of 'mostly far-left activists.
Forbes says antifa isn't far left: 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... 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 includes political views that fall outside of mainstream democratic and liberal perspectives. By increasingly painting all Democratic views as “radical left,” President Trump has negated the real meaning the words. Which is why the interchangeable use of the terms Antifa and radical left is so troubling.
PBS says "far-left-leaning" not "far left".
DW is about German antifa, a different topic (and note it says protests might attract sympathetic participants who wouldn't necessarily define themselves as anarchist, or indeed as far-left. Often German antifa groups enjoy their best turnouts when organizing counter-protests against far-right demonstrators. These events can draw in people from almost all walks of life.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the BBC one indicates to me there's definitely an argument for inclusion. If it's "mostly" far-left, why would we not say "far-left" or "left-wing to far-left"? It would be WP:UNDUE to not call them far-left here.
As for PBS, I think it's pretty safe to say "far-left-leaning" means the same as "far-left". — Czello (music) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read back the examples I provided.
Forbes states the following, with emphasis added: "Antifa a loose group of radical activists...dressed in all black and wearing black face masks (so called black bloc tactics)...known to use violent tactics...[their] protests include taking part in violent anti-capitalist marches." Try as much as you want, the cumulative assessment of such a group cannot by any means be termed simply "left." A simply left organization is not radical and does not engage in violence. End of story.
PBS: "Antifa is an umbrella term for far-left-leaning movements." When each and every movement is far-leaning then the umbrella organization can be termed "far left" without any loss of accuracy.
For the German case, note that Antifa deploys the same tactics everywhere in the US and Europe, per sources. They are all beyond the spectrum of simply the left. So, the German Antifa is a useful indicator, especially when the report comes from an anti-fascist medium such as Deutsche Welle.
As to the BBC, it sometimes, in a rather British way, will hedge its bets with "rather's" and "mostly's" but, more often than not, its journalistic integrity surfaces: "far-left", "far-left", "far-left".
You are on a false path and I should not be the one to break these news to you. -The Gnome (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the underlined words in your Forbes quote don't equal "far" and it's WP:OR to say they do. Forbes says antifa are "radical activists" but also explicitly that antifa are not "radical left".
Re PBS and BBC, call me old-fashioned or British but I think journalists use words for reasons and if they qualify with the extra letters of "leaning" or "mostly" they're avoiding making an excessive claim and so should we.
You've now added three more BBC links. The first one doesn't call antifa "far left"; it says a loose confederation of anti-fascists - or antifa, for short. There is no one antifa organisation or political philosophy. They're a mixed bag of anarchists, socialists and communists. Some conservatives might see all socialists as far left, but Wikipedia doesn't. However, the last two BBC links do call it a loosely affiliated group of far-left protesters so I agree that the BBC do sometimes use this phrase, while on other occasions (here's another) they qualify this.
Re DW, the idea that because a reliable source says something about people in one country their words can be applied to a wholly different country is not a good way of using sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three additional letters to a word make for a "wordy" situation? I do not think that is a correct assessment. -The Gnome (talk)
This is an odd reason to oppose, if you ask me. "Left-wing" doesn't already imply inclusion of "far-left", any more than "right-wing" implies inclusion of "far-right". On top of that, there are plenty of existing articles that have a range ("x to y") in their infobox, such as Conservative Party (UK). It's not wordy at all. — Czello (music) 14:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No There is no reason Wikipedia editors to add their opinions to the article. TFD (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's evidently not happening given the abundance of sources. — Czello (music) 10:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No We've been down this road multiple times, see the FAQ and Archives. The discussion over the last month did not result in a consensus for the change, there's not enough reliable sources to overcome WP:DUE and include such nomenclature in the lede and infobox. Arguments that it stayed in the article too long are invalid, because the entire point was to not get into an edit war during the discussion. Once that was resolved and it was removed, suddenly people began claiming the addition was the "stable version," and edit warring to keep it in. This is not policy compliant, and we need to put this to rest. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. While some sources say this, they are far from the best sources and a majority don’t say this, and some directly contradict it. Nothing has changed since the last RfC (in fact, newer, stronger sources tend to be less likely to say “far left”). BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources contesting or contradicting use of far left:
    1. Antifa – short for "anti-fascist" – is the name for loosely affiliated, left-leaning, anti-racist groups that monitor and track the activities of local neo-Nazis.--USA Today, 2017
    2. antifa, a loose movement of left-wing, anti-racist and anti-fascist activists.--The Conversation, 2021
    3. Antifa’s organisation (or lack thereof) is reminiscent of Anonymous: there is no hierarchy or central platform, and anyone can claim the title and set up a local branch. The decentralised character of Antifa and lack of theoretical basis ensure appeal to all “anti-fascists”, but also make it difficult to pin down what exactly it is they oppose.--The Economist, 2017, i.e. no specific ideological position
    4. Trump’s rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the mainstream left. “Suddenly,” noted the antifa-aligned journal It’s Going Down, “anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along.’ ”... [Their] tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. --Beinart, 2017
    5. Anti-fascist organizing has long existed outside of mainstream leftwing organizing in the United States. But as the far right has gained stature and attention amid the rise of Trump, anti-fascism has gained relevance... Shane Burley, a journalist and researcher who studies the far right, said that anti-fascists struggled to be “taken seriously” by other leftists in recent years, as mainstream groups took aim at “systemic racism” rather than specific racist groups. But with the rise in “violent, casual racism” after the election, anti-fascism tactics will gain in popularity, he said.--Guardian, 2017 i.e. appealed beyond far left to mainstream left
    6. Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is not a concrete group, rather an amorphous movement. Anti-fascists of the movement tend to be grouped on the leftward fringes of the US political spectrum, many describing themselves as socialists, anarchists, communists or anti-capitalists.--Al-Jazeera, 2020
    7. according to the Anti-Defamation League... “Most 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.”--NYT, 2021
    8. The U.S. antifa movement appears to be decentralized, consisting of independent, radical, like-minded groups and individuals. Its tenets can echo the principles of anarchism, socialism, and communism. Members do not necessarily adhere to just the tenants of these philosophies, however... Contemporary U.S. antifa adherents likely do not share a list of enemies, as the movement lacks a unifying organizational structure or detailed ideology that might shape such a list., --Congressional Research Service, 2020 no mention of "left"
    9. Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of 'mostly far-left activists. -- BBC, 2020
    10. 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 includes political views that fall outside of mainstream democratic and liberal perspectives. By increasingly painting all Democratic views as “radical left,” President Trump has negated the real meaning the words. Which is why the interchangeable use of the terms Antifa and radical left is so troubling.--Forbes, 2020 i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination
    11. The mainstream media is eager to label this a natural continuum, but the reality of the antifa is far more complex. Months of interviewing self-proclaimed members of the antifa uncovered a loosely organized tribe of individuals whose philosophies and tactics run the gamut from literally singing “Kumbaya” at rallies to hunting down Nazis to break their bones — and who recently have been united in part by a modicum of mainstream acceptance.--Alta, 2018 no mention of left, stresses heterogeneity
    12. Antifa, short for "anti-fascist", is a loose affiliation of mostly far-left activists. They include anarchists, but also communists and a few social democrats.--BBC, 2020
    13. the usually loosely organized groups of left-wing protesters in Portland, Ore., and other U.S. cities that have adopted the name antifa — which the FBI indicates is nowhere as great a terrorist threat as right-wing groups — position themselves as outside the moderate liberal mainstream. For both the right and the left, antifa connotes an uncompromising radicalism. However, a look at the historical roots of the antifa movement reveal much more prevalent strands of pragmatism, compromise and coalition-building. In some cases, the movement also reflected a surprising embrace of moderation and reconciliation.--Washington Post, 2020, i.e. moderate not extreme
    14. Antifa has become a conservative catch-all under President Donald Trump.... Yet antifa doesn’t appear to have any organizing structure and is connected only by an amorphous political ideology. Still, the term is a potent one for conservatives. It’s the violent distillation of everything they fear could come to pass in an all-out culture war. And it’s a quick way to brand part of the opposition... “Antifa just became a term used by anyone and their grandma to describe somebody who was opposed to the open fascism that was being paraded around in all kinds of media,” said Alexander Reid Ross, an instructor at Portland State University and the author of “Against the Fascist Creep.” “I think with the popularization of the alt-right, there was sort of a counterpopularization of antifa, to the point where it simply describes people who are anti-fascist or people who are against racism and are willing to protest against it.”--Politico, 2020 i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination
    15. Ever since the term Antifa came into common use in 2017, the American far-right, aided by pundits in conservative media, has seized upon it, casting it wherever there is civil disobedience or anarchy. Crowds that turned angry, from Black Lives Matter protesters to environmental activists to student protesters, have been labeled Antifa by conservative commentators. It’s a political tactic, said Mark Bray... The image of Antifa as radical anarchists bent on political violence became a rallying cry for the far-right.--USA Today, 2021 i.e. conflation with "far left" is in Trump's imagination.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Numerous reliable sources including peer-review academic journals have used the label. ([25], [26], [27])
Reliable Sources that use the label of Far-left:
1.) CNN [28]
2.) Reuthers[29]
3.) New York Times [30]
4.) ABC [31]
5.) CBC [32]
Finally I think the issue of weight should be noted what is being asked that "left-wing" be changed to "Left-wing to far-left". This is not some unreasonable change that completely changes the page. If anything it is a fair compromise between people who want "left wing" and those who say "far-left".3Kingdoms (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say Numerous reliable sources including peer-review academic journals have used the label.
The first source cited is paywalled and the title, abstract and references imply it's not a piece about contemporary US antifa. Can you give the quote? Is it more than a passing mention?
Am I correct that the third source cited doesn't call antifa a far left movement? (The only use of far left I can see is "network analyses of far-right and far-left hashtags (i.e., #bluehand, #whitegenocide, and #antifa)".) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the bottom of the "Should Antifa be marked as far-left" you can find the sources and where the mention of far-left is made. From the first source [...] Antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement. [...] The American Far Left includes 'groups or individuals that embrace anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and [seek] to bring about change through violent revolution' (Department of Homeland Security 2009, p. 6). The third source implicitly calls the movement as far-left by describing the hastag #antifa as far left.
Regarding one of the sources you put out number 9 says its mostly made up of far leftists. Second none of them really apply here since no one is saying that the "left-wing" part be removed, only that "far-left" be added. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say it was. But it's certainly a decent metric for determining which articles are getting the "primary focus of coverage". Most of those sources were already cited by others and are reliable either way. Just10A (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not use Google to number and compare hits but to find and identify sources. And the Google-found sources mostly and clearly have "far-left" in the their appellation. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Aquillion, FelipeFritschF, TFD, The Hand That Feeds You, BobFromBrockley. Needlessly wordy and very awkward phrasing. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Per above. This needs too much context and nuance to fit in the lead as a bland fact. The goal of the article should be to provide context, not to nudge and hint towards ideological conclusions based on cherry-picked and misrepresented sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you believe is the "Cherry-picked" or "misrepresented" sources? Because for me most of the sources in support of the label simply say some version of "Antifa is a far-left group". 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These aren't "ideological conclusions", they're labels used directly by the sources. I don't see what additional context or nuance they require to fit into the lead, any more than any other article with similar labelling. — Czello (music) 07:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mistake to expect everything with "similar labeling" to be treated exactly the same regardless of context. Among other issues with this approach -many other issues- far-left politics "does not have a single, coherent definition". It is impossible to talk about something being labelled as far-left without discussing its ideology, but even with that in mind, this is a misleading way to do that. The use of this term, in this context, would cause confusion and would imply different things to different editors based on their prior assumptions and biases. This is a bad thing for an encyclopedia article to do. Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are there no instances where “far left” is appropriate because of its imprecise definition then? Wouldn’t that standard equally apply to “far-right” or many other ideology names? Surely this can’t be the standard.
If Reliable sources use it then reliable sources use it. (and they do) That should be the primary base of our analysis. Just10A (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • I find the most recent proposed phrasing of "left-wing to far-left" particularly obnoxious for editorial reasons. Do any reliable sources use that phrasing or is that a Wikipedia invention. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears mostly as a wiki tool when something is called by different sources “X wing” or “far X”. An example of this would be the Right sector article. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That language is just the result of the WP:CONSENSUS policy of seeking a compromise. If anything, it's actually too generous. It's worth noting that most of the reliable sources listed so far exclusively call ANTIFA far-left. Not "ranges from left to the far left." The proposed "left-wing to far-left" lead language is just there to reflect that there is some range in the descriptions. Just10A (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A: can you link the discussion that resulted in consensus for that phrasing? VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I meant that WP:CONSENSUS calls us to compromise: A consensus decision into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal There are an abundance of editors and sources for both positions, and that proposed language reflects that range as required by policy. I was explaining why the proposed language is worded the way it is, not that it's already been settled. Just10A (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do not have to bend over to include "both sides" to adhere to consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying that. Try reading instead of being argumentative. Just10A (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting my reading comprehension is not a good look. You argued that the consensus rules "call us to compromise," which I rebutted. The fact you don't like being told "no" is your own issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't. You cited WP:FALSEBALANCE. However, as cited above (and explictly said in my comment if you read it), there are an abundance of reliable sources and significant weight that associates antifa with the "far-left." Thus, it's not false balance, it's cooperating with editors to properly convey what the myriad of sources reflect. WP:CONSENSUS explicitly says to "try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns" and promotes collaboration. So yes, it does call us to compromise when the RS supports it. Again, come back after you've read next time. Just10A (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insisting on personal attacks, I see. Yes, I cited FALSEBALANCE because that's what your argument boils down to: give in to your side as "compromise" instead of adhering to WP:DUE. I'll not be replying any further, since you seem determined to have the last word. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, FALSEBALANCE applies to fringe theories, not things openly and meticulously sourced by many editors and reliable sources. I realize it's tempting to want to argue back when someone says something you don't like, but you should really give Wikipedia policy an objective look before doing such things.
Also, just to be clear, there were no personal attacks in this exchange. Just10A (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Just10A that it is not fringe to say that antifa is far left, but falsebalance still applies if it's a minority view. This is why I emphasise below that putting forward instances of the use of "far left" isn't enough; to use that phrase in the lead in our voice, we need to see that it is what the preponderance of good sources (ideally the best sources) say, and not a minority view. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A: Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. If it wasn't clear, I object to this specific phrasing because it seems to be novel and reads awkwardly to me. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an alternative phrasing? Could help with compromising. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues with the extant description of "left wing". It's a blanket term that doesn't need further qualification. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sourcing. Clearly some sources use "far-left" or "far left" to describe contemporary US antifa. Showing this does is not sufficient for us using this designation in our voice in the lead. There are a huge number of potential sources on this topic, so to use a descriptor in our voice in the lead we would need to see that (a) the WP:BESTSOURCES use it, (b) the preponderance of (and not just some) reliable sources tend to use it, (c) no more than an insignificant minority of RSs reject, contest or contradict it. So far, yes-!voters are simply dropping in arbitrary examples, but none of them so far seem to be good examples of best sources. To make it easier, some suggestions on sources that aren't best sources:
  • scholarly articles by scholars in other fields, e.g. social media, who are not experts on political ideologies and movements.[[51]
  • introductory pieces from 2017 when "antifa" was suddenly in the public eye and mainstream news sources rushed out badly researched "explainers" on a topic that they were obviously new to, and which were superseded by better sources later.[52][53][54]
  • takes from advocacy organisations that are borderline reliable and hostile to the left.[[55]
  • pieces that identify them with the left including the far left rather than with the far left specifically, e.g. CNN's very cautious "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."[56] or PBS's "antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left-leaning movements that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists".[57]
  • opinion pieces by people who are not experts on the topic.[58][59]
  • anything by right-wing blogger and "persistent internet troll" Eoin Lenihan.[60]
  • articles about other topics.[61]
BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Major, mainstream media cannot be dismissed as biased sources. BBC is not biased: "far-left"; Reuters is not biased: "far-left"; PBS is not biased: "far-left"; The New York Times is not biased: "far-left"; The Los Angeles Times is not biased: "far-left"; etc. A veritable abundance, rather than your very inaccurate "mostly." -The Gnome (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this assessment by the Gnome. This is a pretty conclusive set of very reliable sources that use this label, multiple times. — Czello (music) 14:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call these sources biased. Maybe read what I actually wrote. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You dismissed every single source that does not abide by the lie about Antifa being simply an organization of the broad left, like the social-democrats, the socialists, the neo-marxists, and others. And, yes, of course, I read what the opposite party is proffering as arguments before addressing them. So, brass tacks: I simply cited impeccable sources. Which go against your general and quite unfair dismissal. Seize the opportunity and, as a short cut, consider in a somber manner whether Antifa per sources looks to be closer to a Socialist party or to a anarchist organization. -The Gnome (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Frankly, since you are a member of Antifa yourself, I'd expect a better defense against the term "far-left." Are there, for example, instances or cases, of intentional avoidance of violence, of non-radical speech, and the like? -The Gnome (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that both our article and all reliable sources are clear that antifa doesn't have "members".
And yes, all of the reliable sources make it clear that violence is more often than not avoided. E.g. USA Today: lack of highly public engagement by anti-fascists [in 2021] doesn’t mean the movement has gone away. Antifa experts and self-proclaimed anti-fascists said activists do what they have always done: quietly research and expose racists, bigots and other people who mean harm to their fellow Americans and work on community projects that support marginalized people. “In the broad spectrum of activities that are effective in anti-fascism, most go completely unnoticed compared to street action, which is really just the tip of the spear,” said Chad Loder, an anti-fascist activist in Southern California. “That’s really just an activity of last resort for Antifa.” Because many people define Antifa only by the actions of a minority of activists, rather than recognizing the entirety of the movement, they miss the whole picture, said Stanislav Vysotsky, a professor of criminology and author of the book "American Antifa." “The street demonstrator is such a small portion of what anti-fascist activism entails that it's very much blown out of proportion," Vysotsky said. “Ninety-five percent of anti-fascist activism is nonconfrontational and nonviolent.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my point (c) above, I have now added a (collapsed) list of sources that contest or contradict the "far left" designation to my !vote in the survey above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"revolutionaries"

[edit]

I've been going through the cites in the lead, due to the RfC above, and I'm now questioning this text which has been in the lead for a long time: A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries, and have little allegiance to liberal democracy, although some social democrats also participate in the antifa movement. I notice the citations in what is now footnote 7 are all from 2017, suggesting this was edited in then, but I don't think the sourcing is very strong or reflects best sources now. It might be too much to deal with this at the same time as the "far left" question, but if other editors are looking at sources too maybe it's good to consider it at the same time. Revolutionaries is supported by Bray: anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right... Militant anti-fascists disagree with the pursuit of state bans against “extremist” politics because of their revolutionary, anti-state politics and because such bans are more often used against the Left than the Right (He says the same thing in his interview with Vox) But it is not supported by the BBC, NYT, WaPo or Al-Jazeera, the other sources in the footnote, and I don't feel it reflects the preponderance of good sources. My instinct, then, might be to delete "who describe themselves as revolutionaries" from the lead, even if we leave the similar phrasing in the "Movement structure and ideology" section of the body. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows developments. If a party or an organization followed, very schematically put, ideology A and now follow ideology B, both A and B have their place in the respective article, one as a historical reference and the other as a description of the present. -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that's right, but the sources don't say they were and now they aren't; it's just that there a small number of sources from 2017 that said something like this which makes me think this is a leftover from when we were first building the page due to a surge of interest in 2017. My question is more about whether it's DUE in the lead. I have no strong feeling on this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "members of antifa"

[edit]

the intro promotes the ignorant right-wing trope that there is a group named ANTIFA. 2001:56B:9FE1:560:0:49:CDB8:E001 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it does, why do you? How would you re-phrase it differently? TFD (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)&oldid=1251570455"