Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Lead and NPOV issues

The lead should not be filled with rambling descriptions of the group's ideology--we should be striving for concision here per MOS:LEAD. Also, "comprised of" is grammatically incorrect. See WP:COMPRISEDOF. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to fix that after I posted it but was too tired and in bed already. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No opinion on compromised of vs composed of, but the rest of your changes are a bit more controversial - specifically seeking to include unsourced 'accusations' against anti-fascist protesters. I think you should workshop that more before putting that in the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

As you can see above, we had a full on discussion merely over the word "conglomeration" and achieved consensus before we implemented the change. Please don't rewrite the entire lede and expect no one to revert and ask you to discuss and gain consensus first, that is "stupid, counterproductive, and harms the consensus building process". QuestFour (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@QuestFour: I have yet to hear what your actual objections are; if you could articulate them, that might give us a good starting point for the discussion. What you're doing seems to me like WP:STONEWALLING. And @PeterTheFourth:, that the group's members have been accused of employing violence (have, in fact, employed violence) is noted in a multitude of reliable sources. Here's one from the NYT. That the current lead glosses over these details in favor of an elongated description of it's supposed ideology is both an NPOV violation and dilutes what should be a short summary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at one example: the lead says the group engages in "direct action," apparently as a euphemism for the physical confrontations/attacks we've seen reported, and links to a BBC article. However, that phrase isn't used in the source whatsoever. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Direct action is not a euphemism for violence. We have an article on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking whether or not "direct action" is a legitimate standalone topic. I'll ask again: How was that term deemed an appropriate descriptor? I don't see a source making that assertion, at least not the one cited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We used direct action as a summary for the various diverse tactics employed by antifa activists in a rather painfully agreed consensus some months ago. It's supported by RSes in the article body per MOS:LEDE. Considering how some editors who have previously come to article talk want to POV push the idea that antifa activists are an organized gang of violent vigilantes, the use of the phrase "direct action" was, at the time, a very real attempt at a compromise that supported WP:NPOV. But if you believe you can construct a more neutral lede please feel free to run a draft by us here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that is an inapt cite. This CNN piece would work if we decide to keep that terminology. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The CNN source does not use that terminology either - "direct action" appears to be a summary wholly contrived by a Wikipedia editor without any proper sourcing. This appears to be pretty blatant WP:OR and possibly WP:SYNTH, and a so-called "consensus" does not allow a violation of established policy. Second, "run a draft by you?" I don't see many "POV pushers" asserting that "antifa activists are an organized gang," though I see that the majority of reliable sources covered incidents of violence by the group, and that a small group of editors in this discussion appears to be exhibiting some WP:OWN-like behavior. The current lead is out of compliance with NPOV and reads like a PR piece for the organization, and this problem extends into much of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, so all I suggested was that if you didn't like the compromise decision from several months prior you could propose a draft of a new para. I know it's easier to just do a drive-by tagging but it's hardly productive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote from the CNN piece I linked above, "But Crow said the philosophy of Antifa is based on the idea of direct action." I can see reasons to disfavor that in the lead, but this does not count as use of the terminology? Dumuzid (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that either of these sources say that "direct action" is the group's "principal feature." And even so, the majority of coverage on Antifa in the USA is about violence that's been attributed to its members. Why is this being downplayed in the lead and throughout the article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not being downplayed and there is a good faith disagreement between editors with different perspectives? In my experience, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Any perspective based on the sources would have to account for the violence the group is responsible for -- if an editor's own personal perspective is what prevails, we have a problem (it's called POV-pushing) and that's what I'm reading in this article. Also problematic are the edit-warring, efforts to stifle ANY changes, and auto-removal cleanup tags. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so you are right and other views are invalid. That's good to know; it simplifies things greatly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, because you and others on this thread have proven so open-minded and amenable to change? Please. Why don't you try addressing the substance of my comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No thank you. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you might find discussion easier if you stop using words/phrases like stonewalling, blatant WP:OR, so-called "consensus", a small group of editors in this discussion appears to be exhibiting some WP:OWN-like behavior, editor's own personal perspective, POV-pushing, efforts to stifle ANY changes, Right, because you and others on this thread have proven so open-minded and amenable to change? Striking out at other editors in nearly every edit rarely leads to consensus and you are likely to be ignored. O3000 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and O3000: I'm unmoved by your prediction that I'll be "ignored." My comments are on the article and editors' behavior that I believe is damaging the article and tilting away from neutrality. @QuestFour:'s insistence on automatically reverting any changes and removing cleanup tags without discussion exemplify that problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: You've accused me of "drive-by tagging" and not participating on the talk page. First of all, I'm tagging you here, on the talk page, where I've raised my concerns. Second, in case this wasn't clear the first time, you should not be removing cleanup tags without consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You refusing to discuss drafts and then unilaterally inserting your preferred version of the lede in mainspace isn't precisely seeking consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is that you're repeatedly removing cleanup tags, for which proposing text is not a requirement. I've raised my concerns about neutrality here. The lead should not editorialize by describing "direct action" as a "principal feature" and calling property damage and violence a "varied protest tactic." The NYT explicitly stated that the group encourages violence, also mentioned in the body. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of tags is to bring in editors to discuss something that isn't being discussed, normally on quiet articles. This article has 276 page watchers. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Several other editors disagree with your changes, going against WP:CON and insisting on reinserting your preferred version will only get you blocked. QuestFour (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@QuestFour: You are misrepresenting consensus—and edit-warring minor and in some cases necessary changes. There has been little to no discussion on my specific edits, which I have explained here repeatedly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Wikieditor19920 that the article violates NPOV and should have the disputed neutrality tag. The lead in particular is saying things that go beyond sources. "Principal feature" is not in the cited sources as far as I can tell. Online conflicts are not mentioned in the body of the article. "Rather than through electoral means" seems to go beyond anything in any source or in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The tag should be reinserted. @Simonm223: should be clear that by "drive-by tagging" they really mean "tags I disagree with and therefore do not want to have to address." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that isn't what it means -- and you need to avoid assuming bad faith. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: It seems unlikely to me that users involved so far will come to consensus on whether the tag should be included. The normal idea would be to pursue dispute resolution by calling for a RfC, right? Why not do that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Simonm223 displayed bad faith by editing warring and accusing me of "drive-by tagging," both issues I see you have yet to weigh in on. @Shinealittlelight: Per the rules on WP:CLEANUPTAG, so long as a dispute is present, a tag is appropriate. The tag indicates an issue in the article; only after consensus has been reached that the issue's been resolved should the tag be removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at WP:WTRMT, which says it can be removed If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. These templates are not exceptions to the regular BRD process, it seems to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That element requires a discussion be open and active--you're right here looking at it. You agreed with me on the issue. I'm not clear if you're now backtracking or just interested in arguing a minor procedural issue, but the tag should not have been removed unilaterally. In fact, there are multiple areas of the article in need of a tag—all of which were edit-warred out. Example: This is an article on US antifa, but the "history" section entirely covers the international movement. The tag I applied noting this was immediately purged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion of the content, and that the tag should be put in the article. But there is dispute on this point, and I don't think I agree with you about the correct dispute resolution process. I don't think this is a minor procedural issue as much as a question of what to do next. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that, if someone believes a tag is in order (as you and I do in this case), and that person edits the tag in, then consensus has to be reached to remove it. But normally, when a bold change is made, those who disagree are free to revert and discuss on talk per BRD. We've done that here and failed to reach consensus. So the natural next step is to request comments from others and see if a consensus emerges from that. That's my take; as always it's possible I'm misunderstanding policy. In any case it seems like a RfC would likely be helpful. But I don't see initiating one if you don't agree with me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this, especially where there's something like stability prior to the tagging. I reverted the tagging once, though, admittedly that was an accident--I thought that it was a more substantive edit, and indeed, I don't like that sort of edit-warring. That being said, my sense here is that there's something approaching consensus that the tag is unnecessary. Some sort of formal approach for figuring that out strikes me as apt. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't need an RfC to determine whether or not to apply the tag--that's an unproductive use of time and energy. The criteria for placing the tag are met with multiple editors who have detailed their concerns about the article, both in this discussion and others. We should be addressing the underlying issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, let's remember the purpose of a tag. It is to identify a possible issue with an article and draw editors to the talk page to discuss it. The tag is in effect an RfC that is advertised on the article itself. The fact that we have a two-sided dispute playing out here on the talk page makes the tag fully appropriate and much needed. The supposition by other editors that edit-warring the tags out of the article is in the interest of consensus building rings hollow. Edit warring regarding tags represents a desire to stifle discussion and quash opposing viewpoints. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Third time. Stop making accusations against other editors. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following. I quoted a policy above stating that tags like this can be removed when they are "not fully supported". I interpret "not fully supported" to mean "no consensus for inclusion". Sadly, there's not a consensus for inclusion of the tag right now. So do you think I somehow misunderstood the policy I quoted? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Wikieditor about Edit warring regarding tags represents a desire to stifle discussion and quash opposing viewpoints and numerous other unpleasant comments about other editors here. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Wikieditor19920, not you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I should just like to point out that "Who" is the name of the player at first base. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The addressee of my comment was clearly indicated by my carefully spaced outdent! Clearly! Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but editors often just use the OD default. O3000 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: What I said is completely correct. Edit-warring a tag out of an article is disruptive and makes it less likely editors will make note of the issue(s) identified by the tag. In this case, that would be, in my opinion and others, this article's failure to abide NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

An example of how editors often just use the OD default. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: AGF is not a suicide pact. When I stated that your insertion of that tag was a drive-by tagging it was after I made at least a couple of attempts to engage you at talk, asking you to propose new drafts for discussion among other things. You instead replied with WP:BATTLEGROUND - perhaps assuming that my rather strict interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS and interest in applying the WP:FRINGE topic requirements to political and social sciences would make me opposed to unsourced statements regarding the "principle characteristics" of anti-racist activist groups. This is, of course speculation, as I don't recall any previous interaction with you and am uncertain where your immediate hostility came from. Now that said, no I was not assuming any particular good faith when I removed that tag. Because you have not demonstrated any since you became active at this article talk. So here's my suggestion: propose a properly sourced draft of a revision to the lede. Discuss it here. Be open to the possibility that consensus will not support the precise wording you prefer. Believe it or not, we all want a neutral, factual and well referenced article on this significant current social movement. We may disagree about what "neutral" actually means here. And that's something you will need to accept. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: It seems you're the one who has a problem with disagreement. That you merely replied to me on the talk page does not justify removal of the NPOV tag. Multiple other editors have agreed that NPOV is a concern. Also, you are not entitled to a "draft." No Wiki page has an owner. The purpose of a tag is to identify a possible problem to other editors and invite them to join a discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Every political article has multiple editors who believe the article to be non-neutral., That doesn't mean we should tag them all. O3000 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not the point here. We have an active an open disagreement, detailed in multiple threads, over neutrality. I have identified specific issues to be addressed, as have other editors. In this situation, tag is fully appropriate to identify the dispute and have others weigh in. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

My argument is not an example of OSE, and that is not the purpose of tags. If you have a problem with the article, draft some text instead of wasting time talking about tags. O3000 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, responses like that are what I mean by WP:BATTLEGROUND - look I'm through trading barbs with you. This isn't a productive use of anybody's time. Please let me know when you want to discuss article content here on article talk. Until then I've said my piece. Your tags were borderline WP:POINTED, they were at least WP:BOLD and they were reverted per WP:BRD. Everybody here is quite ready to discuss the concerns you may have regarding the article neutrality. Instead you have spent two days arguing about the procedural rightness of removing the tags. WP:DEADHORSE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: What I've written aren't barbs, and you are not the arbiter of which issues are legitimate and are not. It was wrong for you to remove the tags without allowing a discussion to take place. And because my full point has apparently gone unheard: the tag ensures that other editors visiting this page are made aware of the discussion on this issue and are prompted to join it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's also clarify WP policy. It is stated on the template that tags are not to be removed without discussion. The BRD cycle does not apply for cleanup tags, it applies for content changes. I suggest you take a different tack to handling other editors' raising of article problems, and I expect and hope you'll conduct yourself accordingly now that I've explained the proper procedures for addressing cleanup tags. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say there's been substantial discussion. You don't have consensus. Don't edit war over this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion indicates disagreement. A tag is meant to indicate non-consensus on an issue, not consensus--otherwise, the tag wouldn't be applied. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issues

The following are issues that I and other editors have raised with the lead:

• Description of "direct action" as a "principal feature"
• Reference to "physical violence" as a "protest tactic"
• Failure to give proper weight to sources like the NYT describing accusations against the group for employing violence

Other editors should feel free to expand this and make specific proposals on how to better balance the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to have pretty seriously misread the NYT article - which seems to come to this conclusion “Throwing a milkshake is not equivalent to killing someone, but because the people in power are allied with the right, any provocation, any dissent against right-wing violence, backfires,” Professor Ben-Ghiat said. and Between 2010 and 2016, 53 percent of terrorist attacks in the United States were carried out by religious extremists — 35 percent by right-wing extremists and 12 percent by left-wing or environmentalist extremists, according to a University of Maryland-led consortium that studies terrorism.

Militancy on the left can “become a justification for those in power and allies on the right to crack down,” Professor Ben-Ghiat said. “In these situations, the left, or antifa, are historically placed in impossible situations.”

However I remain interested in seeing a draft of what you propose the lede should look like. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You are free to review my prior edits to the lead, which have been edit-warred out. I will likely re-propose them on this page. In the meantime, let's not throw around accusations of "misreading" by cherrypicking quotes. What I stated above is fully supported by the source. See here: The antifa movement gained more visibility in 2017 after a series of events that put a spotlight on anti-fascist protesters, including the punching of a prominent alt-right member; the cancellation of an event by a right-wing writer at the University of California, Berkeley; and the protests in Charlottesville that turned violent. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... the protests in Charlottesville that turned violent - that was nazi violence not antifa. A cancellation of an event is no-platforming. That's literally direct action. And that leaves you with punching Richard Spencer for your claim that violence is being under-represented based on this source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

ETA - re Charlottesville violence - she was an anti-fascist. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think we're here to argue about whether or not the group's actions are legitimate? Let me remind you: we are not. Here's another quote from the article indicating controversy over the group's alleged violent tactics: The movement has been widely criticized among the mainstream left and right. After the protests in Berkeley, Calif., in August 2017, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decried “the violent actions of people calling themselves antifa” and said they should be arrested. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The first quote you used above seems to me to treat antifa as a subset of "anti-fascist protesters." As such, while the events listed are certainly attributed to the latter category, I would not say the quote is usable to trace the listed events to antifa specifically. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here's the thing, this NYT article is a survey article; it's trying to capture a breadth of reactions, though it's particularly amusing to see Pelosi classified as "mainstream left". But it isn't really saying anything about the principal features of antifascism, and using it to try and state that violence is a principal feature would be WP:SYNTH because it does not say that. At all. It quotes some people who think antifascists are violent. But it also quotes some people who think antifascists aren't and quotes statistics that suggest far-left extremism results in far less violence than far-right extremism. So again, the question becomes one of particulars. What, exactly do you want to say about antifascism in the lede supported by what sources, exactly? Because I've asked you for a draft like... five or six times now I think. I'm really not wedded to "principal feature is direct action." As I mentioned to you back at the top of this thread, that was a compromise we reached over disputes regarding the neutrality and verifiability of our various preferred wordings, and we workshopped the heck out of it. Revisiting it is fine. But it can't be a vague, "we should say their violent thugs" vs "we should say they're heroes of the revolution" sort of discussion. We need particulars. That's all I've ever been asking of you. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than, "the group employs varied protest tactics like... physical violence," I believe something along the lines of: The group emerged in response to rallies and protests organized by the far-right. Some of its members have been accused of violence and property damage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I can already see the tag on that statement. Also it's inaccurate and unsupported by sources. A) antifa isn't a group but rather a movement or ideology. Rose City Antifa is a group. But they're not the same as the ideology as a whole. B) Antifa as an ideology, as the NYT mentions, arose in Weimar Germany, and was popularized in the United States after 2016, but notable goups of antifascists such as Rose City Antifa formed earlier (like 2006). But I will say thank you for proposing a draft even if I think it still needs work. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Some members of local antifa groups have been accused of violence and property damage.? And can we agree that the "principal feature" line should be re-written? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Another notable antifa group, the John Brown Gun Club, formed in 2004 originally, with Redneck Revolt splitting off in 2009. And all of those predate the rise of the alt-right. This is why I keep harping on about Against the Fascist Creep as being a historical narrative we should use more in this, and related, articles. I'm aware Reid Ross is a geographer rather than an historian, but he's put far more effort into understanding the complex relationship between antifascism and the far right than any journalist being discussed here has. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm neutral on rewriting that line, with the caveat that I would prefer, if it's replaced, that an academic source like Against the Fascist Creep or some others editors proposed back in the day be given preference over newsmedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with a more academic source, but I don't believe the book you cited to be superior to the NYT. Particularly on events in the past two years. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah but that's the rub. This article should avoid WP:RECENTISM especially in the lede. Antifa existed much more than two years. And antifascist groups were brawling with Nazis in the streets of New York before the US even got its boots wet in WWII. So the lede shouldn't be about Rose City Antifa in 2017-19. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And as for the book I cited, don't let its exciting title fool you. It's an academic work of history focusing on two topics: how fascists manipulated ideology in various times and places to enter other political movements and how anti-fascists mobilized to confront them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The majority of attention the "movement" has received in reliable sources has been for its activities in the preceding three years. The coverage has been broad and consistent enough that we don't need to start deferring to obscure academic sources and books that may be somewhat dated. I am fine with the book as a supplement to, but not a replacement for, the NYT and other reputable news outlets. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though it doesn't look as though there is a final proposal, I think a revision to the lead along the lines Wikieditor19920 suggests could be an improvement. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

I propose that we remove the controversies section. The paragraph begins: Antifa has faced controversial situations regarding their attacks There is no such thing as a "controversial situation". A controversy is an argument on a matter of opinion. The "situations" described either occurred and have been described by reliable sources, in which case there's no controversy, or they didn't, in which case we shouldn't mention them. If there is to be a controversies section, it ought to discuss opposite views that have been advanced and maintained by opponents as documented in reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Renaming the section might be appropriate. However, this is not a justification for entirely removing the section with all of its content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, can you propose a new heading that accurately reflects the contents of the section? Vexations (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the best alternatives would be "Incidents" or "Allegations of violence," or something alone those lines. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "allegations of violence". Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, "allegations of" is unacceptable. We don't publish allegations. Vexations (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vexations: Wikipedia policy allows inclusion of information covered in reliable sources, whether it's an allegation or a matter of fact. In this case, that the group's members have committed acts of violence is not really in dispute; "accusation" or "allegation" is a precaution, and probably an unnecessary one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I have no objections to referring matters of fact per se, but I do object to listing them under the heading "Controversies". Matters of fact are not controversies, because they are not matters of opinion. Vexations (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not true. Example: [1]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, we don't publish allegations, we publish summaries of what reliable sources have to say about them. If that is what you intend to do, then please do so. Vexations (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

No one has suggested adding unverified allegations in the article, nor are there any currently present within the article. Is that how you interpret renaming the section "Controversy" to "Allegations of violence" (which is what it addresses) or are you just intent on arguing against points no one has made? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I am afraid it is prone into turning into a catalogue of a series of events that attract news attention violating WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Cinadon36 22:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Both the content and the name of the section are appropriate. But I would agree with changing the sentence quoted about "controversial situations" per Vexations. How about: "Antifa's use of violence has given rise to various controversies." Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I think it would be helpful if we could agree on what "controversy" means. I think it means "an argument or dispute on a matter of opinion; a (typically heated) discussion involving contrary opinions". I have the impression that you and Delta fiver use a different definition. Perhaps you can clarify what exactly you think a controversy is. Thanks. Vexations (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt we're going to be able to define 'controversy'. Are you disputing that there has been controversy about what happened, e.g., to Ngo? I'm not seeing what the issue is here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, we can't have a conversation if we don't agree on the meaning of words. I just gave you a definition of controversy. The way it's used as a heading for a section that is not about an argument on a matter of opinion is simply wrong.

Yes, I am saying there is no controversy about what happened to Ngo, who is not the subject of this article BTW.

The definition I provided is from the Oxford English Dictionary, the principal historical dictionary of the English language. If you're going to insist on an alternative use of "controversy" that you cannot define, I would like to proceed with deleting the section. Vexations (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not using 'controversy' in any alternative way; rather, I'm just using it as it is used in ordinary English. Of course there has been controversy about Antifa's use of violence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, then you can help by using reliable sources to show the argument or dispute on a matter of opinion. Summarize who is contending what and show the different points of view without bias and with proper due weight. That's not what that section currently does. Vexations (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This combative WP:SHOWME approach is unpersuasive and disruptive. The controversies about the group and its members' actions has received substantial attention in reliable sources like the NYT, CNN, etc., which satisfies WP:DUE. "Different points of view" does not mean creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, we cannot cover a controversy without reporting on both sides of the argument. Vexations (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have "another side" to include, it ought to be noted in a reliable source. This has nothing to do, by the way, with the title of the section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment I'll actually concede that I'm not completely opposed to revising the name of the section—again, there's been a lot of discussion on whether controversies sections generally violate NPOV and I tend to agree that they tend to cross the line. However, the way it's been presented here has me concerned. If we are to "remove" the section, it should only be to remove the section label; the actual contents of the section should be integrated into the article, or moved, along with some other material, under a new, more appropriately named section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Controversy sections are inherently POV and against standards. Instead, controversies should be incorporated into the the main text. For example, the attack on the marines could be moved to the section that says, "Instead they advocate popular opposition to fascism as we witnessed in Charlottesville". Then it has context. A group of accountants might attack people they thought were Nazis, but it wouldn't be clear how it was relevant to an article about them. TFD (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Given that it was just added a few moments ago (and many of the things in it have repeatedly failed to get consensus for inclusion above, some of which are still under discussion above), I've killed the section for now. Even if we were going to cover these things - which, again, we're already discussing above and don't need yet another section for - this isn't the right way to arrange them per WP:CSECTION. Regarding the specific inclusions, of course, I strongly oppose including anything about Ngo or the Marines as WP:UNDUE; the latter in particular seems completely trivial, and the former has little long-term coverage relative to the other things in the article (which are more clearly central to the topic.) We don't need to create a separate paragraph for every individual news cycle about the topic. Finally, since we've gone around in circles on whether to include Ngo in particular several times now, I strongly recommend an WP:RFC on that specific topic if people think it can get a consensus - right now I'm not seeing it. Just constantly re-adding it and then offering to "compromise" on the section header is a bit silly. You know it's controversial, you know discussions have failed to reach a clear consensus; if you think it must be included, open an RFC, since it's clear we're at the point where talk-page discussions are going in circles. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I've seen you go from page to page "killing" controversy sections on disputed articles before discussion has anywhere close to concluded. No one agreed on removing the content, just renaming the section. You need to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If you look up this page, you'll see an extensive discussion over whether to include Ngo or not which plainly hasn't reached a consensus to include. Just dropping it in the article and then saying the discussion is now over how to title the section is obviously silly. And naturally adding an entire section is WP:BOLD (especially when the centerpiece of the section is material currently under discussion that lacks a consensus to include), so removing it is an obvious exercise of WP:BRD. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument by @Aquillion: for removal of the content--mention of the incidents with Ngo and the Marines--\based on WP:DUE is spboth specious and weak. The incident with Ngo received extensive national coverage and the note of it in the article was barely more than a line. Likewise with the incident involving the Marine -- these are both more relevant to the group's activities, based on reliable source coverage, than most of the other information in the article. It is not appropriate to remove it simply because it reflects negatively. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Coverage of the marine incident was incredibly slight; a search turns up largely partisan media, with only one or two articles outside it and no sustained coverage. That's not a good way to demonstrate that an incident is important. Likewise, while the Ngo incident isn't as obscure, it still received little long-term coverage; the purpose of this article isn't to indiscriminately cover every news cycle about Antifa or every time it shows up in an article. Finally, saying that it was "barely more than a line" is misleading - the structure and intent of the section was clearly to present these as major, important aspects of the topic, placing two incidents whose coverage largely comes from partisan media (and, bizarrely, one Newsweek opinion piece) in a structure that reproduced most of the arguments from that media and which elevated them to a major aspect of the topic necessary to understanding it. None of that is supported by the relatively light coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I suggest you go back and re-read WP:DUE. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The incident regarding the journalist Ngo being attacked by antifa members received did not receive "light" coverage. Here are five highly reliable sources that I found with a cursory search addressing the incident: CNN The Hill The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Atlantic. For this article to omit high-profile incidents covered in reliable sources about their activities would violate NPOV. Furthermore, the proposal was never about removing all of the content under the controversies section, it was about whether a controversies section was appropriate. For you to unilaterally remove the content was improper, opportunistic, and showed total disregard for NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment What if the section's renamed to Criticisms because if there's a section named Notable activism which notable is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as worthy of attention or notice or remarkable, there should be a section that also displays the unimpressive things the group has done aswell. Delta fiver (talk), 10:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Delta fiver: Wikipedia already has a definition of "notable", we need to stick to that if we are going to have a section with that title. Basically it would include activities that have their own articles already. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Doug Weller: I'm aware of that, I replied with the Oxford Dictionary line to prove a point as well. This user @Vexations: used the Oxford Dictionary as a talking point to argue what controversy meant. Wikipedia already has policies in place regarding controversies, through the user giving an outside definition it made no contribution to the argument. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 12:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please summarise the non-controversial activities in this subsection for convenience

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller: What do you mean with non-controversial? Every action by antifa might be deemed as controversial by some party. This is probably true for virtually every activist movement. Are you looking for routine protest acts not involving violence? Protests that haven't received much media attention? Best, --MarioGom (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: thanks. That's my point. Why would we have a controversies section if everything they do is controversial? Doug Weller talk 11:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:: I agree. Criticism might be due, but setting aside a controversy section doesn't make sense. --MarioGom (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Against the Fascist Creep

Coming out of the discussion of the lede, I wanted to bring up examining the use of this book as a WP:DUE source. The author of the book is an anarchist doctor of Geography who teaches at Portland State University. However, despite the title on his degree not being "sociology or history" a quick look at his CV makes it clear his main interest is in sociological and historical topics:

Alexander Reid Ross CV

His monograph on the intertwined history of fascism and anti-fascism is a treasure trove of a book and it's mainly been disregarded WP:DUE on the basis that he was seen as operating outside his area of specialty. However I do believe this may have been a mistake.

Frankly there are few enough academic works about anti-fascism specifically and this is one of them. The dispute over the lede has made it clear we need higher quality sources. Let's start here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge there is a dispute over the lead. I think this is a good source for content in the body; however, too much of this book is off-topic. The subject of the article book is specifically is on fascism, not "Anfita in the United States." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's a book. And the title of the book is Against the Fascist Creep - it's more about antifa than fascists. And Reid Ross being an American means he does quite a bit with the history of Antifa in the US, particularly from the 1990s on. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that antifa being a reaction against fascism means you can't really talk about one without talking about the other. That's the bit a lot of American media get wrong. They wonder where all these antifascists came from and then interview Richard Spencer on his views on this or that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "principal feature" line, it still seems like WP:SYNTH to me, unless you can find a direct attribution. I have no opinion as of yet on use of this source for other content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example of a useful quote from the book on the formation of west-coast antifascist groups: . According to Treloar, groups representing both existed to defeat the rise of fascist skinheads in Portland. At the same time, a new antifascist group emerged. The Coalition for Human Dignity incorporated a broadening diversity of tactics, including armed community defense and the outing of fascist skinheads at their apartments and jobs to remove basic necessities and push them out of Portland. Note "diversity of tactics" Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And the book, as a whole, really shows how dependent antifascism is on doxing and no-platforming, both of which are far more important to the movement than fist fights. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is starting to sound like advocacy rather than a balanced evaluation on the source's reliability. In the quote you provided, it's unclear if the author is specifically referring to antifa-afilliated groups. Second, I would not rate this source as more reliable than the NYT; the author appears to be a university instructor, non-tenure track, with a relatively limited body of work. I don't see many Google Scholar hits either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

So, a book by a graduate student outside his field, without serious reviews, published by a publish-the-umpublishable niche printer, that differs only from the late, great Loompanics only in its partisanship. Nope, that ain’t a good source. Qwirkle (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

He's a PhD. And nice try at lampshading academic work because a leftist wrote it. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The interested reader can use a search engine to see his Linkedin page, his personal website, and the pages connecting him with his school’s graduate program. All describe him as a candidate; at least some suggest it is for 2020. The fellow hasn’t a doctorate, and his academic career is not directly relevant to this book. Qwirkle (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue is reliability. The author is unestablished, the publisher is obscure, and the work does not focus on the topic of the article exclusively. This definitely not more reliable than the NYT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Official classification by the German government

As the history section of this article notes, "the lineage of antifa in America can be traced to" Germany and "the English word antifa is a loanword from German, taken from an abbreviation of the word antifaschistisch ("anti-fascist") and the name of Antifaschistische Aktion".

Because Germany is where the movement originated and because the article already includes a lengthy discussion of the movement's roots in Europe, and also in light of the above discussion on the classification of Antifa as terrorists by the US government, it would be relevant to include somewhere in the history section, in the context of the already existing discussion of the movement's European roots, that the Antifa movement is officially classified as extremist by the German government:

(I have included quotes in the references here, but they might be removed if deemed too detailed)

The German government's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies the field of "anti-fascism" or "Antifa" as extremist and includes it and associated groups in its annual public reports on extremism as part of the topic "far-left extremism"; the federal office notes that "the field of 'anti-fascism' has for years been a central element of the political activity of far-left extremists, especially violent ones. Far-left extremists within this tradition only superficially claim to fight far-right activities. In reality the focus is the struggle against liberal democracy, which is smeared as a 'capitalist system' with 'fascist' roots."

References

Without this piece of information, it looks as if the description of Antifa as extremist is something invented by Trump, which certainly isn't true; rather this description has its roots in the "extremism research" of German academic and government institutions and dates back decades. (Note to editors not familiar with me or my views: I'm not proposing this as a way to support Trump; I'm highly critical of Trump, but I also have a long-standing interest in extremism from a European perspective) --Tataral (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't an attempt to tweak the noses of Germans and insert an inaccurate POV in light of the ichbinantifa hashtag thing. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. This is the German government's official opinion, and has been at least since the early 1980s. --Tataral (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a few news articles that mention the dispute. It's probably WP:TOOSOON to include in article talk, but attempts to insert a POV about Germany on this, the page about the US Antifa, should not try to present like antifascists are some sort of feared gang in Germany in light of stuff like this: [2] [3] [4] Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the sources I presented above are of somewhat higher quality than The Daily Express and other tabloids about some hashtag created by politicians who belong to the successor of the East German communist party (the very party that until 1989 referred to the Berlin Wall as the "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall"). My proposal has nothing to do with any hashtag and predates it. "Antifa" groups are indeed officially considered extremists in Germany, and people creating hashtags in support of them are most likely to be affiliated with the very groups that the German government includes in its reports on extremism. --Tataral (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You mean the WP:PRIMARY source you provided? As bizarre as it seems, no. It's not. Especially not for assessing the cultural position of antifascism within Germany. Some notoriously out of touch spies (seriously, they don't have a great reputation for being good at intelligence gathering) don't get the WP:DUE weight over a current popular movement. Simonm223 (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond that, I concur with @Dumuzid:'s edit summary. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The German Ministry of the Interior and the annual reports on extremism published by the German government enjoy a good reputation, and your personal dislike (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) of the German government is not relevant, and neither is The Daily Express an adequate source. --Tataral (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether I like the German security apparatus. And I frankly never expressed event the faintest hint of an opinion on the German government. But that's rather the point. This is a WP:PRIMARY report to the government. If it were determined a German source talking about the German antifascist movement were due even the slightest mention on a page specifically about the US antifascist movement, we would prefer WP:SECONDARY sources about how the report was received, and what was actually done. These sorts of "well somebody said a bad thing" additions are transparent POV pushes. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not, it's a report to the public, well-known as a serious source that is far superior to The Daily Express that you proposed as a source. And whether it qualifies as WP:PRIMARY or not is utterly irrelevant when it's used a source for the German government's official position. The only transparent POV pushing is the attempt to exclude this information for no other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tataral (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a page about a German movement. Furthermore the source you provided is a WP:PRIMARY source. Please address that rather than just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT over and over. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop mentioning WP:PRIMARY until you've read it, then? There is no general ban on primary sources on Wikipedia. --Tataral (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The source does not officially classify "Antifa movement" as extremist. It does something similar to it, but not quite the same. It states that antifascism (not Antifa) is a field of action or central element of left-wing extremists. I corrected the article accordingly ([5]). At least that's what understood from it, although someone with better knowledge of German might help clarifying the exact details. --MarioGom (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The federal office does indeed classify Antifa as extremist, and includes it as a field of action and as specific groups within that field in the chapter specifically on far-left extremism in the annual report. Antifa is merely an abbreviation for anti-fascism and the terms are used synonymously by the federal office. The material on that specific page is really just an excerpt of the full report. --Tataral (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A primary source is considered inferior to a secondary source. Even (ugh) journalistic ones. (Honestly I think it's a bad policy - but it still is WP policy.) And it's pretty clear in this case that the edit you attempted is inserting a POV that doesn't properly capture the German Zeitgeist regarding the American antifa movement as shown by WP:SECONDARY sources. As such, since I have WP:POV concerns and as those concerns are ameliorated by pointing out that this primary source is, in fact, contradicted by secondary sources with regard to the topic of the article - the American antifa movement, not the German one - I fully intend to cite those policies, even if I may continue to advocate to change them at WP:RS/N. Is this clear enough now? Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, a primary source is not always considered inferior, and certainly not to an article in The Daily Express. A straight-forward quotation from a government website or government report aimed at the public, used as a source for the government's position, is in fact superior to any Daily Express article or other low-quality tabloid newspaper source that you have provided regarding some hashtag unrelated to the issue at hand. Your personal views and POV on an alleged "Zeitgeist" are not relevant either. -Tataral (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, as I mentioned when I hatted this WP:NOTFORUM digression, your opinion of WP:SECONDARY is irrelevant. The WP:PRIMARY source you mentioned has nothing to do with the American antifascist movement. So notwithstanding my still unaddressed WP:POV concerns, this is entirely WP:UNDUE and is thoroughly off-topic for this page. While I welcome the debate at the other page where you attempted to adjust the POV with the same edit, this is not the place. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot hat a constructive proposal for a specific change, supported by sources, merely because you personally disagree with the proposal. That only part that deserves hatting is your digression into your views on the "Zeitgeit of Germany" and your dislike of the German government's security establishment and so on. --Tataral (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unlike the secondary sources I mentioned, your document is mute on the issue of what Germans think of the American antifa movement. What part of this is hard to get? You are having this discussion on the wrong page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And once more, I have expressed no opinion on the German government and your attempts to conflate their intelligence service with their government is not something I intend to engage with. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The article already establishes that a discussion of the origins of the movement in Europe is relevant, and that Antifa in the US cannot be discussed without any mention of its European origins. Almost none of the sources in the "History" section mention the "American Antifa" specifically. The quote was used in the context of that discussion, and is at least as relevant as any discussion of Mussolini and so on. And I'm not conflating anything, the annual report is published by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which is regarded as part of the German government. --Tataral (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No. This is off topic. I have started a discussion at the appropriate article talk page. Please discuss the issues of WP:POV and WP:DUE there. Because this is not relevant to the topic of this article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It is just as relevant to the topic of this article as other parts of the history section here that is mainly about its origins in Europe. --Tataral (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It isn't about the same group of people. At all. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So do we remove Mussolini too, then? He certainly had never heard of the "American Antifa." The history section in this very article does in fact that that the "the lineage of antifa in America can be traced to" the Antifa groups that exist in Germany. --Tataral (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a document about the history of antifascism that you are providing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a document relevant to the history of the term/movement/concept "antifascism" as discussed in the history section of this article, a section that already traces the "lineage" of this movement in the US to ... Germany. --Tataral (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point I think the two of us have said enough here. Let's let other editors weigh in. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So, for me, the fact that the source denotes "Antifaschismus" as an "aktionsfeld" means that they are not denoting a single entity or group of people. Moreover, the piece continually uses "linksextremisten" ("left extremists") rather than any proper name. There is the motto "Antifa heißt Angriff," but again, for me, that's a fairly slender reed. Were this an article about German Antifa, I would probably say it rates a mention, but being that this is not the case, I am not sure. Still thinking. If consensus is against me, so be it. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. Dumuzid. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

They are denoting specific entities which are part of the "field" of "anti-fascism" in the report (see above). The report includes a general description of "anti-fascism" as a "field of action" and discussion of specific groups. I have also added another source from the same agency which specifically uses (the informal abbreviation) Antifa as synonymous with "„antifaschistischer“ Linksextremisten":

"Linksextremismus: Erscheinungsformen und Gefährdungspotenziale" (PDF). Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. 2016. Die Aktivitäten „antifaschistischer" Linksextremisten (Antifa) dienen indes nur vordergründig der Bekämpfung rechtsextremistischer Bestrebungen. Eigentliches Ziel bleibt der „bürgerlich-demokratische Staat", der in der Lesart von Linksextremisten den „Faschismus" als eine mögliche Herrschaftsform akzeptiert, fördert und ihn deshalb auch nicht ausreichend bekämpft. Letztlich, so wird argumentiert, wurzle der „Faschismus" in den gesellschaftlichen und politischen Strukturen des „Kapitalismus". Dementsprechend rücken Linksextremisten vor allem die Beseitigung des „kapitalistischen Systems" in den Mittelpunkt ihrer „antifaschistischen" Aktivitäten. --Tataral (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So again I see this as maddeningly vague as to what, exactly, they're talking about--but I tend to think the language we use at Antifaschistische Aktion is probably what I prefer; some spin on "Antifa hosts left wing extremists." But the more time I spend mulling this over, the more it simply seems WP:UNDUE. Certainly, American Antifa can trace back in some ways to German antecedents (say, aesthetically), but to include this would strike me as implying that the groups are one and the same. I don't see evidence tending to support that position, but maybe it exists! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

All else aside, I just don't think it's relevant enough to US Antifa (and there are WP:DUE issues in the sense of - why emphasize this particular account of German antifa? There's a lot more we could say about it if we wanted random descriptions.) The brief mentions in the article are cited to sources that specifically relate those aspects of German Antifa to the American one - using that to support an extended digression via sources that don't mention US Antifa raises WP:SYNTH issues, since you're implying that these things make meaningful statements about the nature or character of US Antifa without any sources to back that up. --Aquillion (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I keep reading this and I just do not see any reason to have any mention of it here. Being anti-fascist and having some extreme left wing supporters does not make the US Antifa movementidentical to that in Germany, and without some seriously reliable sources - and I think this would require academic experts - we have no business suggesting that here. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Weller, Aquillon, Dumuzid, Simon 223 and MarioGom. This a tendentious reading of an ambiguous primary source about a topic which is not the topic of this article. I see no justification for inclusion.