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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 90 days

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

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

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

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles   Anarchism WikiProject open tasks watch · · history · talk · purge Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help? 🚨🚨 Join our ongoing cleanup drive for 2024 – all are invited 🚨🚨 Did you know 24 Jun 2024 – Wong Sau Ying ( talk ·   ·  hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst ( t ·  c); see discussion Articles for deletion 09 Jul 2024 – International Anarchist Congresses ( talk ·   ·  hist) was AfDed by Grnrchst ( t ·  c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted) Good article nominees 20 Jun 2024 – Sophie Kropotkin ( talk ·   ·  hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst ( t ·  c); start discussion 14 May 2024 – Makhnovshchina ( talk ·   ·  hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst ( t ·  c); start discussion 03 May 2024 – Mariano R. Vázquez ( talk ·   ·  hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst ( t ·  c); start discussion 15 Apr 2024 – Anarchism without adjectives ( talk ·   ·  hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst ( t ·  c); start discussion Articles for creation 08 May 2024 – Draft:Donat Cherepanov ( talk ·   ·  hist) has been submitted for AfC by Speedymagoo ( t ·  c) Cleanup (104) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (519) Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, when it received 11,936,594 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened: August 13 to 19, 2017 August 20 to 26, 2017 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So which source specifically says that? I read through all the sources on the citation and none of them have any wording similar enough to warrant this kind of paraphrasing. actually, most of the articles included suggest membership is tangible. In-fact, a verbatim quote from the ADL source listed in citation no.6 says:

"While some antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces. They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence.

"Away from rallies, they also engage in “doxxing,” exposing their adversaries’ identities, addresses, jobs and other private information."

It needs to be re-worded. HoadRog ( talk) 08:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply

That is a totally disingenuous read of those citations. Nothing about that suggests membership is tangible.

Also, resurrecting a section that's been dead for over 2 months is not a good look. WP:DEADHORSE applies here. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 12:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey, i'm just bringing attention to the ongoing isuse. Even if you think membership isn't tangible, why did the paraphrasing from the ADL source include a part that the ADL did not mention? it's like a reverse omission to include it. The ADL word-for-word is "antifa members do this." not "some who identify as antifa members do this." Someone who made that intro took some "creative liberties" on the paraphrasing is all im saying. I'll leave it at that and hope another individual comes along and has an interest in the subject like, say, Mr. @ The Four Deuces who was the first to reply on the topic. I will leave it there if you wish? HoadRog ( talk) 07:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't believe the ADL is, as a source, appropriately due for statements in Wiki voice regardless. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It would be helpful if you provided links so editors don't have to find the version of the article you are referring to or the ADL article used. TFD ( talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

https://web.archive.org/web/20180401085658/https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa

This is the source they used in the second to last sentence of the introduction. If you go to the 2nd and 3rd to last paragraphs of the ADL article it states that antifa members use doxing and violence among a few other tactics - not people who identify as antifa do.

ADL says: "While some antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces. They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence."

"Away from rallies, they also engage in “doxxing,” exposing their adversaries’ identities, addresses, jobs and other private information. This can lead to their opponents being harassed or losing their jobs, among other consequences. Members of the alt right and other right wing extremists have responded with their own doxxing campaigns, and by perpetuating hateful and violent narratives using fake “antifa” social media accounts."

The Wikipedia entry says:

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

It's just odd to include the "Who identify as" part when the rest of the intro doesn't make that distinction. The preceding sentence and the proceeding sentence do not do so, and they deal in absolutes about what antifa stands for and does. HoadRog ( talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I don’t think this is necessary. Antifa is fundamentally anti-fascist (hence the name), but all people in Antifa don’t necessarily participate in violence. I dunno, I think it’s pretty simple. Professor Penguino ( talk) 05:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

An·ti·fa noun a political protest movement comprising autonomous groups affiliated by their militant opposition to fascism and other forms of extreme right-wing ideology. 2601:245:C480:2590:933:901C:70C2:C3D0 ( talk) 23:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

I’m new to the rules here, so I wanted to ask a question. Mark Bray is cited quite a few times in this article, but he clearly displays bias towards the movement. However, the source is quite comprehensive. My question would be does this constitute a conflict of interest or would his bias be irrelevant to the information he has provided about the movement? SuperSodiumalreadytaken ( talk) 04:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no conflict of interest, but there may be a bias due to his political leanings. If you think any of the sentences citing Bray's work may be affected by his own support for anti-fascism, make a case for it here. Yue 🌙 05:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply