Talk:Anti-Fascist Action

message: "It is well known for supporting the I.R.A. and two members were convicted of carrying out a I.R.A. bombing."
:Is this true? If so it needs inclusion. Sam [Spade] 00:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: IRA?

message: Euro-nationalism page on Wikipedia - still at Answers.com seems to have dissappeared from Wikipedia. Or is this my incompetence that I can't find it? --BobFromBrockley 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answers.com apparently hasn't updated their mirror for a while. Euronationalism was deleted; see the archived discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euronationalism. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro-nationalism 

message: I've deleted the pov paragraph from this section. I can find no reference on the group's website about them defending "freedom of speech". John Eden 09:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFA Ireland 

message: The article on Antifa seems to cover the same organizations as the broader Anti-Fascist Action does. I believe a merge would be appropriate. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-Fascist Action is one specific organization, but Antifa is a set of beliefs, so if Antifa is going to be merged, that is not the article to merge it to. I'm going to change the merge message to say Militant anti-fascism, because that's more appropriate. Spylab 11:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the merging notices altogether. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of all this, should the external link to British Antifa be removed too? Perhaps it should be added to the Antifa page? BobFromBrockley 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: This article looks to contain some "straw man" efforts by far-right editors to discredit the anti-fascist movement - most notably in the supposed "AFA logo" at the top of the article and the caption for it. Looking on Google, I find this logo only features in the article in the external links section and there is no evidence it is official. I am removing it. --SandyDancer 17:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing as a former member of AFA in the UK, I agree with Spylab: that logo was certainly used by AFA in the 1990s. BobFromBrockley 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are going to invent an anecdote to back up your prejudices, make it vaguely plausible. And read the guidelines on talk pages - your comment has nothing to do with the article. --SandyDancer 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw man? 

message: Did the British AFA use to have many or some skinheads amongst their members? Who knows. For now, we shall leave the statement as it is (many) and add a citation-needed-template. I'll ask the editor who inserted it for a source. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no longer an active editor. I advise you to find an authoratative source to quote, as "some" and "many" are both subjective. You should rely on cited experts to be subjective, rather than wikipedes. Sam Spade 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the sentence altogether. Also, for the record: I contacted Sam Spade not to use him as a source, but for him to perhaps cite a source. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many skinheads, or some skinheads 

message: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mitsos and sign it if you agree with the assessment. Spylab 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request For Comment page about Mitsos

message: Why did someone change this article into a disambiguation page? That was not justified at all, and should not be reverted to that state. Spylab 14:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, read what I wrote below while you wrote this. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why changed to disambiguation page?

message: I still think the article should be a disambig page and the main content moved to Anti-Fascist Action (United Kingdom), or, better, a page giving a broad overview of AFA worldwide. Why should Anti-Fascist Action (United Kingdom) be displayed while Anti-Fascist Action (Sweden) is condemned to a country-specific article?
And I still think my removal of the trivial descriptions of other AFAs were justified. If thou dost so wish, we could re-create my disambig, but including that info? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if the groups actually exist, in terms of the topic at hand. What matters on Wikipedia is whether they have information on Wikipedia (backed up by reliable sources). Anti-Fascist Action and Antifascistisk Aktion have different articles because they have different names and are different groups. The AFA article is mostly about the British AFA because that's what information has been added to the article. If you can provide information about the other AFA groups, feel free to add it to the AFA article. Spylab 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not "different groups". AFA UK and AFA Sweden are different groups, but they are both named "Anti-Fascist Action" in English. But if a disambiguation is not the solution, perhaps a merging? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A disamb page can't disambiguate to non-existant pages can it? But I understand why Jobjörn did this. There is something odd about the current page, as it is not clear whether we are looking at one international organisation (or closely related family of organisations) or at several different organisations. Were the non-UK AFAs copies of or branches of UK AFA? I don't think they were, which makes me wonder if they should all be on the same page. There isn't, say, a Socialist Party page which looks at all the parties with this name. BobFromBrockley 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Antifa' is not one single international organisation, it's just a general term describing political groups that dedicate their time and efforts to fighting fascism and neo-nazis. The means and methods are as diverse as the groups involved, so it's hard to lay down characteristics of an 'Antifa' group. As for the non-UK Antifa groups being copies.. no. In Germany, the term Antifa goes back to the 1920's ("Antifaschistische Aktion"), to the era of frequent fights between communist and nazi streetgangs. In the 1980's, with a resurgence of Neonazism in Germany (and especially after the Reunification), Antifa groups reappeared again. This was in no way connected to the UK, and I would dare say the same about Swedens Antifa, for instance. I know of ties between german, dutch, and scandinavian antifa groups - british antifa groups don't play a role in these networks though. Ok sorry, random ramblings really.. CptSwing 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment illustrates part of the problem that surrounds this page: the slippage between term AFA and the term antifa. BobFromBrockley 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A disambiguation page can disambiguate to non-existant pages. And I still think this article should be a disambiguation page, as the international - english - title for all the organisations listed above is "Anti-Fascist Action". It's only a matter of coincidence that Antifascistisk Aktion does not have a translated title while, for example, Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden is. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting (now also discussing merging) 

message: Oppose - I don't see why we have to even discuss this. They are two different organisations (one in the UK and one in Sweden). // Liftarn
But Anti-Fascist Action is also the english language translation of all the groups listed in Anti-Fascist Action. In fact, I'm not sure the title of Antifascistisk Aktion should be in Swedish: Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation was renamed, why shouldn't AFA? And if that happens, conflict arises. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging from [[Antifascistisk Aktion]] 

message: An anonymous editor inserted this:
Various elements of AFA from the anarchist movement and non politically affiliated members did not agree with Red Action's policy of renouncing street violence as a tactic against nazis. Many also felt the IWCA could not operate as a democratic body, due to their experience of Red Action's notoriously autocratic leadership style in AFA. After either leaving AFA or being expelled due to Red Actions political machinations, various ex-members continued to operate well into the nineties under the name No Platform.
Durutti removed it. Although it is written in a very POV way, it is basically true. Can anyone find a No Platform reference to cite? BobFromBrockley 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afa sectariana 

message: I added in info on their history and current activity.
Jcarax68 12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish AFA 

message: Another good edit by Spylab. But I am slightly unhappy with the use of the term neo-fascism in contexts like "AFA members accused ANL of failing to directly confront neo-fascists", as I am fairly sure AFA rejected the term neo-fascist, seeing the BNP and NF as fascism as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. BobFromBrockley 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-fascism 

message: I can't believe you lefty cunts manage to fit all the minute criticism you can onto the BNP and other such pages, and leave out any at all when we come to talk about an organisation that EXPLICITLY PROMOTES VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO THINK DIFFERENTLY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spudleyspuds (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: This article has the template saying it lacks references.It looks to me like it has enough. Can that go, or not? BobFromBrockley 12:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: With it's organizational roots in the marxist Red Action group, it is clear that Anti-Fascist Action is a far left group or at the least has far left lineage. Though there are unaffiliated adherents, it is not fair to claim that the group was/is moderate. Equivalent far right groups such as Blood and Honour may have had centrist working class people involved with them at times as well, this does not mean that B&H is a moderate "right wing" group as opposed to "far right". Attempts to make AFA seem like a moderate group, instead of a politically radical or extremist group concerned with class struggle and other far-left causes, violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. 
Positing that "far left" is a subjective term and therefore not applicable could be a dishonest attempt to normalize am extremist group that focuses on class struggle and the use of "violence and confrontation" with its opponents. To most people who participate in the democratic systems of western countries, both extreme right and extreme left ideologies such as Nazism, Fascism, Marxism and marxist derivatives, Anarcy and all its hyphenated variants are either on the far-left or far-right. Those concerned with mainstreaming either side should confine their prostheletyzing to forums or other media.  
Clearsight (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Far Left Roots

message: Why was this removed? This is a valid reference to what this page is meant to be about  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.108.32 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the section talking about the publication of the AFA History book removed? 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: This paragraph was edited into the article in December. I am going to remove most of it, leaving in key factual elements, because I believe it is written in a partisan, non-encyclopedic way. But it could be useful in developing the narrative:
Having left AFA, disbanded Red Action, (and indeed abandoned activist anti fascist activity), to form the local electoral and local activism focussed ,  Independent Working Class Association (IWCA), ex Red action/IWCA members now argue that,  while mainstream liberal anti-racist groups often focussed their attention on black people and other racial minorities as the victims of discrimination, AFA focused its efforts on the white working class, which it saw as the fascist movement's main recruiting ground.Beating the Fascists.2010. Sean Birchall However,others, including ex-RA members who did not go down the IWCA routeSteve Tilzey and Dave Hann. No Retreat. 2003 have argued that this supposed unique  AFA "white working class focus" is a myth, backdating later IWCA politics into the AFA's actual history. They argue that even after the 1989 split in AFA with the more liberal anti fascist supporting organisations, the "on the ground" political focus of AFA remained essentially a very basic anti-fascist one, without any really significant political break from tactics and priorities pursued by the Anti Nazi League MK I, in its initial activist heyday 1977 to 1979. The ANL MK I , contrary to RED Action/IWCA claims , pursued a distinctly "twin track" , AFA-like, approach to anti fascism too, ie. physical street opposition to fascist marches and meetings, plus aggressive stewarding and  violent additional  actions by the "Squads", alongside the more populist, mass music carnivals and family day out marches, activities. The real difference being that in the ANL MK I the physical street action and "Squadist" aspect was largely unacknowledged publicly by the ANL leadership.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFA/post-AFA sectariana again 

message: In my opinion, this article has enough references and  should be removed. --JaviP96 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think this is an interesting article about a group I didn't know yet (I'm not British). However, a rather broad statement in the introduction caught my eye:
"[Anti-Fascist Action (AFA)] was notable in significantly reducing fascist street activity in Britain in the 1990s"
This claim is sourced by a reference to the book "Beating The Fascists: The Untold Story of Anti-Fascist Action", published by the anarchist publishing house Freedom Press. The book's website describes the book as "a compelling account of the extraordinary activities of Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) – by those who were there on the frontline", describing AFA as "an organised and committed group of ordinary working class people who during the 1980s and 1990s took the fight to the far right – and won!"
My question is: considering that the book appears to be written by, or at least from the perspective and in praise of, the group itself, can it really serve as an adequate substantiation of a claim about how successful the group was? That strikes me as problematic.
Along the same lines, the Wikipedia article now also claims that:
"[the Battle of Waterloo] was pivotal in defeating the street presence of the far right in Britain"
"[the] turn in the BNP's policy from confrontation on the streets to a bid for electoral respectability [came] partly as a response to their defeat on the streets by AFA"
Both statements are substantiated by references to articles in Red Action and, in one case, the above-mentioned book. So we have three rather sweeping claims about how successful AFA was that appear to be based, basically, on the AFA saying so. I don't know enough about the subject to assess whether the claims are *true* or not, that's not the point - but I'd say that, right now, they are not substantiated in an encyclopedia-worthy way. What do you think? No-itsme (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather sweeping claims backed by non-neutral sources 

message: {(u|Justeditingtoday}} why is an anarchist publisher "perfectly reliable" as a source to call an anarchist group "successful"? Surely there is neutral scholarship on this sociology subject.  Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An "anarchist publisher" didn't say anything. Sean Birchall in Beating The Fascists: The Untold Story of Anti-Fascist Action stated that they significantly reduced fascist street activity in Britain and the book was published by Freedom Press. Freedom press is not an unreliable source nor is Birchall. You can't assume unreliability simply because you don't like the source. Justeditingtoday (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Just because I don't like the source", yes because it's not neutral, it's a niche publisher for anarchist special intetest. Do you have any idea how to identify a reliable source? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

text: From their website: "Freedom Publishing is a longstanding anarchist publisher based in Whitechapel, East London. Founded in 1886, it offered a much needed outlet for radical ideas and a meeting place for the anarchist thinkers of the day, and we seek to continue that tradition today along with promoting and supporting current social and political struggles. We are the largest anarchist publishing house in the nation and the oldest of its kind in the English speaking world." If you think that's a reliable publisher then please read WP:COMPETENCE Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you should read WP:ATTACK because hurling insults at me doesn't make your argument stronger. Second, the fact that Freedom Press is an anarchist publisher doesn't make it unreliable when publishing books about anarchism or anti-fascism. Please read WP:RS. You have admitted that you have nothing more than your own opinion to claim it is unreliable, you need something stronger than that. Justeditingtoday (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "just because this publisher only publishes on a niche political ideology doesn't mean it's biased to that ideology". K then. Still funny how in your first response you denied it was even anarchist, as if you're making this all up as you go along Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't deny the publisher was anarchist. I denied that the publisher stated anything. The author did. I would urge you again to read WP:ATTACK and WP:AGF as you seem to have overlooked them. Justeditingtoday (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether sources are written or published by people with or without political perspectives, but whether sources are reliable in evidencing the claim being made. Clearly the sources used here meet that standard. At any rate, I have added additional sources, which are from academic texts and mainstream media, which substantiate the sources here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources with vested interest 

message: What is the connection, if any?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.87.190 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFA vs Antifa