Talk:Antifa

various topics

Hehe, I just learned today that it's possible to revert pages - And, for the record, I just reverted it because of neo-fascist vandalism. Tias 10:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone PLEASE explain to me why a large, well-written entry on Antifa was deleted and replaced with "Scumbags"? I hope noone tolerates neo-fascists editing entries out of hand, or this project ain't going anywhere..

hehehe, I don't know you and I don't really want to, just was wondering if is it right the term "ANTI" because...you know, if there is some sort of FLAG, IDEOLOGY, EXAMPLE, UNITED ACTION and VIOLENT ACTION against what you think it's WRONG because it doesn't match with the way YOU THINK, it seems to be kinda fascist hehehe so the "ANTI" is quite wrong HEHEHE it should be called "extremists violent assholes who don't like that other kind" or just EVAWDLTOK, would it be to hard to put that written in a machinegun inside a red star or something? hehehe. or they should just wake up and stop fighting in vain 'cause someday we are all going to die, i mean, earth is round, nothing takes nowhere hehehe just saying buddies :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.102.87.141 (talk • contribs) .

My edit and its reverts

If I write that in Germany, "Antifa" are extreme left-wing and are observed by the Verfassungsschutz, then this is not "biased", but it just is this way. FYI: http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/publikationen/verfassungsschutzbericht/vsbericht_2002/vsbericht_2002.pdf p.122 ff..

Only because some people call themselves "Anti-fascist" does not mean that they are, or they are in any way nice people. Must I remind people here of the many, also positive, names nationalists call themselves?

Of course, if thi should be about getting the own ideology under the guise of "NPOV" here, then this is most definitely a case for an article to be observed by sysops. --Dingo 22:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is right to point this out, but the way this was done was not very free of ideology. (A public report of the Verfassungsschutz is hardly a neutral source of information on left-wing groups.) I have tried to tone this down a little; is it acceptable like that? Also, while the autonomous movement and the Antifa do intersect, treating them as the same thing does not seem justified. --xyzzy_n 02:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In this sentence:

The term "anti-fascist" and especially "Antifa" in Germany is now almost entierly used by left-wing political, so-called "Autonomous", groups, many of them, but not all are to violence.

There seems to be a word missing near the end. Did the author mean to say "prone to violence"?

It might be nice if you could instead of saying "Prone to violence" which seems to imply violence is a bad idea from a law an order perspective, write something I think is more neutral. Maybe "antifa groups often use militant confrontation as a tactic" Its the same thing, just written without the statist slant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.9.255 (talk • contribs) .

Changed ‘prone to violence’ to ‘violent’ (which sounds bad but, imho, says the same thing and is shorter and less POV). By the way, if you are new to Wikipedia, check out WP:WELCOME (and WP:SIG for information on how to sign your posts on talk pages). —xyzzy_n 21:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"left wing"

Just to clarify, it's fine to indentify anti-fascism and anti-racism as "left wing" concepts, because that is what they are, and that is what left wing ideology concerns by definition. Good article so far by the way, maybe a section on notable events?

perhaps worth using

[1] Dsol 13:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Imho not worth using unless you find reputable sources corroborating the ‘information’, in which case you might as well cite those sources rather than this one. Regardless of whether one calls The eXile fascist or far right (I prefer the former), it is by no means usable as a standalone citation for this article.

In general, however, having verifiable information from reputable sources on Antifa organisation(s) and activity in Russia in the article would probably make sense. —xyzzy_n 14:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it really quite strange when someone calls the eXile fascist or even far right. Have you ever read it? For example any of Dolan's book reviews (say the one in the present issue)? Anyway let's not waste time discussing that here. You're right that more reliable sources could and should be found about Antifa in Russia, though I'm not sure they can be found in English. I'll see what I can dig up. Dsol 15:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it once, which is the reason why I called it that. As for digging for sources, I’d like to help but don’t really follow the Russian media, sorry. Good luck.

By the way, please consider not marking edits in which you add new replies as minor—otherwise they are less easily noticed by those who wish to follow the discussion of this article. —xyzzy_n 15:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is a form of socialism?

So those who are 'antifa' consider themselves to be against socialism?

These days, it is mostly 'left wing' politicians and people who believe and spread the most vociferous anti-semitic propaganda. This is totally in line with the not widely believed but yet not untrue assertion that fascism in a sense is a perverted form (a subform) of socialism.

• That's your opinion, but many disagree, and it doesn't belong in an academic text such as Wikipedia.Spylab 20:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Verfassungschutz - to be or not to be.

Instead of this low-intensity revert war; it is time to sit down and discuss it. Personally I believe the section on the German Intelligence Agency Verfassungschutz should be kept. It is two sentences and it is very well sourced and written in such a way that it is not POV: it doesn't say "Antifa is a violent left-wing extremist movement", it says that the Verfasssungschutz says it is. It would be cool to include more opinions from other organizations/government/whatever, though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging

The article on Antifa seems to cover the same organizations as the broader Anti-Fascist Action does. I believe a merge would be appropriate. Please see Talk:Anti-Fascist Action#Merging. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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 changed the merge message to say Militant anti-fascism, because that's more appropriate. Spylab 11:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article of Anti-Fascist Action opens with mentioning to abbreviations; AFA and Antifa. Antifa is also the official name of the "British AFA".

But I see your point. Perhaps it shouldn't be merged at all then? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I took out the mention of Antifa from the beginning of the AFA article to clear up that confusion. Yes there is now supposedly a group in Britain named Antifa, but the only sentence about that in the AFA article is "A British anarchist group called Antifa adopts a similar policy to that held by AFA and No Platform." That probably shouldn't even be in the AFA article, because it doesn't claim that Antifa is the same group as people that were in AFA. It sounds like a totally different organisation. Spylab 12:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the merging notices altogether. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect now a Disambiguation page

Changed Redirect to Anti-Fascism into a disambiguation page, listing Anti-fascist action groups, who also go by the name "Antifa." based template on the Republican page as it has similar connotations and ambiguity. If trends in the news continue, it's likely that individual pages on these groups are going to grow, suggesting they should be allow to stay separate from Anti-Fasicsm. RienARetrancher (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)