Talk:Post–World War II anti-fascism/Archive 1

Dangerous false equivalence: Anti-fascism does not imply Antifa
My properly cited text from 'antifascism' was just moved to this page, which seems to be about Antifa networks, rather than antifascism. Antifascism is the act of opposing fascist ideology, groups, or individuals. There is an increasingly common misconception that antifascism action is equivalent to participation in an organized antifa group. This is false and a misrepresentation of facts in wiki.

This misinformation has consequences. By exclusively associating antifascism with a specific set of groups with narrow ideologies, which is portrayed by the media as radical and violent, this wikipedia page is complicit in the act of othering antifascist action as a fringe activity. It also contributes to the denialism about antifascists in this day and age still being targeted by fascist terrorism.

Nonviolent, anti-fascist demonstrators not necessarily associated with Antifa were recently targeted in Charlottesville Virginia by a Neo Nazi terrorist, with one killed and 19 injured. This prominent historical moment which highlights the inherent danger of opposing neo-nazism in the 21st century, is at risk of being deleted from wikipedia, over a false technicality. Someone will inevitably remove it claiming that the victims weren't antifa, even though this is supposed to be about antifascist opposition, NOT ANTIFA. This page needs to be radically altered in order to prevent these serious issues. Mjleone (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

History
I have moved the section that was labelled "History" to the end of the article under the subsection "Twenty-first century". This section only covered activities in the 21st century and did cover the history of anti-fascist activities post-WW2. Individual subsections describe the history for Germany, the UK, and Sweden so the entire content should be under the "History" section. --NoGhost (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed reference to Charlottesville incident - unclear relevance
I deleted a sentence describing James Field's alleging killing of a protester in Charlottesville, as it had no clear connection to the Antifa movement. Please do not add it back without clarifying its relevance for this particular article. Ted.tem.parker (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 11:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

see first comment on this talk page. predicted weeks ago. well done wikipedia

United Kingdom
Article contained sourced material regarding Antifa-Action in UK; removed content with stated objection being: "...I see no sources calling these Antifa, and such sources aren't optional, they're required". Despite cited sources affirming the contrary.

On User talk DW provides:

"You seem to know about our sourcing requirements and original research. I removed that as the sources don't discuss Antifa and that's not an article about anti-fascist movements in general. If you disagree, you should use the talk page, not restore."

Can incorrectly bandy about 'OR' all one wishes but that doesn't change the  fact  of content being sourced; thus, not OR. Hat-note states Antifa Action networks are subject of article; cited sources cover Antifa Action networks pertaining to U.K. within pages cited. Given cited sources' claims, content is perfectly within scope, and barring specific objection, should be restored -- at very least per STATUSQUO. -- dsprc   [talk]  14:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * which sources discuss networks or movements in the UK using the label Antifa? WP:VERIFY trumps the essay you mention.  Doug Weller  talk 15:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Most all do. Barberis; et al and Hayes; Ayland discuss as much. Which of the provided sources, specifically, fail verification?
 * Per hat-note: Subject of article is not limited to U.S.-scope; sourced content, and respective section in question, pertain to United Kingdom (albeit quite unnecessarily verbose).-- dsprc   [talk]  16:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Barberis et al do discuss Anti-Fascist Action so we can use them to discuss Anti-Fascist Action. I don't see Hayes used as a source. Can you give me quotes from any of the sources using the term? I agree it isn't limited to the US, but it is limited to Antifa or "Anti-Fascist Action". I didn't check them all, I admit. But we can only use those that use one or both terms. I don't have time to do more now, got to cook! Doug Weller  talk 16:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When I'm on my pc later I'll create a subpages of this page to work on it, ok? Doug Weller  talk 06:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * see Talk:Antifa movements/UK draft. I've also changed the lead to match the hatnote, which I hadn't read carefully. Some of the material I removed clearly belongs if this article includes "Anti-Facsist Action" networks (as opposed to just plain action against fascism). Doug Weller  talk 11:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Will give it a look over and hack on it a bit when I find a spare moment life isn't competing for. As previously noted: it could certainly be more terse in presentation as well. -- dsprc   [talk]  14:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Currently assisting elderly and indigent secure themselves and prepare for Hurricane Irma. I likely won't get around to this in reasonable time-frame. If others wishes to take up the issue, you're more than welcome. (Please also consider contributing to a relief organization should Irma turn out to be particularly devastating.) Thanks for your understanding. -- dsprc   [talk]  21:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

, : The text is back in the main anti-fascism article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism#United_Kingdom:_against_the_NF_and_BNP If this article remains specifically about "antifa" it should not be in this article (AFA was not called Antifa, always AFA), but if this article is where all post-WWII anti-fascism is then it should be here. I guess we need the above name change RfC to be closed before definitively deciding that. If this material is too verbose, should it get an article of its own? Or (more sensibly) should there be an Anti-fascism in Britain article that has this verbose section and the earlier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism#United_Kingdom:_against_Mosley.27s_BUF so that the general article can be made more lean? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus so moving back to Post-WWII anti-fascism. There is a rough split between those favouring a move back to the previous title and those preferring the Antifa title, to which it was boldly moved shortly before the RM started. I'm not seeing a strong policy or guideline reason to favour one or the other, so this is a no consensus discussion, and it therefore reverts to the previous name, before it was boldly moved. Note, however, that I am downcasing to WP:SENTENCECASE, as there is no evidence that "Post-WWII Anti-fascism" is a proper name. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Antifa movements → ? – Antifa is a jargon word developed decades after WWII. It is normally used to refer to specific movements or groups which often use violence, and not to all anti-fascist movements. I guess it could be retitled Post-WWII Anti-fascist movements (which is now a redirect) although that would be a subset of Post-WWII Anti-fascism and I'd prefer to start with the larger topic. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  Steel1943  (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support rename/revert to "Post-WWII Anti-fascism". I strongly agree that the current name is bad. "Antifa" is jargon that is not widely known outside of the USA, which is bad given that the we need to serve all English speaking readers well and this article doesn't even have much about the USA in it. The term "Antifa" has political baggage, i.e. is is mostly used as a term of abuse and to suggest a rival mob as opposed to a variety of different movements opposing fascism so I feel that it is not NPOV to use it except where following the name used in mainstream RS sources, which this clearly is not. It does not have mainstream acceptance. It is often used misleadingly to imply a single movement, although this is mitigated by the plural in the title here. I am 100% happy that a revert to the original name of "Post-WWII Anti-fascism" would be a significant improvement over the current situation. I'm not seeing "Post-WWII Anti-fascist movements" as the preferred option but I'd still support that as an improvement over what we have now. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect and rather baffling to say that "Antifa" is English or US jargon or that it is a term of abuse. "Antifa" is if anything distinctively German. It was coined in the 1930s and became the predominant self-chosen identifier of the street-fighting anti-Rightist groups that originated from the German Autonomists in the 1980s.
 * I think it would be wise to retitle this article with a descriptive term, since groups that actually called themselves "Antifa" or something similar (AFA) should be discussed together with groups like Anti-Racist Action that are recognizably part of the same genearl topic. But this business about "Antifa" being hostile American jargon is, I'm sorry, just ignorant. That's mistaking your Twitter feed for a dictionary. TiC (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I should have been more clear that I was talking in terms of the English language where it has recently been adopted exactly in the manner I suggested. The German usage is not really relevant to whether English speakers will understand the title correctly. At this point I was going to check the name of the German version of this article to see what is used there but there doesn't seem to be one linked. Anyway, I'll say that I think that the German usage and the English usage, while clearly linked in the past, are now so divergent as to be almost entirely different in everything but spelling. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was the one who moved it to the present title. I do not state a preference here, because I really don't know all that much about the topic. But my understanding is that "Antifa" is, at least in German, not a derogatory term, but one that the adherents of such movements use for themselves. Also, my impression is that the term is gaining currency in English-language media, e.g. washingtonpost.com. As to the question of whether a distinction in title can or should be made between the various "anti-fascist" groups of varying militancy and ideological bent, I frankly don't know enough about them. The term "Post-WWII", however, strikes me as somehow inappropriate; "WWII" is the sort of shorthand we don't use in titles. Ultimately, however, this should be a WP:COMMONNAME issue.  Sandstein   22:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I think a title like "Post-WWII anti-fascism" is preferable, as that is descriptive of the broad subject the article addresses. In English, "Antifa" is a term that is used in a much more limited way, to refer to sub-groups within the broader field of anti-fascism. Possibly Antifa should have its own WP page, but this is not and should not be it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If "Post-WWII" is a problem, and I don't have any strong feelings either way on that, then I think "Post-1945" would be acceptable? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a neutral German term which when used in US English is a pejorative. There is at least some suggestion that its use could be construed as an attempt to control the debate by controlling the terms used to describe the participants. Bmcollier (talk)


 * Merge with anti-fascism then we begin a cleanup of that page. I believe the user who split the page two pages a week or so ago tried making this post-WW2 section about Antifa (United States).  Merge back to the original page, then any specific country's content that gets too long can be separated (as was done with the US section).  As it stands, this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK.  Furthermore, I believe this survey is out of order because an RfC on the anti-fascism page just a few months resulted in the decision to include 21st-century self-proclaimed antifa activities on that page.  This split appears to be a suspicious attempt to circumvent the results of that RfC, and content should be merged back immediately. --NoGhost (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I split is page by moving all material and links on the several post-War (i.e, post-1945) anti-fascist movements then on n the anti-fascism page intact to its own page. I did so partly because anti-fascism is having a bit of a moment rendering the section in need of expansion, (I had recently created Antifa (United States), but mostly because of the sharp historical break between the groups that fought the large centralized, formally identified fascist governing parties of the 1920s - 1945, (Falange; Partito Nazionale Fascista, PNF; National Socialism; and the smaller one) and the modern groups.  I do think separate articles  on Anti-fascism and on contemporary, or, Post-World War II antifascism are functional - with linked articles for each significant national group.   The differences that divide the contemporary groups, in historical situation, goals, ideology and activities, from the groups active a century ago makes two separate pages a good arangement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Anti-fascism is not equivalent to antifa. If your goal was to create a page about anti-fascism, why did you name it antifa, and why is it primarily about antifa? Anti-fascism is bigger than antifa. Not only is it factually incorrect to treat antifa as the only form of anti-fascism, but it is consistent with a broad movement in the US by far right lunatics to undermine contemporary anti-fascism as exclusively fringe and violent (yes antifa is a thing, but so are 40,000 nonviolent protestors in boston). Unlike Noghost who sees the light, you are contributing to a misinformation war, and inadvertently or not, you are on the side of the neo-nazis. Edit: By that I mean your action of creating these pages helps the neo-nazis, not that *you* are on their side. But getting these pages right is a serious issue and you should let noghost make the corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.77.135 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, support current title "Antifa movements". We should definitely not mix up post-WWII Antifa movements with general "opposition to fascism". Antifa has taken on a completely distinct postwar meaning in both Europe and the United States. The Antifa movements that are found in multiple countries clearly merit a separate article. The Soviet Union and various far-left/communist parties used the word "fascism" in the postwar period to mean everything western and non-communist in general. The Berlin Wall, officially called the Anti-Fascist Wall by East Germany, is just one of many examples. "Fascism" is the parlance of the Soviet Union and other communists doesn't mean actual fascism; it means parliamentary democracy and everything western countries stand for (and from the communist point of view, "capitalism" in particular). This peculiar usage goes all the way back to the early 1920s, when Stalin declared social democracy to be a form of fascism. --Tataral (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Antifa" is anti-fascism, but not all anti-fascism can be covered by the buzzword "antifa". The Soviet propaganda argument is of course neither here nor there. Or, as the IP above said, "Anti-fascism is bigger than antifa." I see Sandstein's argument, and I agree that "antifa" is pejorative only in (sections of) America, but it is needlessly confusing, even if "Post WW2 whatever" is wordy. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Google Ngram statistics: The naming and inclusion of the term "Antifa" should be carefully considered, particularly because it is emerging as a politically-charged issue. Discussions should include whether the movement has "disappeared" or "locked" in history or if it "evolved" and "is living". Google Ngram hints that the term may have been in use during WWII.  The sample is very small but suggests that the name "Antifa" may warrant further research. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=antifa&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cantifa%3B%2Cc0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.250.235 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Provisional Oppose: I voted "support" above, but I am no longer sure, as the page has carried on being edited in the meantime and is now effectively about Antifa movements, so I restored the deleted non-antifa historical material to the main Anti-fascism page, and think it would be silly now to rename this one back to "post-war anti-fascism". I think now the most practical thing to do is focus here on making this a well-sourced, clear article on the Antifa movement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Antifa needs its own article. Antifa is the name used by numerous organizations, which have been covered with depth by that name in the global media. Anti-facism is a kind of ideological approach or political ideology, where "Antifa" is the name of a specific movement and global organization of people. see Google search results Hexatekin (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the current title is fine and WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support some move, or potentially merge. "Antifa" as it's actually used isn't a catchall for all post World War II anti-fascist movements. It specifically refers to (some of) the movements since the 1980s. Even there, it doesn't appear to be the most common name for all such movements; if the Anti-Fascist Action is correct, it appears that UK anti-fascists of the 80's and 90's were not known as "antifa", but rather "Anti-Fascist Action" or "AFA". As such a broader term is necessary. The former title Post-WWII Anti-fascism seems like the better bet; in fact, because the article was moved without discussion, it probably should revert there if there's no consensus here.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was asked by User:Doug Weller to comment here as a sociologist of organizations. On that I'll point out that in sociology we distinguish between a broader term social movements which include individuals and various smaller organizations, and said organizations which are known as SMOs or social movement organizations. So in this conext, antifa is a social movement, so the term antifa movement is broadely correct, just like uh, free culture movement, for example. And within the antifa movement there are numerous smaller organizations such as Antifaschistische Aktion, just like Creative Commons would be part of the FMO. Now I note that Anti-fascist movement redirects here, and I think we should spell the name out, so I'd personally support a move to Anti-fascist movements, because for people who are not familiar with terminology, the word 'antifa' is meaningless. However, I am not an expert in the antifa field, and it is possible that antifa is only a part of the broader anti-fascistic movements - but if this is so we need someone to write up the said Anti-fascist movements article (with sources, please). Therefore the main issue to discuss here IMHO is whether Anti-fascist movements = antifa movements or not. If yes, rename. If not, don't rename. Last note - I don't think we need to spell out 'post-WWII' in title. At least not for the general concept of the Anti-fascist movements. If antifa movements are different and date to post war, well, that's just an argument for having two articles, but neither needs a post-WWII in their names, IMHO. I hope this helps. Please ping me if there are any replies to my comment you'd like me to read and respond to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It does look like "antifa" groups are only part of the slate of wider anti-fascist movements, if only because there are antifascist groups like Anti-Fascist Action that were not called "antifa". As such, "antifa movements" is problematic. The "Post-World War II" bit is there to distinguish from anti-fascism that dates to the WW2 era and before.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 *  Any additional comments: 

I'm puzzled by the frequent use of the word "kennwort", which normally means "password", in association with the term antifa. For instance:

"Die Belastungen, die der Begriff “Antifaschismus” heute mit sich schleppt, sind leicht zu identifizieren: In den zwanziger und dreiBiger Jah-ren stand das Kennwort “Antifa” fiir den - im groBen und ganzen erfolglo-sen - Versuch der offiziellen kommunistischen Politik, in den europaischen Gesellschaften, soweit sich in diesen faschistische Massenbewegungen her-ausbildetcn, den Zustrom zum Faschismus zum Halt zu bringen und den Ubergang zum Faschismus an der Macht zu verhindern oder bereits etablier-te faschistische Systeme von innen heraus wieder umzustiirzen. Zugleich diente die “Antifa-Strategie” der kommunistischen Parteien damals zumin-dest zeitweise auch dem Unterfangen, die Krafteverhaltnisse innerhalb der Arbeiterbewegung auf Kosten der Sozialdemokratie oder linkssozialisti-scher Gruppierungen zu Gunsten der eigenen, “revolutionaren” Position zu korrigieren; die “Sozialfaschismus” Kampagne ist ein Indiz dafiir. Im historischen Scheitern dieser kommunistischen “Antifa”-Politik wurden katastrophale Fehleinschatzungen, die ihr innewohnten, offensichtlich, so etwa die illusionare Annahme, eine breite, zunachst groBteils faschistische “Radikalisierung” der Bevolkerung werde nach einer kurzcn Phase eine Wende hin zur revolutionaren Linken (das hieB: zu den Kommunisten) zeitigen, oder auch die MiBachtung des Wertes “biirgerlicher” politischer Freiheiten und rechtsstaatlicher Absicherungen.[ Https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3rDrNgrm99kC&pg=PA58&dq=antifa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUgeOm1ePVAhVnLMAKHTR_AQ8Q6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=antifa&f=false]

Is translated by Google as: "The pressures that the term "anti-fascism" drags today are easily identified: in the twenties and thirties the password "Antifa" stood for the - largely unsuccessful - attempt of official communist politics, in European societies As far as these fascist mass movements are concerned, to halt the influx of fascism and to prevent the transition to fascism in power, or to re-collapse already established fascist systems from the inside out. At the same time, the "Antifa strategy" of the communist parties at the same time served at least temporarily to correct the power relations within the workers' movement at the expense of the social democrat or leftist socialist groups in favor of their own "revolutionary" position; The "Social Fascism" campaign is an indication of this. In the historical failure of this Communist "Antifa" policy, catastrophic misjudgments, which were inherent in it, such as the illusionary assumption that a broad, largely fascist "radicalization" of the population would, after a brief period, turn to the revolutionary left (the To the Communists), or to ignore the value of "bourgeois" political liberties and protection of the state. The policy of the KPD, the SED and the DKP in the German occupation zones and the German sub-states after 1945 also appealed to "anti-fascism", but this clearly reflected the Communist "Antifa" concept of the twenties and thirties. In the course of German history, there was the experience that the Nazi movement had been able to drive the workers' movement, including its communist direction, into a sustained defeat, and that its power had to be broken only externally, by military means, Tactically or strategically - to the idea that the discussion of possible new fascist dangers would require the alliance of communists and other "bourgeois" opponents of fascism"

Kein Spuk von gestern oder: Rechtsextremismus und "konservative Revolution" By Arno Klönne By Arno Klönnenm, published by Lit Verlag , an academic publisher. Doug Weller   Talk  16:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologise. I am copying text which is in German and pasting it here, but Chrome seems to think it should translate it. I'm going to try Firefox. Doug Weller  talk 16:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Kennwort" does ordinarily mean "password". This author seems to use it in a non-standard (perhaps academic?) way to mean "catchphrase", "term", "descriptor", etc.  Sandstein   22:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Many authors in fact, but that makes sense. Doug Weller  talk 06:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

.This turns out to be a split from Anti-fascism, also a confusing article
Take a look at its talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the current article "Anti-fascism" should be retitled "opposition to fascism" to avoid the term "Anti-fascism" which is severely tainted by its ideological usage by the USSR and other communists since the early days of Stalin, and which was used not in the sense of "opposition to fascism" by the USSR and other communists, but which was primarily used to defame social democrats, liberals, you name it, and western countries in general as "fascists" (as seen for example in the official name of the Berlin Wall from the 1960s, the "Anti-Fascist Wall", which "protected" the communist countries against the "fascist" westerners, the US in particular).
 * We should have a separate article on usage of the term anti-fascism by the Soviet Union (the title might need more work)
 * We should retain a separate article on the Antifa movements, a distinct phenomenon. --Tataral (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, I dispute the idea that the term anti-fascism is, at least in English speaking countries, severely tainted. I doubt that very few people who use the term are even aware of the issue you are discussion, and you haven't shown that it is a common concern, at least outside the Continent. Doug Weller  talk 15:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Antifa movements vs Post-WWII anti-fascism
The August RfC on the change of title from Antifa movements to Post-WWII anti-fascism has just been closed by, renaming the title Post-WWII anti-fascism, because there was no consensus. However, as article has been heavily edited under the title Antifa movements, and the Anti-fascism and Antifa (United States) articles have been heavily edited since then, it no longer makes any sense. This article is nowhere near a comprehensive article on post-WWII anti-fascist movements, and to become one would need an enormous amount of editing, while the general Anti-fascism has sections on the post-war period which fit there very well. I don't know how these name change issues work. Doesn't the lack of consensus suggest leaving with the status quo? Is it possible to re-open the debate, in light of the work done on all the articles since then? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The term 'Antifa' is not a neologism
The article was created by E.M.Gregory with an image, captioned: "2007 photo of Anti-fascist graffiti in Trnava, Slovakia, showing the neologism 'Antifa'" I'm uncertain if this was transported to the newly created article from it's parent (main article, Anti-fascism) - perhaps could shed light on this, please. Wherever it came from, it's important to note that the term 'antifa' is not a neologism. Oxford Dictionaries defines 'Antifa' as: "A radical political movement that opposes fascism and other forms of extreme right-wing authoritarianism ... Origin 1940s (with reference to opposition to fascism in Germany during and immediately after the Second World War): shortening of anti-fascist."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/antifa] (my italics for emphasis) Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While I hate to get all pedantic, but antifa is a German word that is a neologism when it is used in English. It is not in the OED Entry reads: "No dictionary entries found for ‘antifa’."; it is in something called the English Oxford Living Dictionaries, which is an Oxford online dictionary in English, but is not the Oxford English Dictionary.  This is probably because, as this Ngram shows  use in English was uber-rare until quite recently.  If you click the searchs, what your find are sources in English writing about politics in Europe, especially Germany, and sources in German.  Ngram only goes up to 2008, here:  is an Ngram that takes it to 2008, and it is still extremely rare, as the OED puts it: " A word or phrase which is new to the language; one which is newly coined."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, that Ngram shows quite clearly that the term was being used in English in the 1930s, including 15 solid references from before 1956: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22antifa%22&lr=lang_en&safe=off&dcr=0&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:1956,lr:lang_1en&tbm=bks&ei=aKzTWeexJ4aKgAbLpaawAQ&start=0&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=637&dpr=1 These are all in English, although they talk about Germany. (Examples: "The pure Antifa was a genuine organization with direct control over its individual members; party distinctions did not exist for it and it possessed its own local organization, led for the most part by young, newly risen Communists." - Political Science Quarterly 1949. "Between April and July, 1945 the most widely-observed political phenomenon was the appearance of local anti-Fascist committees, usually named "Antifa" for short. Some had existed in embryonic form since the beginning of the year" -- Chatham House Review 1949. This one is actually about Palestine, not Germany: "The Anti-fascist Action ("Antifa"), adhering to the world committee in Paris, has about 500 members" - New Essays 1935. As is this one: "The 'Antifa,' The Palestine League Against War, Fascism, Anti-Semitism, and for Jewish- Arab Friendship, is in the front line fighting to counteract the efforts of Fascism: Jewish, Arab, German, Italian, etc., and to bring together the Jewish and..." Frontiers of Democracy 1938.) But as our article should talk about Germany, it doesn't matter that this wasn't a widely used word in English then or not. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oxford's online diction is an Oxford English dictionary. "The English site provides free access to the largest current English dictionaries and thesaurus as well as helpful tips on grammar, usage, spelling, and more." It is just as authoritative. Doug Weller  talk 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Article title
This article was created in August 2017 with the title "Antifa movements" with material split from the Anti-fascism article. It was then boldly re-titled "Post-WWII anti-fascism", a rather cumbersome name. It was then renamed "Antifa movements", and then there was an RfC on changing the name back to "Post-WWII anti-fascism". No consensus was formed. There were basically 4 arguments against and 4 in favour. I am embarrassed to say that I was on both sides, originally arguing in support, but shifting to oppose. With no consensus reached, User:Amakuru ruled that I'm not seeing a strong policy or guideline reason to favour one or the other, so this is a no consensus discussion, and it therefore reverts to the previous name, before it was boldly moved. If it reverts by default, shouldn't it revert to the original name, before the first bold renaming, i.e. Antifa movements? Reading the article now, it is totally about Antifa movements, and not at all about "Post-WWII anti-fascism". To make it about the latter, it would require complete re-writing, but I think there would be a strong case for deleting it. There is no real rationale why "Post-WWII anti-fascism" can't go into the main Anti-fascism article. The only basis for the split is the idea that fascism or anti-fascism changed in some significant way in 1945, and that's not the case really. If the main anti-fascism article is too long, the better approach in my view would be to split it geographically e.g. Anti-fascism in Britain, Anti-fascism in Germany, etc. So, my proposal would be that we either revert this article to its original name "Antifa movements", or delete it (first making sure anything substantive is covered in the main article). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the original title of the article when it was first created was, it was only moved to two days later, and then that move was challenged in the RM above. So the pre-RM status quo was , which is the title I reverted to after the no-consensus close, except that the "anti-fascism" was downcased because it's not a proper name.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you - I thought I went back to the article creation. Nonetheless, I think the substantive points I raise here remain valid, about the purpose and scope of the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that with the content as it stands now, the title "Post-WWII anti-fascism" makes little sense; "Antifa movements" is more appropriate.  Sandstein   13:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You'll notice there's no place in either of the antifascism pages ("antifascism" and this one, which is supposed to cover 21st century) where the large-scale antifascism movement in the US is described. 40,000 person protest in boston, women's march with over a million, the charlottesville protest resulting in the murder of an antifascist demnonstrator....none of the are allowed on this page because someone falsely equated antifascism with antifa. 21st century antifa is a very small subset of 21st antifascism. It's actually buying into the pro-fascist narrative that the only resistance to fascism is violent antifa, when really there's both the violent response to fascist ideology in america (which is antifa), and large-scale nonviolent response to fascism (the examples I just mentioned). Wikipedia is complicit with pro-fascist propaganda, intentionally or not, by structuring the antifascism pages to either be historical (excluding 21st century) and by only addressing antifa (a small part of 21st century antifascism). Needs major revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:800:A81B:5487:9EE3:3CF5:A6BC (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I fully understand this comment but I agree with the point that the arbitrary WWII break is problematic by excluding non-"antifa" contemporary forms of anti-fascism. My view is the main anti-fascism page should not be just historic, so contemporary anti-fascism (including in the US) should be included there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

ANTIFA - Modern Day Nazis
Judging ANTIFA by their methods, this movement is quite similar to the Nazi Storm Division. Quote by Ignazio Silone: "When fascism returns, it will not say, 'I am fascism'. No, it will say: 'I am anti-fascism'." Articles on ANTIFA as a Nazi-like movement: ANTIFA - the new Nazis ANTIFA are socialist/Fascists, just like the Nazis. And just like the Nazis, they use totalitarian methods – using violence and intimidation to advance their agenda. Exactly the same as Hitler’s methods. But they are not confined to one place, they are international - InterNazis. Antifa – the new Nazis Yes, a Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis (The Washington Post) Last weekend in Berkeley, Calif., a group of neo-communist antifa — “anti-fascist” — thugs attacked peaceful protesters at a “No to Marxism in America” rally, wielding sticks and pepper spray, and beating people with homemade shields that read (I kid you not) “No Hate.” The Post reports how one peaceful protester “was attacked by five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself.” Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis --88.64.92.209 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First thing to note, is that The Washington Post (though a RS, like FOX News) has a conservative bias that needs to be considered. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Second thing is a bit of history of the Nazi Brown Shirts that brawled in the streets with Communists, Trade Unions and Antifa. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, the thoughts of Sinclair Lewis, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. that quote you list, is attributed to Huey Long who also said, "If Fascism comes to America it would be on a program of Americanism." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a comment on the content proposed, but I've read the Washington Post for decades on and off and I don't think it's that conservative. However their opinion pieces such as this present a range of opinions, particularly conservative, and this one is by the Republican Marc Thiessen. So there's no question that the author is conservative. It's not a report, it's an opinion piece. The report is here.
 * However, I'm not clear why this is being discussed here as I don't see a proposal to add it to the article. In any case, it should be added at Antifa first, which is the main article. Not here. Doug Weller  talk 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe, and that belief has been born out by the reporting of a few news organizations, that the anti-fa movement is, and has been for many years, a group of communists and anarchists who are simply bent on doing everything they can to destroy the American and other systems of government. They have no real idea of what to do if their actions succeed, are not truly led by anyone and and are simply destructive. The fact that they go into demonstrations dressed in black and carrying black and red flags is symbolic of the above. If the movement thinks the Washington Post is conservative?...well that is another indication of just how far to the left these vandals actually are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.116.157 (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"If the movement thinks the Washington Post is conservative?...well that is another indication of just how far to the left these vandals actually are."

Our article on The Washington Post indicates that this newspaper has been conservative for years, and it served as a propaganda newspaper for the government of George W. Bush:
 * "On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, "Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper".
 * "It has regularly published an ideological mixture of op-ed columnists, some of them left-leaning (including E. J. Dionne, Dana Milbank, Greg Sargent, and Eugene Robinson), and many on the right (including George Will, Marc Thiessen, Michael Gerson and Charles Krauthammer)."
 * "In November 2007, the newspaper was criticized by independent journalist Robert Parry for reporting on anti-Obama chain e-mails without sufficiently emphasizing to its readers the false nature of the anonymous claims. In 2009, Parry criticized the newspaper for its allegedly unfair reporting on liberal politicians, including Vice President Al Gore and President Barack Obama. "
 * "Responding to criticism of the newspaper's coverage during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, former Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote: "The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama." "
 * "Katharine Graham wrote in her autobiography Personal History that the newspaper long had a policy of not making endorsements for political candidates. However, since at least 2000, the newspaper has occasionally endorsed Republican politicians, such as Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich. In 2006, it repeated its historic endorsements of every Republican incumbent for Congress in Northern Virginia. "
 * "In Buying the War on PBS, Bill Moyers noted 27 editorials supporting George W. Bush's ambitions to invade Iraq. National security correspondent Walter Pincus reported that he had been ordered to cease his reports that were critical of Republican administrations. According to author and journalist Greg Mitchell, "By the Post own admission, in the months before the war, it ran more than 140 stories on its front page promoting the war, while contrary information 'got lost', as one Post staffer told Kurtz." " Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

See also Red Bloc
The article Red bloc was added to the See also section recently. It seems extremely marginal, and has no obvious relationship to the topic of this article. Any views? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The use of non-speaking sources in English speaking articles
Surely that's just open to abuse?  Cassianto Talk   19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it would be crazy not to allow non-English sources. An article on an organisation in a foreign country needs sources from that country. Articles on archaeology have have to have sources that are not English-speaking. Ditto the sciences. Ditto BLPs. WP:NONENG (part of WP:VERIFY which is policy) says Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." Often you can't get English sources of equal quality and relevance because it isn't of interest to English sources. But we are a world encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia restricted to English language countries. Doug Weller  talk 19:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Who checks them then?  Cassianto Talk   19:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with this, ?  Cassianto Talk   20:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone can check them. I checked that one and I don’t read Swedish. What was wrong is that not everyone in the Anti-Fascist Movement is far left. Doug Weller  talk 20:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the flip side, not everyone in For Britain would consider themselves to be "far-right", but I bet if I removed that, I'd be met with the same response. It's just as possible to be a far-left as it is to be a far-right.    Cassianto Talk   21:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. For Britain is an organisation. But this is about unstructured movements, plural. Not the same thing at all. Doug Weller  talk 21:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bit iffy to me. ‘’The Telegraph’’, ‘’CNN’’, ‘’Los Angeles Times’’, and ‘’CBC News’’ are just some of the reliable sources I’ve found on a quick Google search who describe Antifa as “far-left”. But anyway, I’ll move on as I seem to be beating a dead horse here.  Cassianto Talk   07:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of sources that refer to Antifa movements as not exclusively far left. These positions vary from mostly not far-left at the CBC to mostly, but not entirely far-left by the ADL. I provided some references showing this diversity of opinions here: Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The Western Journal is Categorically NOT a WP:RS
It's an explicit propaganda outfit that targets Facebook spamming. Sorry but no. You're not using that to source WP:SYNTH claims that calling people members of the KKK is racism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

edits by IP and avoiding edit warring
with  restored content that I removed with. The IP then reinserted the same content but added a citation, which I removed again, because the cited source made no mention of the subject and was about something else entirely. The IP then re-inserted their original contribution, adding "by the public media" with an edit summary that said: "Removed claim without proper citation, undid deletion of other claim. Any further disagreements will be resolved using the talk page to avoid an edit war". We now have a claim in the lead that is not present in the body of the article, phrased ungramatically as "Such movements have been active in several countries in the second half of the 20th and early 21st century, are often considered left wing extremists and are associated with left-wing terrorism by the public media".

I do do not think there is consensus to include a claim in the lead that is not present in the body, supported by a single example. The claim, as written is twofold The source is a single example of both, but does not establish that this is universally true. It also does not explicitly make the claim, but merely represents a single instance of The American Spectator calling antifa extremiststs and accusing antifa of using terror.
 * Anti-fascist movements are often considered left wing extremists by the public media, and
 * Anti-fascist movements are associated with left-wing terrorism by the public media.

To imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source is WP:OR|original research]] so I ask that the article be restored to this version. Vexations (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Germany
As I mentioned to at the Antifa (United States) talk page, that was not the appropriate venue to discuss a source about the German movement. However this most certainly is. Now I will say I have serious objections to the POV of Tataral's edit. I prefer the version put forward by. However this is the appropriate place to discuss how to give this WP:PRIMARY source due, neutral inclusion. Unlike the page on the American movement. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot delete sourced and relevant material because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tataral (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete anything. Acroterion was using the same source as yours. I just feel their version was more WP:NPOV compliant. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. Acroterion has to my knowledge not been involved in editing that part of the article at all. You removed sourced material based on the 2018 report, in favour of a badly worded sentence based on the 2015 report. That is just plain disruptive. --Tataral (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that it was the 2015 version compared to the 2018 version, likely because they use almost identical boilerplate language. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * However I'll admit my assignment of wikiblame to Acroterion seems, in retrospect, to be in error. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the edit where I presumably restored a different version? I've avoided making any substantive edit to the article to maintain administrative detachment.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can trout me for that one. I that Tataral was reverting you but it turned out to be an unrelated edit. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, carry on.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Massive restructuring
That was a very bold spree of edits. I've reverted them back to the prior state. I'd suggest that the overall action of converting the history of antifascism in Germany to an anti-communist narrative is a bit WP:TEND and I'd suggest you need to build consensus before making such dramatic expansions to one section. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * these edits have severe issues with WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL - they were very bold. They have been reverted. Please don't try to edit-war this. Discuss them. Clearly I don't approve. Let's see what other editors think. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You cannot blank half the article, that consists of meticulously sourced content that you happen to not like. Bring up any issues here specifically. You've not provided any valid reason here for removing any of the material. This is a short, undeveloped article, and you do not hold a veto over all my edits. --Tataral (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not blanking half the article. I'm reverting a contentious and flawed WP:NPOV WP:COATRACK revision. This article is not going to be neutral when it's being used to push an explicitly anti-communist narrative. If you want to assert that all resistance to fascism is a communist plot, get a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For instance, and specifically, in what universe do you think The first organization known as Antifa, Antifaschistische Aktion, was established as a front organization by the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) is a neutral first sentence of the lede? Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone familiar with Communist history wouldn't object to the use of the word "front.". Front is a neutral term and theory employed by Communist thinkers, cf. communist front. Your "objection" to the (sourced) sentence just underlines why your revert-warring is not based on any understanding of the topic or reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't comment on what I do or do not know. Calling it a communist front in the introductory sentence to a major section is not neutral regardless of how you perceive the term. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not edit other editors' comments. --Tataral (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone familiar with Wikipedia policy would realize that replacing a personal attack with is a legitimate edit, and editors reverting such changes to restore a personal attack are playing with fire. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone familiar with Wikipedia policy would understand that falsely describing a sentence that is not a personal attack as a personal attack is a personal attack. A statement regarding perceived familiarity with Communist history and theory has nothing to do with any personal attack. --Tataral (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How about you let some other editors discuss your massive restructuring and weigh in on whether it's appropriate. Or do we need to go to an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In a stub-class, undeveloped article, what would we have an RfC for at this point? You cannot demand an RfC for every new sentence because it will make all work on this undeveloped article impossible. I'm a major contributor to the article, your edits here have consisted of revert-warring to reintroduce an outdated source instead of a new one without familiarising yourself with the content and article history at all, as you admitted above. If you have specific concerns regarding content that you are able to discuss in a calm manner I'm happy to do that. So far you have objected to the use of the word front, although the article Communist front explains the concept that is employed within Communism, and not in a derogatory manner. If you do not not regard Communist front as an appropriate descriptive term, your first step should really be nominating Communist front for deletion instead of challenging the use of the term and links to the article elsewhere. But I don't expect much support for such a proposal, considering that it is a well-known, descriptive term based on Lenin's 1902 manifesto, "What Is to Be Done?", that proposed principles for organising political work that later communist parties employed widely, and that communist parties themselves also commonly used the term "front" in this context. --Tataral (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits by Tataral seem to me to be pushing a strong POV, strip out a large amount of well sourced and informative material and move the article off topic, and need to be properly discussed here. I a, reverting to the last stable version and maybe we can discuss proposed edits here calmly and impersonally. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This article is written in Summary style and includes short country sections on the United States and Sweden, which are covered in more detail in in-depth articles. Similarly, the section on Germany should at this point be a summary of comparable length to the section on e.g. the U.S. I have not removed anything, but written a summary and indicated that it is still work in progress and that I'm open to including other points from the original text, which I left commented out but not deleted because there may be more material suited for inclusion in the summary. Still, I believe the summary that I wrote is a reasonable, neutral and fair summary of the postwar Antifa movement in Germany, which primarily consists of the Antifa movement as a part of the East German state apparatus and official ideology, and the modern left-wing movement that originated in the Außerparlamentarische Opposition later and that gained traction in the late 80s/early 90s, and that is now mainly divided into an anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist faction and an anti-German faction.


 * I also don't think you are in any position to lecture me, a centrist, liberal editor (I've spent much time arguing for the inclusion of material critical of the far right too) who edits the history of the German Antifa based on mainstream German scholarship and official government sources, with good knowledge of the German sources and German scholarship on extremism in particular, about any POV when your own user page includes one userbox that declares support to the very ideology that my parents fled their country over, and another one in which you declare that you are part of Antifa "in word and [your emphasis] action" (should you be editing this article when you are a member?). I'll just note that in Germany (since we are just discussing the German Antifa in this section), Antifa is officially regarded as a "far-left extremist" and partially violent movement by the responsible German government institutions, and that an identical userbox was just deleted days ago as it was found to be violating WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC, and many editors noted in the discussion that the userbox constituted an endorsement of violence. --Tataral (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is also taking place in Talk:Anti-fascism. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tataral what do you mean by "no rationale for it on talk", the rationale is in that discussion, Peters is a CDU politician, his work is funded by that party, not a neutral source so that needs in-text attribution. WP:BIASED Sources in German need verification and other point of view need to be added to be balanced. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, there is no rationale for your spurious tag here. You have started no such discussion anywhere, and there is no other discussion anywhere that is relevant to this section. A year-old discussion has nothing to do with the current section which was written a year later (based on the relevant main articles). When you are edit-warring to add a spurious tag you are required to provide a rationale, which you haven't, and the tag will be removed as unjustified and disruptive. I caution you against your continued hounding of my edits by adding unreasonable tags to each and every source I use, as if one cannot use readily available, mainstream German sources when writing about a German topic. Your argument about Peters' other activities as a CDU politician is WP:SYNTH, his CV, unrelated to the cited work, does not belong in the summary here in this article; his scholarly monograph written as a political scientist and not as a CDU politician is used as a source for single sentence attributed to him, and his extracurricular activities are described in his biography. There is no "the other point" of view or "alternative facts" that I am aware of that belong in this summary; you have not provided any evidence that such a point of view exists, or merits inclusion. Since the section is based on mainstream sources and summarises uncontroversial information, and since you have failed to provide any rationale or evidence for the contrary, I suspect any "other point of view" would be highly WP:FRINGE. In a summary style section we just summarize what is covered in more depth in the main article(s). --Tataral (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you continue warring you may be blocked. It is already stated why the tag is there, other points of view are lacking, specially from antifascists and there are several RS in English about the topic, I see a lot here. I don't see how the bias from that politician should not be discloused in the article. If you have a problem with that use a better source. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not "already" stated because you have made no such attempt to discuss before or after adding the tag. Merely linking to Google(!) that returns a couple of results that don't seem that relevant to the section (e.g. on music) and that certainly don't seem to contradict it, isn't sufficient as a rationale. If you continue your disruptive edit warring you may be blocked from editing. You have not provided any rationale for the tag here, you have not proposed any changes, and you have not demonstrated why anything is wrong with the reasonable and fair summary. It also seems to me that you have added the tag merely as part of an attempt to hound my edits in a topic area you have not shown any previous interest in, or even knowledge of. Since you have now clarified elsewhere that you don't want to provide a rationale I'm going to remove it as spurious, unjustified and lacking a rationale despite several request for a rationale. --Tataral (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL, and stop making accusations. The sources in German need quotes to WP:VERIFY, sources independent of the subject should be added along with the point of view from antifascists. The current point of view in the article is from the German government and that is not neutral. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are not allowed to indiscriminately and in a WP:POINTy manner use dozens/hundreds of demands at a time for quotes for each and every source in German to burden editors with a massive workload in this way. If an editor has a reasonable request for a quote or translation, i.e. has provided a specific request/rationale for a specific source preferably on the talk page, I'm happy to provide it. In fact I have included quotes and translations for a number of the German sources I have used. Secondly, such a demand for quotes is no justification for the specific tag that you used.
 * No, the article doesn't need "point of view from antifascists" (what the heck that means, since you obviously do not include mainstream German scholars or the government as "antifascists" here). If that is referring to e.g. the very, relatively small "black bloc" groups that the German government views as "extremists" (who comprise maybe a few hundred people who use curious slogans such as "Down with Germany/Solidarity with Israel/For communism" with which very few Germans or Israelis for that sake would agree), we do not "need" to treat their (WP:FRINGE) worldview as equally valid as the views of mainstream political scientists and government sources (Wikipedia is not about False balance), and in fact the summary/article already includes their views to the extent that is reasonable. In any event, if you beliveve any such material is missing, you are free to propose changes or even make changes to the article yourself directly, which you haven't. Since you have neither demonstrated that anything at all is wrong with the summary, nor proposed or even made any changes, the tag is clearly unjustified, and if you are not able to provide any rationale for it, it will be removed.
 * The summary of post-war and German anti-fascist movements – in essence today's "Antifa" plus East German anti-fascism – has a much more narrow focus than any articles on anti-fascism generally and globally. The sources are also overwhelmingly German. --Tataral (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some already pointed out the misinterpretation of the sources in Anti-fascism, and I can't verify the sources that are in German so the tags will stay until the problems are solved. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This section has nothing to do with the article on anti-fascism, any material included in that article or anything discussed there. Since you have not offered a rationale, the tag will be removed, and any attempt to reinstate it without a rationale will be viewed as disruption. Also, your comparison to that article is ludicrous: Anti-fascism is a very broad topic in which various perspectives may be needed, a summary of German post-war Antifa movements, that are overwhelmingly covered by German scholarship and official sources and not, say, Indonesian or Spanish sources, doesn't have that many non-fringe perspectives, and your comment about the German government supposedly not being "neutral" really shows your bias/fringe POV pushing in this article. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote a tiny fringe group, but to describe them in an encyclopedic manner, based on how they are usually portrayed in most reliable sources focusing on this topic. Germany ranks highly in democracy-related indices and isn't considered particularly suspect, but the summary isn't just based on government sources, but also scholarly sources. --Tataral (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the sources here are not fringe. You are already warned about the warring and being civil. Rupert Loup (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have now been warning about disruptive edit-warring to reinstate a frivolous tag without providing a rationale. I'm not going to engage with your meaningless comment linking to a random Google result because it doesn't demonstrate anything at all, or constitute any form of rationale for anything. If you are not able to provide a rationale, proposing changes or using sources in the way that is required on Wikipedia, you need to refrain from edit-warring over maintenance tags. --Tataral (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller: I think that an admin should intervene here, this and this are against WP:TPO, this is against WP:REDACT, I tried to discuss the issue and I'm getting tired of the personal attacks. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Article move
This article has suddenly been renamed from Post-World War II anti-fascism to Post-World War II anti-fascism movements to Post-World War II anti-fascist movements. The page was originally Post-WWII Anti-fascism then two days later became Antifa movements, then in 2017 renamed Post-WWII Anti-fascist movements, then back, then there was an RfC to move back to to Antifa movements again which resulted in no consensus for a move. So for a single editor to rename it without any discussion on the talk page seems wrong. The move may be justified, but shouldn't there be discussion first? What's the rationale? (My own view is the whole article should be folded back into the Anti-fascism page.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have any strong feelings against this move. I think the lead, hatnote, contents and even gallery with the 13 Antifa flags clearly establish that the topic is what is often called Antifa movements or anti-fascist movements (understood as synonymous with Antifa movements, a left-wing political current, rather than opposition to fascism in general). Since already the hatnote defined the topic as "Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements worldwide", I view the move as relatively uncontroversial, even though, as a matter of principle, it would usually be best to discuss a move of such a contentious article. --Tataral (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The name should reflect the content of the article, I belive that we must make consensus in what the article is about, Antifa movements/networks or antifascism in general. I personally think that it should be the later. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back to the longterm title. Given that there was previously opposition to a rename, it should go through a fresh RM if a rename proposal is wanted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Germany
An editor with a history of hounding my recent work by adding spurious tags to every reference used, always with no rationale, and no previous interest in German political history as far as I can tell, has attempted to add a clearly spurious tag to the Germany section, while offering no rationale at all, neither here on the talk page, nor anywhere else. That is disruptive, and the tag has been removed as clearly unjustified, in the absence of any concrete issues or proposed changes raised here. The section is a fair and reasonable summary of the relevant main articles based on mainstream German sources. --Tataral (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless a rationale for the tag is provided within the next 24 hours, the tag will be removed as spurious. I note that there has been no attempt to add, propose or discuss any changes, or to demonstrate on the talk page what is supposedly the problem with the section. For example, there has been no attempt to argue what kind of material/views that are supposedly lacking, and based on which sources, or even to add any such material to the section. These are minimum requirements for adding such a tag. The section is a Summary style section that just summarises what is mostly entirely uncontroversial information and otherwise attributes it to relevant and very solid sources (e.g. the German federal government as a source for how the government views those groups).

I also note the false edit summary that claimed that a rationale had been provided; at the time of the edit summary the only comment about the material in question was the comment I myself had added on the talk page (note: the section was rewritten entirely as a plain summary of relevant main articles earlier in 2020, and there is no previous discussion of the current text on this talk page). After more than half a dozen requests for a rationale, the best thing the editor in question has come up with is a link to Google (with results that seemed at best tangentially relevant & didn't demonstrate anything in relation to this section), and a strange claim that the "German gov't isn't neutral" (of course, the section isn't just based on the German government, but a combination of scholarly and official sources) which seems to imply that all mainstream German scholarly and gov't sources aren't "neutral" (on Wikipedia we don't treat WP:FRINGE sources as equally valid as mainstream sources, and the only argument that could be made would be that the section doesn't read like the website of those groups, comprising a few hundred people, that the German gov't views as violent extremists, in its treatment of them based on mainstream scholarly and official sources, but that was never the goal of the section); for the most part the section is purely factual, e.g. in its discussion of the GDR tradition; i.e. it just describes how they interpreted and used this tradition and term.

The editor who added the tag came here from a discussion of the article on anti-fascism, in which the editor was engaging in the same kind of behaviour. The material found in that article and the discussion going on there aren't very relevant to the material summarised in this section in this article. While anti-fascism is a very underdeveloped article on a very broad, globally relevant and complex phenomenon and where clearly e.g. non-German perspectives are highly relevant, this section is specifically about a well-defined and far more narrow topic, the German and post-war (i.e. Cold War and today) Antifa tradition, today a tiny movement, in which the only mainstream perspectives are those offered by political scientists/historians and government sources predominantly in Germany (non-German sources rarely even bother with this tradition). It's not sufficient to point to the general article on anti-fascism in order to demonstrate that a summary of German post-war Antifa movements isn't accurate.

I also note that the tag was added by an editor in the habit of adding spurious tags en masse to each and every German source used, with no explanation or rationale, and in topics that are entirely German in nature and where nearly all the relevant literature is German. While an editor may request a quote or translation if they have a reason, and while I'm happy to provide that on a case by case basis, preferably following discussion on the talk page, that is not carte blanche to indiscriminately use a large amount of such requests at a time with no rationale whatsoever, in a way that makes it practically impossible for European-based editors to work on European topics based on European sources. Such behaviour is really an example of the US bias often found on this project, something I have criticised over a decade or so. --Tataral (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have removed the tag. Verification should be possible, it doesn't have to be easy. Vexations (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Also it is curious that the East German antifascism part doesn't mention the crackdown on East German antifascist veterans like Walter Janka. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , what is the problem with these citations? Is it that you can't read German or that you don't have access to the source? Vexations (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't read German. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, for example. For cite #16, the statement is "For example, from 1961 to 1989, the East German regime used the term "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall" (German: Antifaschistischer Schutzwall) as the official name for the Berlin Wall." it is supported by a link to https://www.chronik-der-mauer.de/node/178754, which says:
 * "Die DDR feierte den Bau der Mauer – in der Sprache der SED-Propaganda „antifaschistischer Schutzwall" – als Sieg des „sozialistischen Lagers" über den westlichen Imperialismus." surely you might have found that if you searched for "Schutzwall", and than you could have run it through deepl.com or something and found: "The GDR celebrated the construction of the wall - in the language of SED propaganda "antifascist protective wall" - as a victory of the "socialist camp" over Western imperialism." which is a decent translation. And you want us to do this for all the citation s you listed because, what, you didn't believe the SED actually used that term? Why would anyone doubt that? This is very basic common knowledge. Please provide better reasons. Vexations (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the affirmation that the wall was "against the western world and NATO in general, and against the western-backed Federal Republic of Germany and its main ally the United States in particular" is disputed, antifascist were also target by East Germany, and I think that should be stated in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Peters quote is on page 34: "In der politischen Gegenwart der Bundesrepublik Deutschland findet der Begriff Antifaschismus bevorzugt im linksextremistischen Spektrum Verwendung." That's exactly what the article says: "the term anti-fascism is primarily used by the far left in contemporary Germany". Again, why would anyone doubt that? Vexations (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So the far left are the only ones that oppose to fascism in contemporary times? The section focuses only in the term, and it also should be about the opposition to fascism itself. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic of this article is postwar "Anti-fascist movements / anti-fascist action networks". In Germany that is a left wing movement, as demonstrated and explained by numerous reliable sources included in this and other articles, and different from German resistance to Nazism. The topic is not "opposition to fascism itself" which implies that today's Germany is "fascist". The only ones who claim that fascists rule Germany now are a small number of extremists. --Tataral (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead is also wrong and should be rewritten, this article is about "Post-World War II anti-fascism", which means "opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals." And your sources are POV, it took me 3 minutes to find the sources that I presented here. So I think that content is omitted on purpose.Rupert Loup (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic, as defined already in the lead section (which I didn't write), is post-war anti-fascist movements and anti-fascist action networks (aka Antifa) in Germany, not opposition to actual, historical fascism. There is no fascist regime in place in Germany today. The article even includes a gallery with no less than 13 Antifa flags, leaving no room for doubt that the topic is Antifa networks. And if that wasn't enough, the hatnote explicitly explains that This article is about Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements worldwide. If you have absolutely nothing of substance to contribute and you don't even understand what the topic of this article is, stop wasting people's time. If you want to write about opposition to fascism as it existed historically, this is the wrong article. And no, I didn't omit Janka on purpose, because no reasonable and knowledgable contributor would believe that he, as the only person, ought to be mentioned in a brief summary of postwar "Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements worldwide", that doesn't mention any other individuals, and when he isn't mentioned in any relevant main articles either, and when he doesn't seem that central to this specific topic. --Tataral (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There are probably a number of articles where Walter Janka – a communist who was imprisoned in East Germany for counter-revolutionary activities – deserves to be mentioned, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me to mention him in a very short summary style section here that summarises postwar German Antifa movements, and that doesn't discuss any other individuals, especially considering that he isn't mentioned in any of the relevant main articles either. In any event, a desire to include him is no justification for the tag, and I also note that there was no previous attempt to include him (it's not like I would oppose his inclusion in articles where he is relevant and where his inclusion doesn't seem like intricate detail), and that is he is mentioned in the discussion now seems like an entirely artificial "argument". While being able to read German (it's not my native language either) is not generally required to contribute to Wikipedia, following editors who are working on specifically German topics in specifically Germany-related articles or sections around to question every source they use merely because they are in German is not productive at all. German is a major world language that is reasonably accessible to most people interested in anything Germany-related, and if you have a question regarding a source, you need to, at the very least, state your specific reasons on the talk page in connection with that source, and also no bombard editors with unreasonable requests or an unreasonable amount of requests. --Tataral (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several articles about Janka, and Heinz Zöger, and Paul Merker, and the anarchists, and others.Rupert Loup (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And? --Tataral (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And it should be mentioned in the article the fate of notable antifascists. Aslo "post-war anti-fascist movements and anti-fascist action networks (aka Antifa) in Germany, not opposition to actual, historical fascism." So why the GDR is mentioned in the article then? The GDR was not "Antifa". I'm going to change the name of the article to reflect its content and removing that content per this discussion. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I really think that the article should be about post-war antifascism in general, that means the opposition against fascism (old and new) by the different German goverments, political parties, organizations, movements and notable individuals. Specially in contemporary times against Neo-Fascism/Nazism. Denazification and related laws/policies should be in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And the section already mentions that the current movement has its roots in the West German Außerparlamentarische Opposition left-wing student movement during the 1960s and 1970s. But the left-wing student movement and its legacy aren't synonymous with "Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements", the defined topic of this article. The text that you simply copied from tangentially related articles just makes the section bloated and off-topic and is no description of postwar Anti-Fascist Action networks or Antifa movements in Germany, but descriptions of more general aspects of West German society not directly related to the topic and only forms, in a vague sense, a backdrop that was in fact mentioned appropriately with a link to the Außerparlamentarische Opposition, and co-opts all left-wing causes and protest culture for the cause of Antifa, the small anarcho-communist movement in Germany. At most, this topic merits one or two additional sentences on the student movement and its radicalisation in the 1960s. --Tataral (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The student movemnt is the contentext in which this groups were created, not including it in the article is misleading. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree that it would be good to see a range of scholarly sources used in this section, I don't understand what specific objections is making. Mention of Janka, Zoeger and Merker seems completely undue in this article; their stories may belong in other, more DDR-related articles, but aren't relevant here. All sources in need of verification appear to be verified. Inline tags would be sufficient for any sourcing issues; section tagging is overkill. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be breifly mentioned that notable antifascists that participated in the WWII were persecuted by a goverment that claimed to be "antifascist". However, my main objection is the range of sources, and that requieres a tag. Also more neutral stances toward the GDR aslo should be here for WP:NPOV, although it was pointed by Tataral that this article is about "Antifa" and not about antifascism itself. My point is that there is more than the point of view of the CDU and the current goverment. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Janka et al are relevant, because they're not sufficiently noteworthy within the larger history of anti-fascism. Maybe if there were a more detailed page on Anti-fascism in Germany they'd be relevant, but this is meant to cover the whole post-war period, so they seem undue. I agree there needs to be a wider range of sources, and there is plenty we could use. I'm not clear what the problem with the existing links themselves is. I also agree Peters' CDU affiliation is probably relevant, because his PhD was funded by the CDU. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The very bloated and unfocused (for this article) third paragraph touches upon an issue that could be elaborated on, but in a more relevant way (for this article) and more succinctly. It could be replaced by an additional sentence in the paragraph that starts with the West German left-wing student movement, e.g. "Parts of the left-wing student movement, and later the Antifa movement in West Germany, viewed the West German government as fascist and pointed to continuity in the civil service since the Nazi era and policies they viewed as imperialist." --Tataral (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The opening of the section seems to be in dispute. Can I suggest this compromise wording: "The post-war history of the anti-fascist movement in Germany includes two distinct traditions, an East German tradition and a tradition that arose in West Germany during the 1970s but with roots in the student movement and in post-war dissatisfaction with denazification." BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is entirely correct. Dissatisfaction with continuity from the Nazi era was simply one of several issues that influenced, formed a backdrop of or were cited as grieavances by the German left-wing student movement, which in turn indirectly influenced the creation of Antifa by Maoists in the 1970s, but it's not accurate to describe it as the only influence, neither on the student movement nor on its "grandchild" Antifa. Protest against Germany's alignment with the U.S., the Vietnam war, capitalism itself were other at least equally important factors; for the student movement the policies in the 1960s were seen as imperialist and indeed often fascist, and the continuity in the civil service was mainly an explanation, in their view, for why West Germany in the 1960s was a fascist country supporting imperialist wars (through its alliance with the U.S. and its arms industry). The most radical elements of the student movement, that became terror organisations like the Red Army Faction, also decided that Israel was fascist in their view and established alliances with organisations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. They were more interested in what was going on in the 1960s-1970s than just history for history's sake. In my opinion the material on the backdrop of the student movement belongs somewhere at the start of the final paragraph that discusses today's Antifa's roots in the left-wing student movement of the 60s, which also makes the most sense chronologically. --Tataral (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * On reflection, while I think some of the West German history, from denazification onwards, is definitely relevant here, we should aim to be much more concise and include the detail in the relevant article, Antifa (German) (or possibly there should be an article like Anti-fascism in Germany) and not in this general article on post-war anti-fascism globally: the section should not be more detailed than the main article it relates to. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that a detailed discussion of this material belongs in other articles (we already have some articles that discuss some of this material, such as West German student movement and Außerparlamentarische Opposition), but a concise summary here (e.g. one or two sentences as part of the final paragraph, rather than a separate, full paragraph) is fine. --Tataral (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)