Talk:Anti-fascism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.77.253.240 (talk) at 16:22, 1 May 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What happened 1939-1941?

The period Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact-Operation Barbarossa deserves to be described here.Xx234 (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The view of Norman Davies on Anti-fascism: Irreconcilably different anti-fascists

With this edit I have tried to make the point that Anti-fascism is not actually a coherent political ideology and that various anti-fascists are irreconcilably different.

To illustrate that this view is notable and deserves mentioning, I made this edit.

The point of that second edit is that contemporary German antifascists, that oppose the post-reunification rise in far-right extremism would be seriously offended by being lumped together with the SED of the former GDR.

Any editor that takes issues with these edits is welcome to discuss them here. Happy editing, Lklundin (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a D is BRD, which means you discuss before reinserting the content. You can highlight the term used by the SED, but to conclude that this is evidence of irreconcilable difference in ideology by contemporary Antifa is original research and in breach of WP:SYNTHESIS. -Saint458 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot have it both ways. So if you berate me for not following the optional WP:BRD then you consequently have to justify your revert of this edit by arguing against its edit summary. Feel free to self-revert while you do so. Lklundin (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already stated my concern which is the undue weight given to a singular source for the purpose of POV pushing. -Saint458 (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Saint458: Firstly, there is no problem in citing a single reliable source for a given paragraph. Secondly, considering that Norman Davies is a highly regarded historian quoted hundreds and hundreds of times here on the English Wikipedia, I believe it is only fair to ask that you please detail exactly how the suggested text is in conflict with the WP:UNDUE and the more general WP:POV policy that you refer to. Lklundin (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Saint458: In the absence of feed-back to my request for details on how exactly my proposed edit conflicts with Wikipedia policy I will have to assume that you no longer have any objections to my edit. Lklundin (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My work and real life commitments take priority so I'm not always able to edit on a daily basis. Regarding the source - can we establish that this is view is held within the broader literature? Being a reputable historian doesn't mean that the views expressed is necessarily representative. Also on closer inspection your version requires additional clarification as it appears to refer to policies of a specific period and not necessarily the movement as a whole. Anti-fascist movements (broadly construed), predates these events. -Saint458 (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, finding sources to establish that the view of Davies is broadly held would allow us to dispense with the attribution (e.g. Davies argues this, Davies claims that). For now I will be content to leave it as proposed. I did think about how to best integrate Davies' view into the page. Since the lead is not inline sourced, I took the liberty to modify it, to fit in Davies' view there. This was rejected as editorialising. My second attempt is a separate paragraph with its own header, i.e. a new subsection. You are welcome to suggest a modification that allows the paragraph to be appended to the intro, or a modification of the suggested subsection to clarify that Anti-fascist movements (broadly construed) predates the events based on Davies. Unless the text of the suggested modification is self-evident, a reliable source would be in order. Example: "Although the term anti-fascism was used in year 1927,(ref)Insert source for example year 1927 here(/ref) Davies claims that...". A separate section titled 'Origin' with the relevant views would be preferable in my mind. The events described by Davies took place on the order of 80 years ago, so I see no urgency in the discussion here. Lklundin (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was editorialising. Not only that, it was also redundant as you were basically repeating the notion that anti-fascists are opposed to fascism. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of Norman Davies' views, we just need it to establish its relevance within the broader literature and to clarify on the precise nature of his statement. Undue weight is given to his views as its presented as a indictment on the movement as a whole when he was specifically referring to a given period within a particular political context. I'm still in the process of looking at additional sources (both journal and books). -Saint458 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 9 days now, since I asked you to please detail your accusation that the edit you reverted was POV pushing. As already established Davies is a highly regarded historian and with the clear attribution of the statements to him, it is not necessary to further establish the relevance of his view. The suggested paragraph heading with the word 'Origin' clearly does not indict the movement as a whole. It is fine that you look for ways to improve the article, but in the meantime we need to reinstate the edit you reverted, for apparent lack of justification of its revert. I will give you a couple of days to show your good faith, or do so myself. Lklundin (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe I've answered your questions already. How about we work towards a compromise. Perhaps get a third opinion from an admin?. -Saint458 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: POV pushing is clearly evident in your attempt to synthesise sources in order to show what you believe is a "truly evil" term [1]. The lack of context and clarification, plus reliance on a single source, is enough justification for a revert. -Saint458 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Saint458: OK, I have brought the contested edit up at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#POV_pushing_at_Anti-fascism. Lklundin (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Intermittentgardener: Although the new heading 'Origins' is a NPOV word I am unsure if it is suitable with the subsection in its current form. The word 'Antifascism' appears to be in use already in 1927 to describe (potential) resistance specifically within the only existing fascist regime at the time, namely that of Mussolini. This usage thus predates the Soviet (ab)use (as claimed by Davies), which appears in the 1930'es as an all encompassing term. So the current heading can give the incorrect impression that the Soviet use of the word is the original use of the word, as opposed to a broadening of its definition. One solution could be to extend the 'Origins' subsection to specify that 'Antifascism' was used from 1927 by Mussolini to describe his "Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism", or else to rename the subsection to try and hint at the Soviet usage. Lklundin (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The current section text is a bare bones summary of Davies. My first edit to this article tried to include my above point but the extra, introductory text was rejected as 'editoralising' and interestingly also as 'redundant' (in the above discussion). Lklundin (talk)

I came here from a notice board, it is my opinion that since the edit is contested that wp:undue states t "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I would also look at the quality of the book. If it is a great source then it should have something to back it. Here are some links about it from high quality sources: nytimes theguardian.com. With a brief search I did find it hard to find further information supporting the claim. Jadeslair (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "antifa"?

I'm not sure precisely where this would go in the article, since usually only the title itself gets an IPA transcription, but without a separate article on antifa it would be good to have a pronunciation listed here. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, where is it defined or acknowledged as an alternate term for antifascists? the ONLY use i have seen for this term is on this page, in captions for 2 images on WP, and at the 4chan site /pol, which is a gathering spot for self proclaimed fascists. I believe the term may be used to insult or demean anti fascists. if so, it should not be used as an NPOV term for them. I think its a neologism.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
here's evidence that its a disparaging term used by fascists: [2]Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's evidence that it was originally a narrowly used term for communist groups pretending to be adhoc anti fascists, but historic in occupied germany after ww2, not current. this may be true today, but its not proven. [3]Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry User:Mercurywoodrose but that is not the truth. Facebook is not a reliable source. See this reliable source, it's a neutral term http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39004753 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcho-authoritarian (talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
German antifascists use Antifa to describe themselves ([4], [5]). Our German version of this article cites several sources using Antifa. In German is not uncommon to shorten words in an informal setting (e.g. Trabi) and I would guess that in German use of Antifa signals familiarity with and probably also approval of the concept. The pronunciation in German is with both a something like in Arnhem. Lklundin (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talkpage

My edits


Dr. K.,

While you may not appreciate the edits that I have made to this page, the source that I cited is by a well-respected author who is writing o the very beginnings of the Nazi movement in 1933. This is neither a "novel synthesis" of information, and I am using a more than credible source to provide my information. While your opinion of what is occurring in America today and mine might differ, one cannot deny that many of the tactics of those who are protesting Trump and his actions are doing the very things I listed - almost verbatim, actually.

Please help me understand how this violates the policy of editing a Wikipedia page.

KancerBrain (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC) KB[reply]

Can you please provide a quote from the source you provided that says:

Many of the tactics used by anti-fascists today eerily mirror those of the Fascists in Nazi Germany.

Thanks. Dr. K. 02:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a simple comparison of recent events used by anti-government movements that mirror those of the Nazis in Germany, followed by specific examples of exact tactics used by these groups in recent months. While the particular statement you have raised may objectionable, I woudl prefer constructive criticism on how to rewrite it such that we can relates the specific behaviors used today that mirror those behaviors used in 1933 KancerBrain (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)KB[reply]
Yeah. A commonly made mistake. "Simple comparisons" = WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Unless you find a WP:RELIABLESOURCE making that not-so-simple comparison, your edit stays out of this article, or any other. Sorry to sound so forbidding but that's what the local policies here demand. Dr. K. 03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


United States: 2016 to Current -- vote on whether to include section on Trump protestors and/or present-day antifa in US

Backstory for voting: When I got to the "United States" section of this wiki and the discussion of post-WW2 events, it talked exclusively about violent masked rioters going crazy at Berkeley because of a Milo event. No context at all. I started to beef up the section to portray the massive political happenings in the US (Trump etc). Soon there were many vandals attacking this section. Additionally, legitimate wiki editors raised the point that since Trump is not conclusively a fascist proper, discussions about his protestors may not be relevant Mjleone (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC):[reply]

  • Per my recent edit summary, the sub-section on 2016 was not encyclopedic, helplessly prone to WP:POV, subject to WP:BLP abuse, and violated WP:NOTNEWS. Article focus is on the historical, not hysterical aspects of antifasicm. WP cannot be used to imply that Trump and Trumpism is fascist, either by saying "he is!" or "he isn't". History, not current punditry, will tell. If there are quality sources which discuss Trump et al., they should be in accordance with WP:HISTRS. – S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the energy to keep fighting edits because I have been fighting them for more than a week (again -- the section was originally about anarchists screaming in the streets without any mention of trump which was crazy weird dontyathink). But let me just say that at no point did I write that Trump was or was not fascist. There were however a diverse array of sources supporting that the fact that many people BELIEVE him to be very fascist (and they have expressed their anti-fascism by disapproving of him, voting against him, and protesting against him by the millions). This widespread antifascism will be an enduring memory in american history and deserves to be on the wiki page. Hopefully someone will fix what you've done (but I also get where you're coming from)

Mjleone (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not totally sure about the recent deletion of the "2016" section, in theory. These events are fairly important. But as I've pointed out, it's hard to determine what "anti-fascism" or "fascism" in the US even means. There is "anti-fascist" sentiment in the wake of Trump, but there is no cohesive "anti-fascist" or "fascist" movement. So it's hard to know who really is an "anti-fascist". Add to that the politicization of the topic, and you have a recipe for disaster. @Srich32977: I think this section could work, but only if IP's and new users are blocked from editing. Otherwise trolls will make a mess. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I strongly urge that we look at the topic from an historical perspective, and avoid WP:RECENTISM. Those who want to criticise Trump as a fascist (or otherwise) can best do so in articles with his name in the title. That way we can steer clear of BLP problems, and the fairly important events of his election and presidency will remain balanced. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the first paragraph of this section. I honestly don't know how much of this really belongs in this article, but whatever does deserves clarity, so I did my best to revise it. The last sentence seems out of place and not very appropriate for the paragraph. However, I left it in place to avoid any edit wars.

I linked the "Main Article" for the second paragraph. It is excessive in this article and I think should be eliminated entirely. A simple link indicating the existence of that protest would more than suffice. I will leave that to someone with more edit experience/authority than I. 108.202.198.41 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with leaving the first paragraph in and removing the second paragraph, but also don't want to be the one to change it and have my edits reverted. Here's my rationale: everyone and their mother knows who Donald Trump is as well as the accusations of fascism surrounding his campaign and administration. But my mother definitely doesn't know who the f*** Milo Yiannopoulos is; most people don't really care except trolls. So clearly the first paragraph is more enduring and therefore relevant for this wiki page, while the Milo stuff is prone to recentism.

Mjleone (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Should the article contain material about the current (2016–2017) political situation in the United States? – S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • No – Per my comments above such material is WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, highly prone to WP:POV, and potentially a violation of WP:BLP. Views about fascism or anti-fascism in the Trump administration (or era) are best handled in articles about Trump and recent history in the US. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should respond to this. WP:RECENTISM - does not state an entry should be ignored because it is recent. it states that entries on recent subjects should be written in a way that it is relevant and understandable if read 10 years from now. It is not a reason to exclude an article, but a reason to rewrite one: Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. WP:NOTNEWS - This describes: Original reporting, News Reports, 'Whos who', and diary usage. as per News Reports description: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." -- non of this information is 'breaking' and can definately be written in the same fashion as other wiki articles... Finally WP:POV - Yes, this could be prone to a non-neutral POV, but that is not a reason to ignore this topic completely, it is a reason to simply ensure it is being written about neutrally. I would argue that ignoring a topic such as this and constantly deleting it (as has been happening) is the same as not having a neutral POV 75.172.100.10 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: There's a lot of people calling other people fascists for no obvious reason, but no actual fascists and, hence. no anti-fascists. To date I see no evidence whatsoever that people being decried as fascist actually are. Name calling isn't anti-fascism and we shouldn't call it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleuske (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: First, let's be clear that the statement directly above mine is just an opinion. Just as the statement "Trump IS fascist" is a current and widespread OPINION, so is the opinion that "Trump is NOT fascist". And you don't get to claim that your opinion is the true one just because it's yours. As for evidence, there is plenty of controversial legislation that many have called fascist (and many have called NOT fascist), and plenty of experts who have described Trump as similar to fascism, while others have described him as very far. The only fact here that is at the same time 1.) enduring (NOT recentism), 2.) incontrovertible (NOT opinion), and 3.) relevant (because it's literally anti-fascism), is the fact that millions of people have been actively protesting the Trump administration under the premise that his policies are fascist. So that's why I'm voting *yes* Mjleone (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The question is very vague, but looking at the discussion below, which appears to be about Trump/Trump opposition, the answer must be No, unless there are strong sources describing either DT, or the anti-DT as 'fascist', 'anti-fascist'. I've not heard of any and the suggestion that a few comparisons make DT=AH and consequently anti-DT anti-fascist involves several logical leaps of faith. And believe me I am truly saddened and puzzled as to why any sane country would choose him. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: As the article intro states, anti-fascism can be against "fascist ideologies, groups and individuals" and can therefore take place in a country regardless of whether the ruling government is or is not fascist. We should look to reliable sources that tell us there are a growing number of groups specifically labeling various acts of resistance as anti-fascist, then summarize those sources. But also per WP:UNDUE, do it in proportion to the weight of recent movements in the broader history of anti-fascism. It gets at least a sentence or two. Address the WP:POV and WP:BLP issues as they come up, but don't use that to flat out not have a 2016-7 section. Staeiou (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Wikipedia should not confuse Fascism with Fascist (insult).--Wikimedes (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: Antifa today believes that Trump is literally fascist. They are wrong in my opinion, but Wikipedia isn't the place to correct them. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It isn't really a matter of debate that there has been a rise of groups claiming to be "anti-fascist" in both the USA and abroad.[6] I don't see why whether so-and-so is fascist or not has anything to do with it. I would advise against further debate on this as it is irrelevant to the RfC. There should definitely be reference to events from 2016-17 in this article. I would, however, urge that any new content also include references to antifa activities in other countries too, for example this activity in the UK from earlier this weekend [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoGhost (talk • contribs) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: per WP:COATROACK and WP:RECENTISM. Some sources have drawn hasty parallels, but the primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to discuss actual phenomena, not what these phenomena are similar to. Absent genuine and well-established fascist and anti-fascist movements, the discussion will be largely rhetorical. A similar thing is going in in Ukraine, where separatists have styled themselves as "anti-fascist" partisans, while the central government has tried to rehabilitate extreme Ukrainian nationalism and has gained the support of some neo-Nazi groups and individuals. But no matter how often they are drawn, WWII "parallels" don't suffice to make the Ukrainian conflict one of anti-fascism vs fascism. Some hastily assembled "antifa" groups have emerged in the US, but it's way too soon to discuss them here. It is not at all clear if most of these "antifa" people believe that Trump is an actual fascist, or just some of his supporters. To the extent that they believe the former, it is not clear how they are different from a few liberals who believe exactly the same thing but have no association with organized anti-fascism. Why is it unclear? Because the events are very recent and subject to rhetorical sleighs of hand: the RS have not caught up to the point where we can discuss any salient facts. Europe has traditions of anti-fascism and fascism, which allows us to discuss them here; the US has neither. Furthermore, any mention would be an open invitation to trolls and POV-pushers to constantly vandalize the article. This is exactly what was happening before the section on the "US in 2016" was deleted. So noooooo, let's be patient. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you don't want "fake anti-fascists" to make the "real anti-fascists" on the page look bad? How is that an excuse for excluding anti-fascists?173.77.253.207 (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)— 173.77.253.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Question: Since I'm admittedly very guilty of over-posting, I'm removing one of my comments and replacing it with one that I think is more relevant to the discussion. If there is resistance to a specific aspect of ideology that is indeed what a "full" fascist would endorse (eg. an immigration policy), and that ideology is rightly labeled by protestors as coming out of the fascist's playbook, can the protests then legitimately be called "anti-fascism"? What they are protesting in that hypothetical case is truly fascist, even if the person endorsing those beliefs is not "fully" fascist. Mjleone (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is resistance to a specific aspect of ideology that is indeed what a "full" fascist would endorse (eg. an immigration policy), and that ideology is rightly labeled by protestors as coming out of the fascist's playbook, can the protests then legitimately be called "anti-fascism"? If the body of RS call it "anti-fascist". WP:RS are not, as a whole, saying that the mass movements against Trump are "anti-fascist" in nature. This won't happen, until the mass movements themselves proclaim that their main goal is to defeat fascism (not racism, sexism, xenophobia, robber-baron capitalism, imperialism — FASCISM). At the time, stuff like this (Whitefish, Montana) is antifascism, quite explicitly. Theoretically, we could add this. But I'd prefer to wait, since it is not yet entirely clear how this fits into the broader trends.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm very concerned by some of the discussion here regarding the legitimacy of current 'anti-fascist' activities. Please refer to the notice at the top of the talkpage (This is not a forum for general discussion about Anti-fascism). We shouldn't be debating this at all, and discussion in this direction is coming close to WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Instead, we need to look at valid contemporary sources (such as the BBC article I posted) and make a decision based on currently existing information. --NoGhost (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a quick follow-up - I should point that I understand this is an emotional subject for Americans, but I strongly recommend considering a WP:WORLDVIEW and avoiding a US bias. --NoGhost (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time we shouldn't uncritically stuff mainly historical articles with news stories, per WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE. The BBC blog was quoted here for one statement and one statement only: that anarchists are "arguably more extreme" than the alt-right (in tactics, but that qualification was omitted). OK, I guess that settles it: the American far right is more peaceful than the far left, despite being responsible for numerous hate crimes, murders, terrorist attacks etc. We are under no obligation to insert hot news and opinions (especially those about "fascism") into a mainly historical article. This is even before considering the fact that the news will be twisted beyond all recognition by advocacy trolls who are very hot-tempered on this issue. Just look at the history of this article. Last few months have been non-stop vandalism. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to be dragged into a debate about the legitimacy of "anti-fascism". We don't stop editors from "twisting" sources into opinions by ignoring a topic, we stop editors by rewording content to maintain a neutral point-of-view. Please, the only point of the linked article is to show that reputable non-American sources have recognized the rise of so-called "anti-fascist" groups in recent months. I'm worried that by refusing to acknowledge these groups, WP will appear biased one way or another by not giving due weighting to this notable phenomenon. And in my opinion, we're setting ourselves up for even more vandalism if we pretend this doesn't exist. There is absolutely no harm in recognizing that there has been a rise of self-proclaimed "anti-fascist" activities in the USA and Europe since 2016 (in two sentences or less), and any avoidance of the issue is a shirking of a WP:NPOV. --NoGhost (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of WP:UNDUE? That's your BBC blog. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. The BBC link was just used to provide context that groups claiming to be "anti-fascist" have been more active in the last year. Other unbiased sources could be used for the purpose of the article, if you are worried about misconstrued interpretations. Two sentences or less that mention significant notable events is not undue. --NoGhost (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no. Let's keep this out of the article. Camel's nose applies. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"OK, I guess that settles it: the American far right is more peaceful than the far left, despite being responsible for numerous hate crimes, murders, terrorist attacks etc" LOL, stop shilling. It isn't the far-right repeatedly committing organized acts of violence, within a period of several months.173.77.253.207 (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong No as has been decided time and time again, Trump is not a fascist, unless he has some Hitleresque master plan, which is doubtful. Because of this we can hardly say that there are anti-fascists, given that there are no fascists. We'd basically be forced to say "Yeah but they're wrong, because he literally isn't a fascist". -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as there has clearly been an upsurge in organisations and affinity groups calling themselves anti-fascist BUT there is no reason in this article for more than a very short bullet, certainly no longer than the Swedish Antifascistisk Aktion bullet that would go before it.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: If written unbiased, many valuable items could be added to this section. It is important to have an unbiased section on the recent activities of groups who claim to be anti-fascist in the US. If written well this can be acceptable as per the Wikipedia Recentism guidelines. Unbiased details need to be added.99.185.4.21 (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)— 99.185.4.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Yes: Inlcusion of recent anti-fascist activity is an imporant thing to inlcude in this article. Wikipedia Recentism guidelines dont claim that we should wait 10 years until adding an entry about something, it simply states that articles on recent events should be written in a manner to be relevant and understandable 10 years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.100.10 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — 75.172.100.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • YES: Current anti fascist activities will help keep this article relevant. Purposefully ignoring current, relevant information in an encyclopedia entry because some people may or may not enjoy the current state of affairs goes against good taste. 2016 and 2017 American anti-fascist activities needs to be included in an unbiased manner and not censored as certain users have been attempting to do with this topic.Jamesreeves2015 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)— Jamesreeves2015 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No, there is a lot of acrimony in politics right now. And while there some over the top people on the left/right who mention Hitler at the drop of the hat, we needn’t draw unwarranted attention to them. We should have cool heads and endeavor to stick to NPOV as much as possible. By sticking to NPOV as far as the content/tone and placement of material in our articles, we will mitigate the instances of having articles written by pundits rather than encyclopedists.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Srich32977 and Desmay. Everyone arguing for more recent material prefaces their comments with concerns about sourcing and neutrality, evincing the fact that including the material at all will be problematic. Just leave it out. Wikipedia does not have to be, nor should ever be, the only reference needed for any subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Yes Very important and relevant. Include the article in such a way that it maintains neutral point of view and doesn't start ranting on things Donald Trump or Milo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZimZamTheFlimFlam (talk • contribs) — ZimZamTheFlimFlam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes Why shouldnt it be added? NPOV and recentism are just guidelines on a standard which should be followed, not exclusionary rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.0.37 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — 165.196.0.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No. Does the Fascism article discuss any recent U.S. administration as Fascist? No; does not even mention it. If we do not have fascism in the U.S. today, then it should not be discussed under Anti-fascism. btw, here's what the Washington Post says: A crude, quick and flippant assessment is what he deserves. He is semi-fascist: more fascist than any successful American politician yet, and the most dangerous threat to pluralist democracy in this country in more than a century, but — thank our stars — an amateurish imitation of the real thing.https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/21/how-fascist-is-donald-trump-theres-actually-a-formula-for-that/?utm_term=.218fbd935793 Peter K Burian (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes As Yale Professor Timothy Snyder said: “Without truth, we don’t have trust. Without trust, we don’t have the rule of law. Without the rule of law, we don’t have democracy”. Post-truth America is clearly fascist. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I don't think any mention of Donald Trump is required, but the resistance against Antifa fascist violence is clearly an instance of anti-fascism. Rhoark (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The antifa group believes they are fighting fascism just as Nlack Lives Matter believes they are fighting racism. We don't decide or report if they actually are protesting incidents of fascism or racism, just that they protested and the reasons they give. Antifa is so engrossed in their belief that they believe violence is justified and necessary. That is notable. --DHeyward (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per DHeyward — there is a discussion around fascism and populism in several Western democracies at the moment, including protests and violence that define themselves as "anti-fascist". That this is the case merits a (brief) mention, without the article needing to form an opinion on whether that self-definition is accurate or not. (That view would be something that cannot be defined so close to the time, imho — again with the recentism.) — OwenBlacker (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I agree with most of the people above who say yes. Also, there doesn't have to be any biased content in the section at all. Zakawer (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes if the group calls themselves Antifa, and is reported as such, it should be included. --Tarage (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No This page is mostly historical in scope. I would support creating a new page for the modern social movements and activist organizations. It is too soon to add Antifa to this page and it is WP:OR to connect today's antifa group with the historic movement in the 1930s - any ideological connection these movements may have has not yet been explored by scholars, we have only an organization that identifies itself as anti-fascist (much as neo-fascist groups are treated as a distinct ideology/movement, antifa should be as well) Seraphim System (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • @Mjleone: Unless you have sources stating Trump is a fascist, he's not. Per WP:BLP they had better be pretty good sources, too. Simply stating "there is plenty of controversial legislation that many have called fascist" w/o even a shred of evidence simply does not cut it and does not rise above simple name-calling. Controversial does not equal fascist. If you want to rely on "plenty of experts" who describe Trump as "similar to fascism", please name them and cite the articles. The sum total of evidence you bring for "enduring, incontrovertible and relevant" is... well... none, nada, zilch, nothing. "Proof by assertion" would be the technical term, I think. Kleuske (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yale historian Tom Snyder

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/watch-a-yale-historian-explains-to-maher-how-trump-resembles-1930s-fascists-and-makes-the-russia-connection/ professor of history at Columbia University Simon Schama http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/simon-schama-defends-comparing-donald-trumps-election-win-to-th/ VOlker Ulrich, Hitler historian and journalist, and Simon Schama again https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/01/comparing-fascism-donald-trump-historians-trumpism NYU historian specializing in Italian Studies and Fascism in Italy, Guggenheim Fellow Ruth Ben-Ghiat http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-scholar-of-fascism-sees-a-lot-thats-familiar-with-trump Robert Paxton, journalist and European historian http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/is_donald_trump_a_fascist_an_expert_on_fascism_weighs_in.html Richard Evans, WW2 historian http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/02/historian_richard_evans_says_trump_s_america_isn_t_exactly_like_the_third.html Mjleone (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

" The sum total of evidence you bring for "enduring, incontrovertible and relevant" is... well... none, nada, zilch, nothing. "

For the record, what I called enduring, incontrovertible, and relevant was NOT that Trump is a fascist, but that millions of Americans are up-in-arms protesting him and specifically to oppose what they perceive to be fascism.

Mjleone (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The author of Rise and Fall was William L. Shirer. – S. Rich (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah sorry he wrote a different book. Also sorry to everyone if I seem like a jerk, I kind of am but also I honestly believe this should be in the article and I'm not trying to waste people's time. But I'll let it go too I swear :D Mjleone (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you indent. And puhlease cut out the "literally". It does not lend any weight to your statements.
  • Tom Snyder Trump resembles fascists because propaganda-slogan and people who worked for the Russians. I note 'X resembles Y' does not mean 'X is Y'. There's a difference.
  • Simon Schama: "has defended his concerns over Donald Trump’s election win as he spoke about the “cataclysmic moment” America is facing." and tells the audience "The 71-year-old, who teaches at Columbia University in New York, received criticism after he compared the Republican's win to the rise of Hitler, stating that “democracy often brings fascists to power, it did in Germany in the 1930s”." The evidence: Trumnp retweeted something by an (alledged) neonazi. A reductio ad hitlerum is rather less than what I expect from this man. Nowhere in the article, however, does Schama call trump a fascist.
  • Richard Evans:Excellent points, I said sarcastically. To sum it up: Trump didn't mention the Jews, and worse... Trump sees extremist Jihadi's as an existential threat like Hitler saw Jews. The obvious difference being that while Jews didn't actually threaten anyone in Germany, extremist Jihadis do. A singularly moronic statement by a respected scholar in a very left-leaning magazine. He hears "echoes", but stops well short of calling Trump a fascist or, worse, a Nazi.
  • The last source states flat out "Trump is not a fascist".
The claim that "millions of Americans are up-in-arms protesting him and specifically to oppose what they perceive to be fascism" is no more than that. A unsubstantiated claim and namecalling by proxy.
So you googled for a few minutes and came up with smart people saying dumb stuff.
However, that's not the point. If you want to prove the Berkeley rioters and Trump protesters are "anti-fascists", instead of millennial reincarnations of Rick, you have to show Trump is an actual fascist. Otherwise it's nothing more than namecalling. Kleuske (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"If you want to rely on "plenty of experts" who describe Trump as "similar to fascism", please name them and cite the articles."
I believe that I've addressed this concern you raised, by citing interviews from 6 well-regarded historians on the subject. Your bullet points are just your own personal disagreements with what these scholars have stated. Please provide sources if you think there is reason to discredit these sources.
Mjleone (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Yes, you cited sources. But the sources you cited weren't all that good and did not unequivocally state "he's simular to a fascist". The best I've read is "there are some simularities, but then again, there's differences. The gist of those sources is "he's not a fascist". Besides, pointing out that some of these sources say pretty dumb stuff (the Jihadis/Jews, comparison for one) is not a matter of just my personal opinion, it;s about "reliable sources".
The main points are "X resembles Y" does not equate "X is Y" and to call rioters "anti-fascists" you need to show Trump is a fascist. You didn't and neither did your sources. One of your sources did point out the term "fascist" is highly contentious comparing it to "child-molester". Therefore you need damn good sources, that flat-out call POTUS a fascist. These don't suffice. Kleuske (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to provide evidence that these sources aren't reliable. 5 of them are professors of history at major universities. You can't just say you don't feel they're reliable. Why can they be discredited?
Your other concern is more interesting: "X resembles Y" does not equate "X is Y". I think it's up for debate whether it's enough for Trump to resemble fascism for his anti-fascist protestors to belong in this article. I think so, but I'll leave it up to others to decide. I won't be reverting the edits, so we'll see what happens Mjleone (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RS:That's what I did and you brushed it aside as "personal disagreement". Moreover I have pointed out (this is the third time) that your sources do not say he's a fascist and for such a contentious label some superficial simularities (WP:BLP) do not cut it. "His anti-fascist protestors" is just more namecalling. Kleuske (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BEST these sources say, is that Trump/Trump's US is like 30's Germany/shares similarities with AH. That may be true, since most populist leaders share common traits and almost inevitably get compared to AH etc., that's 100 miles from saying anybody is/is not a fascist. Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed – Godwin's law is at play in many of the discussions about Trump. Also, the fact that professors of history are providing political commentary does not make their opinions WP:NOTEWORTHY for this article. When they write their books about Trump, then (perhaps) their works can be used following WP:HISTRS. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from and the tribe has spoken. I'm just of the personal opinion that the burden of evidence to be in an article titled "fascism" is different than an article titled "anti-fascism", since the focus of the latter is on the act of resisting fascist rule and ideology. Many years from now, there will have been massive protests (and violence) against what was perceived as fascism (regardless of the verdict when the dust settles). And these protestors were not motivated by disinformation as much as actual similarities between the Trump campaign/presidency and fascist leaders. It's also notable that the labeling of Trump as fascist-like is unprecedented in american presidential history, at least at this scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjleone (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to resist fascist rule and ideology, having a fascist rule and ideology to resist in the first place, is a prerequisite. It's nice to know you can look into the future, and report the opinions of future historians, but us mere mortals want sources. It's true (to my knowledge) that Trump is the first to be labelled "fascist-like" but that says more about the labelers than it does about the labeled. The rest is WP:NOTFORUM. Kleuske (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Every Republican president in the last 50 years has been called a fascist. Likewise, every Democrat president and presidential candidate has been called a communist. It's really little more than a more sophisticated way of calling someone "poophead".--Wikimedes (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main objections to the content is that it's WP:RECENT and WP:COATRACKING. Recent because the Trump presidency is very young and in great flux; coat-racking because nobody who's serious thinks Trump and his opponents can be accurately described in terms of (anti)fascism. Certain parallels have been drawn in opinion pieces and half of American's see "fascist undertones", but this does not justify inclusion. The parallels may be convincing: hard-right ethno-nationalist agenda with pseudo-left noises, a rejection of "free markets" in favor of naked crony capitalism, xenophobia, an unabashed cult of personality, advanced capitalism and middle class / declasse malaise as the backdrop. But you are still missing a disciplined dictatorship that ruthlessly crushes labor militancy, which is sort of the fundamental feature of fascism. If explicitly anti-fascist movements in the US develop further, to a point where they get more careful scrutiny from RS, they could be covered here. But we are very far from that point. Are a bunch of self-styled "antifa" activists any more "anti-fascist" than the SPLC? We have no idea, because we don't have a coherent body of literature to guide us, just some hastily drawn parallels. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anybody who's serious can accurately describe themselves as anything but anti-fascists. They call themselves anti-fascists, they wear anti-fascist clothing, they recite anti-fascist slogans and rhetoric, and articles identify them as anti-fascists. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. You seem to be implying that anti-fascists should only be included in the article if the person they're against is actually a fascist, but that means you're trying to cover up incidents when the anti-fascists overshoot or get things wrong.173.77.253.207 (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fascism template lists 17 varieties of fascism. So, were there 17 varieties of anti-fascism? And which of these varieties of fascism/anti-fascism pertain to Trump? See the point – once someone says "I'm anti-fascist and the main target/opponent of my anti-fascism is Trump", we are using WP's voice to advance that person's political agenda. The only way to avoid such POV-pushing is to insist that the article be limited to historical fascism and historical anti-fascist movements. – S. Rich (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Mark Schierbecker, User:NoGhost: Because "fascist" is so frequently used as an epithet to describe anyone whose politics differ from one's own, I don't think that "self-declared antifascist" is a useful criterion for inclusion in the anti-fascism article. Not only would it make the article extremely long, but anyone who got news coverage for having called someone a fascist would have a good case for inclusion in the article, and endless resources would be wasted trying to sort out what should be included.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, wow. Antifa shills here are suggesting we can't include antifa violence in the antifa article because it'll be a BLP violation against Trump. That's some interesting mental gymnastics.173.77.253.207 (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tarage actually makes a good point – in favor of keeping the anti-Trump material out. That is, if we now have WP:Notable groups/organizations that call themselves modern anti-fascists, then such notable groups might be appropriate for the article. Secondary sources would be needed to verify the description. (Also, inclusion of such articles might best be limited to the See also section.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. It doesn't matter if THEY call themselves Antifa, it matters if they are reported as such. A simple google search brings up numerous stories. That's the reliable sources I mean. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When can 2016-2017 Antifa be included on the page?

With increased Antifa presence after the recent Berkeley rallies and other college campuses and anti-Trump protests, I am curious how long it takes until the previous vote can turn into inclusion on the page. It is a very odd omission to leave out antifa from the page considering it is becoming more and more common within the US, and there are many sources that will say so. https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=antifa#q=antifa&hl=en&tbm=nws 173.77.253.240 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-fascism&oldid=778180795"