From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vichy regime[edit]

"They abandoned the Vichy regime and started fighting against the Germans when they saw that Philippe Pétain was totally bending over to the Nazis and had no intent to stop collaboration."

"totally bending over"... there has got to be a better phrase Sadena 14:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Article is seriously biased[edit]

This article is seriously biased. Article says "Although many moderate right-wing people are anti-racist and oppose fascism, they are not considered "antifascists" as they do not organize themselves in specific groups dedicated to the antifascist struggle."

I just finished an article about one armed antifascist organization Local Lithuanian Detachment which was not socialist but was actively resisting fascists during the WW2. Lithuanian nonsocialist self government during the ww2 successfully sabotaged Fascist mobilization.

References are biased as well. "fascism will always be an element of capitalism, especially in times of economical crisis, and destruction of fascism is impossible without destruction of capitalism"? Come on - Fascists are socialists. "To be a socialist", said Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole." Sigitas 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article can surely be improved, but taking part in the Resistance movements against the Nazis during WWII is not necessarily an antifascist act. As the article points out, it may be just because of patriotism. Henri d'Astier de la Vigerie, member of the Action Française far right and counterrevolutionary movement, who may have taken part in the La Cagoule terrorist fascist group, participated in the Resistance. That's a fascist fighting for his country against the German invaders. I wouldn't precisely considered him "antifascism". Antifascism is an ideology, and it has historically been associated with the socialist movement in the most broad sense of the way, and in particular with the anarchists (the social-democrats, while sharing antifascist values, like any left-wing person, are rarely considered to be "antifascists", although they may be "antiracists": but being "antiracist" is not an ideology, it doesn't ask for specific direct action; most of the communists were antifascists, although they've had some troubles with Staline's directives, when he was fighting trotskyism...) Lapaz 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To cite the odd right winger in the French resistance is to miss the point. the French far right by and large sided with Vichy, thus making them be seen as collaborationists by most French people. The Resistance was preodominantly leftist orientated, with the communists forming the largest single group. For them, the resistance was defined an antifascist, meaning not only anti-German, but also anti-Vichy and anti the far right Leagues, which they had fought against in the Popular Front era before the war.

I am not impressed with this article. It should be discussing the historical importance of anti-facism and not trying to define not very important modern antifa ideology. Jdorney 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives who consistently oppose fascism, whether as politicians or as philosophers or academics, deserve recognition. This implies that they must oppose fascism on principle (including moral grounds) and not simply support one form of fascism against another. Fascism may have the cult of tradition in common with conservatives -- but the tradition that a democratic conservatism endorses does not have despotism, terrorism, or genocide as constituent parts. In contrast, a French fascist who in 1941 preferred that France be a fascist tyranny (complete, perhaps, with the persecution of Jews) like Italy or Germany but not under the domination of either -- is no more an anti-fascist than some swindler who opposes swindles other than his own can be called "anti-swindling". Paul from Michigan (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is heavily biased. Churchill was right and heavily anti-fascist, Charles de Gualle was right and was heavily anti-fascist, all center-right parties are heavily anti-fascist. The White Rose was not left (or right) and was heavily anti-fascist.

Churchill was only against Fascism when it came to defense of his country, other than that he was a believer in racial purity and other such notions: <a href=""rel="nofollow">Link text</a> AnarchoGhost (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC) In american politics De gaulle would be on the left of bernie sanders, so much for being right wing, he had some traditionnal views on the structure of society but all the other areas (welfare, international policy, economic policy...) are where de gaulle held views from the far left (emancipation of people, anticapitalism, state companies, not engaging in nato...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Anti Fascit[edit]

Frist of all Nazis were not socialists they just had it in their names ask any Fascist they hate liberalism and communism. 2nd while most conservatives are anti facist Fascism is a rightwing movement just like Communism is one the left. However that doe's not mean that people on the right are all fascit or that people on the left are communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fascism is left, right or center. Fascist Italy had a major left wing faction of syndicalists. Nazi Germany had a major socialists faction and a major social corporatist faction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Opposing monument to Estonian SS legionaires[edit]

Article says: "In a broader sense of the term, anti-fascism as shared by many left-wing people also includes opposing homophobia, sexism, racism and the restriction of civil liberties" yet later article glorifies Soviet army as antifascist and attacks people who were fighting against Soviet imperialism and soviet totalitarism. Do you really think Soviets were not racist, did not restrict civil liberties or were not militarist? Sigitas 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Legionas I understand your strong feelings against the Soviets; however, it is difficult claiming that Soviets = fascists. That doesn't make them better, but fascism is a precise doctrinal set, communism is another. Lapaz 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the definition at the start of article Soviets were not antifascists, so this link on Estonian monument should go. Link to atrocities in USSR should also go as this site describes soviet -german war as antifascist, which is again incorrect according to definition that antifascism is against "racism and the restriction of civil liberties". Soviet Union was not paradise of civil liberties. If non-socialists are not regarded as antifascists despite their opposition to fascists, communists should not be regarded as antifascists as well. Sigitas 18:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
plus Soviets were allies of Nazis in 1939-1941, i.e. pro-fascists Sigitas 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa[edit]

Armia Krajowa wasn't socialist or anarchist. I would say it would be more correct to call "antifascists" all people and movements (socialists or not) opposing fascism, this would obviously exclude fascists themselves like that guy Henri d'Astier de la Vigerie.


The line that says that anti-fascists are mostly anarchists is ridiculous. This is only true to any degree in Spain during the first year of the civil war. The reality is that the most active and militant anti-fascists in the 30s and 40s were communists.

This is not to say that they respected democracy inherently, or that the Soviet Union was a democracy or anything like that, but the simple answer to the question, "who opposed fascism through force of arms and politically in the 30 and 40s"? is the communists. See Germany, Spain, France Italy, Yugoslavia and elsewhere for examples.

Maybe the modern antifa groups are predominantly anarchist, though I would suspect there are many different leftists in them, but when anti-fascism was a burning question, it was the communists that were to the forefront in it.

In fact, it has been argued that anti-fascist Popular Fronts o the 30s and 40s were basically means for communist infiltration of mass political movements, but that is another argument.

Jdorney 20:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it seems a bit broad to categorise antifascists as anarchists. I think that this arises from a definitional problem. The article needs to make clearer that there is a qualitative difference between "a member of the antifascist movement" and "someone who opposes fascism". Most mainstream political groups in all Western countries are opposed to fascism, but they could not all be categorised as antifascist. In the USA and the United Kingdom (where I live), it's true that there's no clear definition of "antifascist" as opposed to "someone who doesn't support fascism", but on my visits to Spain I've encountered a political movement, popular among students and other young people, that categorises itself as "antifascist". This movement is a leftist movement (in the broad sense) and many of its members have connections to socialist or left-wing political parties. As such, the article introduction needs to spell out the fact that there are two possible definitions of the word "antifascist".

1) The broad definition: someone who is opposed to fascism. This would include all those groups, whether leftist or rightist, that were involved in anti-Nazi resistance during WWII.
2) The specific definition: a member of an antifascist movement, i.e. a movement that specifically exists to combat fascism and ultranationalism. Such movements are left-wing in character.

If no one objects, I will rewrite parts of the article to reflect this distinction. Walton monarchist89 11:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but even in the "Antifascist movement" the most important players in the 30s and 40s were communists, not anarchists. Even in modern antifa circles anarchists are probably not a majority. Btw, there is also an antifascist movement in the UK, albeit small, see Red Action, Anti-Fascist Action, Anti-Nazi League etc.

Jdorney 14:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I will modify the article to reflect this distinction (between anarchists and other leftists), and will clarify the distinction between "anti-fascist" and "an opponent of fascism". Walton monarchist89 10:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have now made these changes and hope that you're satisfied with my edits. I think I've clarified the fact that many anti-fascists are not anarchists. Walton monarchist89 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good work. Jdorney 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no categorical difference between "someone who opposes fascism" and an "anti-fascist". They are both anti-fascists. It is only then a question of how "extreme" or "active" an anti-fascist is. In the "United States" section, there seems to be confusion about this. The only anti-fascists discussed regarding the 2016-2017 anti-fascism movement were anarchists and rioters, which are only the most extreme and active examples of anti-fascists in the US in 2017. In fact, there are currently many millions of anti-fascists in the US, which I clarified in that section. mjleone 19 March, 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Resistance movements and violence[edit]

Am I alone in thinking this section needs some serious work? Any volunteers? The information is important, but the sequencing is not right. --BobFromBrockley 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Major Cleanup[edit]

  • I made several improvements. There was a huge amount of repetitive sentences, bad English translations, and content that was largely irrelevant to the main topic. I deleted any name on the lists that didn't have a link to a Wikipedia article, because there's no way to verify who the group or person is. I also deleted the list of books and songs, because there was only one entry in the first, and two entries in the second. Either they should be full lists, or not be included at all.Spylab 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab
It's much, much better now. Thanks Spylab. --BobFromBrockley 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we need all those bands?[edit]

Much as I love most of those bands, this seems like a rather long list, including some pretty obscure bands. Wouldn't it be better to make it shorter and sharper? --BobFromBrockley 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that the list should only include the most notable bands, meaning most famous, influential, or most involved in anti-fascist causes. Some of those bands, while having anti-fascist beliefs, don't make anti-fascism a defining factor of their band (such as having many songs against fascism, speaking out against fascism in interviews and at concerts, playing at anti-fascist festivals and having songs on anti-facist compilation albums). Some of the bands are more focussed on anarchism or another ideology, with anti-fascism just as a by-product.Spylab 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab
That's understandable. I do think Leftover Crack (and by extention, possibly Choking Victim) should stay on though, since they are pretty notable (at least from what I can tell, but my idea of music notability is all screwed up from listening to too much underground stuff). Anyway, the back cover of "Fuck World Trade" specifically says "Leftover Crack is an Anti-Racist, Anti-Sexist, Anti-Homophobic and Anti-Fascist organization". If we have to remove one to balance it out, I'd say get rid of Naked Aggression. Even though I love them, they probably aren't as notable as Leftover Crack. Also, UK Subs are also really notable IMO, and they do have the song "Nazi Cunts". Subhumans are also very notable (my mom has even heard of them, which shocked me). I'm not sure if they have any specifically anti-fascist songs, but there are lots of anti-fascist themes (Subvert City being a good example). Another band that might be removed is Blaggers ITA, since I don't think they're very well known. The Ungovernable Force 05:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok. If you (or anyone else) think certain musicians on the list should be added or deleted, and have a good reason, go ahead. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. However, Blaggers ITA should stay for sure. They may not be well-known in The USA, but they were one of the most militant anti-fascist bands I can think of, in word and in action. They were involved with the group Anti-Fascist Action in Britain; band members have been in direct confrontations with neo-Nazis; they spoke out against fascists in interviews; have played benefit concerts for anti-fascist causes; and have had songs on many anti-fascist compilations. Things like that are way more relevant than just a few token lyrics against racism. That gets back to the whole definition of an anti-fascist vs someone who is just personally against racism or fascism. I don't know a lot about every single band that is, or was, on the list, so that's where a group effort comes into play. SpylabSpylab
Ok, well maybe I should check them out ;) Sounds like my kind of band. The Ungovernable Force 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
List is much better now. Now I'm going to start trimming the individuals! BobFromBrockley 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Clash AND Leone Ginzburg!!!![edit]

Look...I like the Clash as much as the next guy, but including him in a list of anti-Fascists that includes Leone Ginzburg is an insult to a great hero and martyr. It also makes this entire enterprise seem very, very silly... Adam Holland 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But The Clash are listed here under "anti-fascist musicians" while Ginzburg is under "anti-fascist individuals". If you get rid of the Clash in order to honour Ginzburg et al, you'd have to get rid of whole musicians list really. BobFromBrockley 10:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The categories "individuals" and "musicians" do not provide a clear, meaningful distinction. (By the way, can't individuals be musicians?) The TRUE distinction that I want to bring to the attention of the editors of this section separates, on the one hand, those who actually devoted their lives to anti-fascism, sometimes dying for their cause, and, on the other hand, those who made anti-fascist statements at one time or another. Whether or not they are an individual, a musician, or an individual musician, is irrelevant to this question. The criteria that should apply for inclusion are: 1) how important was the person to the anti-fascist movement? 2) how important was anti-fascism to the life and work of the person? I would weigh the first question to be more important than the second. As far as whether or not to categorize the list by profession or nationality, I tend to think that the latter is of greater importance for your purposes, but that really matters less to me than the merits of those listed.

I make this suggestion not to disparage your work, but to point out that there is significant room for improvement here. Adam Holland 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand Adam's point. I think there is indeed room for improvement, and I welcome other views on the musicians list. I do think, though, that music has been extremely important in the anti-fascist movement. The Clash, for example, were important in creating the anti-fascist popular culture movement that helped end the late 1970s rise of the National Front in the UK. Perhaps only a small list of bands/musicians should be given here, based on Adam's question 1 criterion (perhaps merged with list of "individuals" and maybe a seperate page can be created for a longer list of anti-fascist bands/musicians, whether or not they were quite so important to the movement? BobFromBrockley 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (And, as per Spylab above, Blaggers ITA should certainly stay! BobFromBrockley 11:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Is it just me or are the external links here a little arbitrary? At the moment we've got:

My preference would be to get rid of all of these, maybe keep the anarchist resistance one, and find better ones. What do folks think? BobFromBrockley 10:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As no-one replied, have deleted the links. BobFromBrockley 11:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue has returned, as an anonymous editor ( has put in lots of external links:

           +       *Against unveiling monument to Nazi troops
        +       *Remembering the Anarchist Resistance to fascism
        +       *Anvers - Un skinhead proche du Vlaams Belang a tué
        +       *Beating Fascism: Anarchist Anti-Fascism In Theory And Practice
        +       *Topic Fascism/Anti-Fascism
        +       *Interview from, Beating Fascism: Anarchist anti-fascism in theory and practice
        +       *Archive for the 'Anti-fascism' Category
        +       *‘Fascism or Revolution !’ Anarchism and Antifascism in France, 1933-39
        +       *Uno Laht (photograph)
        +       *Estonian anti-German resistance movement 1941-1944

Some of these are good links; others seem far too marginal to me. I propose editing it down to the following only:

I'm deleting the link to a blog, the link to a picture and the link to a wikipedia mirror site now, and leaving the rest in case people think I'm being hasty. And I am removing the link to the AK book, but putting this in under references. BobFromBrockley 11:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the contribution by BobFromBrockley above (See history) Because the links that were in this section are now blocked by a Wikipedia spam filter. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Inserted/removed chunk[edit]

The following paragraphs were added by an editor, then removed by another for bad English, lack of citations, etc. Thought it would be worth putting here to see if any editors think any of this is usable after editing:

- Thus, antifascism as a distinct theory and practice is historically limited to the socialist movement, although with the emergence of new, alternative political movements (the Greens being only one of them), the antifascism tradition of the socialist movement may expands itself to other left-wing people. Although many moderate right-wing people are anti-racist and oppose fascism, they are not considered "antifascists" as they do not organize themselves in specific groups dedicated to the antifascist struggle.

- - While violent or militant anti-fascism does occur, the movement may also be non-violent; being an anti-fascist is not necessarily to "fight" fascism with violence, although violence did play an important role in the 1920s and the 1930s, when antifascists were confronted to aggressive far right leagues, such as the Action Française royalist movement in France, which dominated the Quartier latin students' neighborhood (although royalist, the Action Française counted members such as Georges Valois who would later found the Faisceau fascist movement, created on the model of the Italian Fascio). In Italy in the 1920s, antifascists had to struggle against the violent squadristi, while in Germany they were confronted to the Freikorps. The squadristi broke the general strikes using violence, and the only way for the workers' movement to defend itself was physically. Thus, pre-World War II history explains why anti-fascism has been associated with violence. -

- However, many antifa activists consider today that violence is not justified, since fascists don't represent, in most countries, a massive physical threat. They argue that they should be fought intellectually. However, others disagree, and point out that skinheads pose a real threat in some neighborhoods, and have sometimes killed people. These antifascists claim that self-defense is necessary, because they observe that the state doesn't defends equally the population of specific neighborhoods. In Russia, some neo-nazis have recently committed various hate crimes against foreigners. Some antifascists groups are: Anti-Racist Action, a US group created in the 1990s; the Swedish Antifascistisk aktion founded in 1993; the UK Anti-Nazi League, set up in 1977, and which merged in 2002 with Unite Against Fascism, whose chairman is London's mayor Ken Livingstone; the UK Anti-Fascist Action, which fights the National Front and the British National Party (BNP); Anarcho-skinheads (one must recall that the original skinhead movement was antifascist, and only latter became in majority neonazi).

BobFromBrockley 12:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • One of the major problems (besides the poor writing quality) is that it repeats a lot of content that is already in the article, but with different wording. The section above even repeats itself a few times. I'm pretty sure this section is an old version of the article before it was copy edited. Also, the list of groups at the end of the section are already in the links section, and there is nothing in the section above that gives any information about the groups beyond their names. Finally, the last sentence is inaccurate. The original skinheads weren't very political, and it would be a stretch to generalize them as all being anti-fascist (in terms of being politically active against fascism). Also, I dispute the statement that the majority of skinheads now are neo-Nazis. Maybe they have been in certain times and places (perhaps 1980s London and present-day Russia for example), but not when you look at the worldwide picture. There will never be any accurate statistics on that, and it would be nearly impossible to verify the numbers either way.Spylab 12:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree about skinhead thing. Didn't realise that all the historical info was already there in other paras. I completely agree with cut. BobFromBrockley 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Antifa should not be redirected toward militant anti-fascism, as not all antifa groups are militant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Fascist symbolism.[edit]

Is there any logos or symbols that represent the anti-fascist movement, especially ones that are in the public domain? Thank you. Chamaoloan (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The flag of the International Brigades who fought in the Spanish Civil War used a three-pointed red star. The organization called Antifaschistische Aktion uses an emblem with a red flag and a black flag flying side by side in a black circle with the name of the organization on it. Commissarusa (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WhiteRose.jpg[edit]

The image Image:WhiteRose.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I suggest that Liberal anti-fascism and Militant anti-fascism be merged into Anti-fascism. After all the uncited opinions are deleted, there is not enough content to justify three separate articles, especially since some of the remaining content repeats what the other articles say.Spylab (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead with the merge because nobody spoke up against it, and because it just makes sense, considering there wasn't really enough referenced content to support three separate articles.Spylab (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the merge. Speaking of "militant" anti-fascism, and similar derogatory labels, is revisionist propaganda. I doubt there is any academic source supporting such trash.--Sum (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Small information on Luce d'Eramo[edit]

  • [1] maybe there is none of her books in english which I cannot believe. But unfortunately I don't know how to find out.
Austerlitz -- (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

history: [2], see Luce d'Eramo

Austerlitz -- (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

anti-fascism misleading generlisations[edit]

This article makes such a lot of broad generalisations that it is difficult to know where to start:

"Militant anti-fascism is a form of anti-fascism that advocates the use of violence against fascists. Militant anti-fascists are usually supporters of class struggle, and view fascism as an anti-working class political system." ... "Liberal anti-fascism is distinguished by its use of nonviolent, legal and democratic methods in fighting fascism."

The members of the German resistance which attempted to kill Hitler in 1944 used violent methods -- so all those strung up after the failed putsch could not have been right wing traditionalists but must have been in the main "supporters of class struggle".

Such statements as the above would suggest that the operatives of SOE and OSS "supporters of class struggle, and view fascism as an anti-working class political system.", because they could not have been supporters of liberal governments which believed in democratic ideals as they were not "nonviolent". --PBS (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The section on the UK is totally misleading. If there is such a thing as ani-fascist organisations in the UK it is the major political parties and the vast majority of the electorate, is not the very small fringe groups which are mentioned. --PBS (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the following, which it seems to me is over-generalised, repeats some things already said, is unencylopedic, and links to a blog:

== Connections with anarchism == Anti-fascism is also the opposition to fascist ideology, organization, or government, on all levels. It has been historically associated with the anarchism movement, although many individuals who do not belong to this movement share anti-fascism ideas. However, the active struggle against fascism and many antifascist organizations are related to the socialist and anarchist movement. In the anarchist movement, anti-fascism always includes antimilitarism, since the two are considered intimately related. In a broader sense of the term, anti-fascism as shared by many left-wing people also includes opposing homophobia, sexism, racism and the restriction of civil liberties, for example during state of emergency. In the most broader sense, an anti-fascist is anyone who opposes fascism, and/or engages in anti-fascist direct action. The term antifa is a commonly used word for anti-fascist action.[1]

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Other countries?[edit]

Shouldn't this article discuss organisations like SAFKA, Nashi, and Nochnoy Dozor (pressure group) as well? They all consider themselves anti-fascists. —Zalktis (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to write! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

2000s Britain: violence/anarchism[edit]

The discussion of anti-fascists in Britain during the 2000s only seems to mention violent anarchists--an omission that gives a negative, possibly non-NPOV, impression of anti-fascist activism. There isn't any mention activities by non-violent leftist groups, or more mainstream groups that include the centre-right and supporters of liberal democracy in general. Kingal86 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Please feel free to write. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fringe views by non academics[edit]

The distinction between "militant" and "liberal" antifascism is not supported by any scholar sources. Please add appropriate reliable sources before putting it into the article lead.--Sum (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • There is already a "disputed" tag and "citation needed" tags in that paragraph. You can't insert a section heading based on your own unreferenced personal opinion and expect it to stay.Spylab (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Until those statements stay unreferenced, they have no place in the lead. --Sum (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Some of those sentences do have references, and adding the unnecessary extra heading "Alternative definitions" does not improve the article. It would actually be better to delete the unreferenced claims than to add a heading that doesn't belong.Spylab (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the vociferousness with which Summer With Morons opposes these sections. I also disagree with the deletion of the liberal anti-fascism section, even though agree it needed citations. It made more sense when whole of liberal anti-fascism section was together, and move of second half of that para to Italy section removed referencing. The disputed stuff also looks a bit odd in the lede. I would argue for re-inserting the sentence "There are two broad positions within the anti-fascism movement: militant anti-fascism and liberal anti-fascism." before the disputed bit, restoring the stuff moved to the Italian section, putting it in a section called something like "Currents within anti-fascism", placing it after the lede, and leaving the disputed section tag in that section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no such thing as "liberal anti-fascism", the term anti-fascism has its roots in the communist movement and only communists can be described as anti-fascists. The "fascist" part doesn't really mean fascism in the sense understood by westerners, the "anti-fascists" used it to refer to all non-communists, for instance the official name of the Berlin Wall was the "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall". Also see below for a link to the most recent Verfassungsschutzbericht on "anti-fascism". TYRXrus (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because anti-fascism has roots in the communist movement does not mean that "only communists can be described as anti-fascists." That makes no sense. Am I not a wikipedia editor because wikipedia editing has roots in the early 2000s and I wasn't editing then?? If someone is anti-fascist, they are anti-fascist. If there are many liberals who are anti-fascists, this article should include discussions of liberal anti-fascists. Your view of what anti-fascism is doesn't fit with the reality that anti-fascism is incredibly widespread and mainstream in many countries today. mjleone 19 March, 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup required[edit]

This article requires a major cleanup. It is important to remember that "anti-fascism" doesn't simply mean opposition to fascism, but is an ideology of its own which is linked to communism/far-left politics. As the recognized Verfassungsschutzbericht of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz puts it:

Der „Antifaschismus“ – weiterhin das bedeutendste Aktionsfeld für linksextremistische Zusammenschlüsse – zielt nur vordergründig auf die Bekämpfung rechtsextremistischer Bestrebungen ab. Vielmehr bekämpfen Linksextremisten die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung als „ka­pitalistisches System“, um die angeblich diesem Gesellschaftssystem immanenten Wurzeln des „Faschismus“ zu beseitigen. (P. 167).

TYRXrus (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


The article should maybe mention that anti-fascism often involves anticlericalism, because of the clergy's presumed association with authoritarian regimes. Anti-fascism also has a reputation of being rather atheistic and anarchistic on a more philosophical level, something that could perhaps be noted if appropriate sources can be found. ADM (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

... opposition to fascism can entail co-operation with clergy who themselves oppose fascist ideologies. The connection of religion to fascism is always ambiguous; some religious authorities foster fascism as a defense of tradition and national identity against anti-clerical ideas of Communists and other revolutionary socialists; some may find fascism abominable for its support of inequality, terrorism, and amorality. --Pbrower2a (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


How can 'violence against fascists' by 'militant anti-fascists' be "anti-fascism". Political violence is after all a key tenant of fascist movements. Prehaps the article needs to add the words "self-described anti-fascists" to make this point a bit clearer.

~~Nathan, New Zealand~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I suggest you read the fascism article. There's a lot more to fascism than simply political violence.Spylab (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All movements can use violence,logicically, it doesn't make them idealogicaly fascist. Another way to put is is Fascist movements use violence, but not all movements that use violence are fascists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchoGhost (talkcontribs) 15:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


This is a propagandist page. 2 years ago it was stated that Antifa use violence but speak about world peace. Why is that cut off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvan Ursu (talkcontribs) 10:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources in the lead[edit]

The lead should not contain information taken from sources that need to be attributed in-line, due to their potentially controversial character. Furthermore, there should not be any references in the lead at all, as the lead should consist of a short introduction and a summary, which is based on content that is already included in the body of the article. The second paragraph of the lead section should therefore be moved to a separate section of the body of the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the reshaping of the article. I liked Cs32en's insertion of a section called something like "variants of anti-fascism" which would be a good place to introduce some of the key terms, "militant anti-fascism", "liberal anti-fascism" and "premature anti-fascism", which may not be notable enough to have wikipedia articles of their own but should be addressed in this article. The mention of what one anarchist group and one socialist historian think in the lede is now rather odd. The geographical focus is now also very uneven. For example, what the term "premature anti-fascism" means is not the most important aspect of anti-fascism in the USA. Rather, that material was there so the reader could understand some of the key terms used in relation to anti-fascism. It belongs in an introductory type section near the start, although perhaps not in the lede, rather than in a USA section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "Premature anti-fascism" appears to be a myth, or something the members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade applied to themselves. As such at the very least the phrase "a term that was used" should be clarified as to who was using it, directed against whom, with supporting evidence. See — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The bullshit about "militant anti-fascism" comes from ridicule sources, clearly it should not be in the lead.--Sum (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • In response to Bobfrombrockley's comment, there is not enough referenced content to justify a Variants section. There are no references at all defining or discussing liberal anti-fascism, and there are concerns about the references used in discussing militant anti-fascism. Also, premature anti-fascism is not a specific type of anti-fascism, so it would not belong in a section about variants. I agree that it is not ideal to have the US section only discuss the term premature anti-fascism, so I added an Expand section tag. If the section does not get expanded (with referenced content), then the paragraph about premature anti-fascism should be moved somewhere else.Spylab (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course, earlier versions did have references discussing or defining liberal anti-fascism, although I accept the ones for militant anti-fascism required work. I have resurrected the old pages on these at my userpage, which I will start going through and referencing rigorously, and then you can see if you think any of these references are good enough.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Franco wasn't a fascist, so calling his enemies "anti-fascist" isn't precise.Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it is a fact that Franco was the leader of a facist organisation (falange) so why do you assume he wasn't a fascist? And of course opponents of the falange were anti-facists.
See Fascism#Falangism_.28Spain.29 if there is the need for more information on this topic. Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he allied with them during the civil war but outlawed the flange once n power. It is splitting hairs though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picture Picture Picture (talkcontribs) 06:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. Read the article about the falange to see that your statement is not true. He just joined an other party with the falange under a similar name. And no it is not spliting of hairs. But this discussion has nothing to do with the article anymore. Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Almost 5 years and no solution. Please read Francisco Franco. Xx234 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Militant and liberal anti-fascism[edit]

Sorry to resurrect an old debate, but can anyone look at these sandbox pages, and tell me what's wrong with them? and ThanksBobFromBrockley (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"It refers to individuals and groups on the left of the political spectrum"[edit]

On April 16, 2011, an anon inserted "commonly found on the left of the political spectrum" into the introduction of the article without including a source. On July 22, 2011, Bobfrombrockley removed "commonly found" so that it read, "[I]t refers to individuals and groups on the left of the political spectrum, […]." In effect, Bobfrombrockley changed it from "commonly found" on the Left to only being on the Left. This is how the article is as of writing. Bobfrombrockley has been open about being a Marxist since December 2006, and he still displays the Marxist userbox proudly on his userpage to this very day. Perhaps some of Bobfrombrockley's personal biases crept into the article.

The German resistance article mentions conservative resistance to the Nazis. Even the introduction of our Fascism article admits that it's difficult to label Fascist as solely right-wing or Left-wing.

I believe that "[I]t refers to individuals and groups on the left of the political spectrum, that are dedicated to fighting fascism," should be replaced with "[I]t refers to individuals and groups that are dedicated to fighting fascism," which is uncontroversial and indisputable. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Michael. I completely agree with your uncontroversial definition of anti-fascism. The left bit I edited (and my edit was not mainly to get rid of the "commonly found" bit but lots of other superfluous stuff in the lede) refers specifically to the narrower word "antifa" not to "anti-fascism". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the modification. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


The section on Estonia is full of Soviet propaganda. Many of the citations are to Soviet-era sources, which cannot be considered neutral. Adding NPOV tag. User332572385 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


Where is Stalin in this article? The fascist's nightmare due to the glorious win of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagr7 (talkcontribs) 09:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

re Stalin[edit]

Stalinists are a big part of historical "antifascism" which is distinguishable from the role of Stalin himself. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Stalinists who opposed German Socialists helping the Nazis.Xx234 (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And the German Socialists who opposed the Communists, thereby helping the Nazis. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we maybe please stick to discussing improvements to the article, per WP:NOTAFORUM? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

New images[edit]


if you find this image useful you can add it in this article or other relevant articles. Cogiati (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a major overhaul[edit]

The lede is not consistent with many comments which distinguish organized or sponbtaneous antifascist movements from individual viewpoints. The article also seems muddled on many levels: is it about antifascism in the 30s and 40s or the 90's or now? Shouldn't the focus be on self identified antifascist movements and organizations with a nod to individuals such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

There are vast areas of self-identified antifascist activism which is ommitted from, at least the US section. A lot of the back and forth in the punk and skinhead communities revolves around white power and people who oppose it or resist its proliferation. Anyone who has the time can probably get material from those sections and insert into the US (UK and Australia) sections. There is a lot of stuff out there which this article simply misses.Rather than have a completely misleading imppression I have made a brief reference in the text and would appreciate if people can help develope the section rather than state the obvious that citations are needed. They already were needed and tagged accordingly.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


"The related term antifa, derived from the German word"..this seems kind of ridicuous since the word fascism is Romance language. Devilishlyhandsome

Links[edit] Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Justification of Antifascism can also be a self-description of action directed in opposition to forces which are putatively fascist but not universally regarded to be correctly described as fascist. paragraph edit to wit:[edit]

Antifascism can also be a self-description of action directed in opposition to forces which are putatively fascist but not universally regarded to be correctly described as fascist.

Examples: People calling Ronald Reagan a fascist etc...

         Trotskyist and Maoist organizations against fascism mainly recruiting 
         Stalin's United Front killing socialist and anarcist partisans in Spanish Republican movement
         Characterization of Obama with Hitler mustache etc.
         Opposition to opponents of "IslamoFascism"
         Any left of center opponent to any right of center tends to produce "antifascism"

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about anti-fascism, which is opposition to fascism. It's really not much more complicated than that. It seems that Fascist (insult) is the article that is more appropriate for these topics that you have listed.Spylab (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Basic concept of direction of article...[edit]

I think we should concur that a country by country listing of sparse paragraphs is not the regular way to approach a WP topic of this level of importance. There needs to be NPOV referenced text outlining the scholarly consensus on the topic more broadly. But perhaps iti s in the nature of the beast that fascisms define themselves country by country, as they are nationalists. Hence the trick is to avoid WP:OS while covering the topic. A nice challenge.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be an expanded summary of the general topic of anti-fascism in this article, and that the statements in that section must be directly supported by reliable references.Spylab (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
So proposea betterlede. As it is you just blanked. And deleted a reference. I agree some of it was a bit awkward but that was reflecting some rather sophomoric verbiage that is in the subordinaye sections.There was nothing inaccurate in what you deleted so Please ropose replacement text or state at Least each specific clause that violates WPolicies not your personal preferernces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talkcontribs) 21:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What happened 1939-1941?[edit]

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

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Note: POV pushing is clearly evident in your attempt to synthesise sources in order to show what you believe is a "truly evil" term [3]. 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)
@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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @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)

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 With a brief search I did find it hard to find further information supporting the claim. Jadeslair (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

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}}).

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Pronunciation of "antifa"?[edit]

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)

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)
here's evidence that its a disparaging term used by fascists: [4]Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
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. [5]Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcho-authoritarian (talkcontribs) 12:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
German antifascists use Antifa to describe themselves ([6], [7]). 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)

Moved from my talkpage[edit]

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

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)
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
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)