Talk:Anti-Fascist Action

IRA?

"It is well known for supporting the I.R.A. and two members were convicted of carrying out a I.R.A. bombing."

Is this true? If so it needs inclusion. Sam [Spade] 00:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No it's not true. The reference is to Red Action which is or rather was heavily involved in AFA.

Euro-nationalism

Euro-nationalism page on Wikipedia - still at Answers.com seems to have dissappeared from Wikipedia. Or is this my incompetence that I can't find it? --BobFromBrockley 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Answers.com apparently hasn't updated their mirror for a while. Euronationalism was deleted; see the archived discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euronationalism. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

AFA Ireland

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

Merging

The article on Antifa seems to cover the same organizations as the broader Anti-Fascist Action does. I believe a merge would be appropriate. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Fascist Action is one specific organization, but Antifa is a set of beliefs, so if Antifa is going to be merged, that is not the article to merge it to. I'm going to change the merge message to say Militant anti-fascism, because that's more appropriate. Spylab 11:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the merging notices altogether. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of all this, should the external link to British Antifa be removed too? Perhaps it should be added to the Antifa page? BobFromBrockley 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted the non-AFA links from this article and added 3 AFA-related links. Spylab 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw man?

This article looks to contain some "straw man" efforts by far-right editors to discredit the anti-fascist movement - most notably in the supposed "AFA logo" at the top of the article and the caption for it. Looking on Google, I find this logo only features in the article in the external links section and there is no evidence it is official. I am removing it. --SandyDancer 17:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That logo was not invented by far right conspirators. That logo has appeared in ant-racist publications as an official logo of AFA (at least the British AFA). Just one quick example is The "Fuck Fascism" EP by The Oppressed, which is an official SHARP/AFA release.Spylab 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Writing as a former member of AFA in the UK, I agree with Spylab: that logo was certainly used by AFA in the 1990s. BobFromBrockley 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also definately the case that AFA members were heavily involved in IWCA, whether or not latter is "soft on racism". By the way, great editing work Spylab! My only objection would be removal of links to Rolan Adams, Anti-Racist Alliance, Youth Against Racism in Europe, Workers Against Racism and Cable Street Beat. Even if those don't yet have wiki pages, they should! BobFromBrockley 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"This article looks to contain some "straw man" efforts by far-right editors to discredit the anti-fascist movement" Noone needs to discredit the antifascist movement. They are discredited by themselves. I once saw an antifa poster saying that "Greek means murderer". I didn't removed that poster. I left there so that people can see how disgusting antifa's beliefs are. Mitsos 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

"invent an anecdote"???? No, it's true. Btw, as you have already understood, my english sucks, so what does "vaguely plausible" means? Mitsos 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Many skinheads, or some skinheads

Did the British AFA use to have many or some skinheads amongst their members? Who knows. For now, we shall leave the statement as it is (many) and add a citation-needed-template. I'll ask the editor who inserted it for a source. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer an active editor. I advise you to find an authoratative source to quote, as "some" and "many" are both subjective. You should rely on cited experts to be subjective, rather than wikipedes. Sam Spade 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence altogether. Also, for the record: I contacted Sam Spade not to use him as a source, but for him to perhaps cite a source. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Request For Comment page about Mitsos

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

Why changed to disambiguation page?

Why did someone change this article into a disambiguation page? That was not justified at all, and should not be reverted to that state. Spylab 14:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, read what I wrote below while you wrote this. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Splitting (now also discussing merging)

I still think the article should be a disambig page and the main content moved to Anti-Fascist Action (United Kingdom), or, better, a page giving a broad overview of AFA worldwide. Why should Anti-Fascist Action (United Kingdom) be displayed while Anti-Fascist Action (Sweden) is condemned to a country-specific article?

And I still think my removal of the trivial descriptions of other AFAs were justified. If thou dost so wish, we could re-create my disambig, but including that info? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Most ofthe groups listed in the disambiguation page don't even have their own articles, and disambiguation pages aren't supposed to have introductory paragraphs. This is not an improvement at all. I've pasted it below so others can comment.Spylab 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Anti-Fascist Action, (AFA) is a militant anti-fascist organisation that started in the United Kingdom and spread to other European countries.

• The United Kingdom's Anti-Fascist Action
• Denmark's Antifascistisk Aktion
• Ireland's Anti-Fascist Action
• Sweden's Antifascistisk aktion
• The Netherlands's Anti-Fascistische Aktie
• Greece's Antifa
• Serbia's Antifašistička akcija Novi Sad

---

That they don't have articles doesn't mean they don't exist. But ok, if we ignore my previous edits - all reverted now anyways - what do you think of my argument overall? I e, why should the UK be at the main article but not Sweden? The Antifascistisk Aktion article should be moved in accordance with name guidelines, anyways (I'll do that as soon as I find the specific name guideline to cite). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the groups actually exist, in terms of the topic at hand. What matters on Wikipedia is whether they have information on Wikipedia (backed up by reliable sources). Anti-Fascist Action and Antifascistisk Aktion have different articles because they have different names and are different groups. The AFA article is mostly about the British AFA because that's what information has been added to the article. If you can provide information about the other AFA groups, feel free to add it to the AFA article. Spylab 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not "different groups". AFA UK and AFA Sweden are different groups, but they are both named "Anti-Fascist Action" in English. But if a disambiguation is not the solution, perhaps a merging? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A disamb page can't disambiguate to non-existant pages can it? But I understand why Jobjörn did this. There is something odd about the current page, as it is not clear whether we are looking at one international organisation (or closely related family of organisations) or at several different organisations. Were the non-UK AFAs copies of or branches of UK AFA? I don't think they were, which makes me wonder if they should all be on the same page. There isn't, say, a Socialist Party page which looks at all the parties with this name. BobFromBrockley 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'Antifa' is not one single international organisation, it's just a general term describing political groups that dedicate their time and efforts to fighting fascism and neo-nazis. The means and methods are as diverse as the groups involved, so it's hard to lay down characteristics of an 'Antifa' group. As for the non-UK Antifa groups being copies.. no. In Germany, the term Antifa goes back to the 1920's ("Antifaschistische Aktion"), to the era of frequent fights between communist and nazi streetgangs. In the 1980's, with a resurgence of Neonazism in Germany (and especially after the Reunification), Antifa groups reappeared again. This was in no way connected to the UK, and I would dare say the same about Swedens Antifa, for instance. I know of ties between german, dutch, and scandinavian antifa groups - british antifa groups don't play a role in these networks though. Ok sorry, random ramblings really.. CptSwing 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This comment illustrates part of the problem that surrounds this page: the slippage between term AFA and the term antifa. BobFromBrockley 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Merging from Antifascistisk Aktion

Oppose - I don't see why we have to even discuss this. They are two different organisations (one in the UK and one in Sweden). // Liftarn

But Anti-Fascist Action is also the english language translation of all the groups listed in Anti-Fascist Action. In fact, I'm not sure the title of Antifascistisk Aktion should be in Swedish: Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation was renamed, why shouldn't AFA? And if that happens, conflict arises. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Facist Action in the UK was a distinct organisation which only had very loose contacts with some groups in the rest of Europe. It seems to me that the only real connection with other organisations listed in these articles is that at the lowest common denominator they are all anti-fascist. AFA (UK) should have it's own page. (Divisive Cottonwood 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Afa sectariana

An anonymous editor inserted this:

Various elements of AFA from the anarchist movement and non politically affiliated members did not agree with Red Action's policy of renouncing street violence as a tactic against nazis. Many also felt the IWCA could not operate as a democratic body, due to their experience of Red Action's notoriously autocratic leadership style in AFA. After either leaving AFA or being expelled due to Red Actions political machinations, various ex-members continued to operate well into the nineties under the name No Platform.

Durutti removed it. Although it is written in a very POV way, it is basically true. Can anyone find a No Platform reference to cite? BobFromBrockley 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I put in information about the history and current activity of AFA in Ireland.

Although I was not the author of the above insertion, I think the removed comment should be reinstated. This is not written from the point of view of AFA members but is rather recounting their point of view which important to establish balance in the article. The article currently gives the impression of that the majority of AFA activists went into the IWCA - this is incorrect and particularly so in relation to the 'northern network' - basically AFA groups in the midlands and north of england. Red Action was not a large group and its main base was in London - few northernn activists were members and were more likely to be anarchists. The article as it stands without this addition is misleading and London centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.208.217 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish AFA

I added in info on their history and current activity.

Jcarax68 12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted that section because it was written from the point of view of that group. It even included phrases such as "Some of our own members..." and "many of our members." It also had an informal language style that doesn't doesn't meet encyclopedic standards. A section on AFA Ireland would be a welcome addition to this article if it was written in a neutral and formal style, and was backed up by reliable references. Spylab 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Neo-fascism

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

• I will change them all back to fascist. The main reason I changed some of them to neo-fascist was because it refers to a post-WWII movement. The other reason was just to use different wording to make it more interesting. Spylab 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BobFromBrockley 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias

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

The BNP are not exactly non-violent you know? - Anon.

I understood that personal ad hominem attacks are discouraged on Wikipedia, but how can you expect fascists to understand Latin when most have a problem with walking upright without scraping their knuckles on the pavement ?

I understand that in the dark days of the Battle of Britain our guys in Spitfires did not have a moral problem with the appliance of violence to people who thought differently. i.e. that it was a good idea to murder people on the basis of their racial origins.

We had you at Al-Alamein! Keep on working at the opposable thumbs guys! Streona (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Britton-centrism: historical revisionism

I added one sencence in this article some time ago which have been deleted. As a result this article still starts with information that is simply incorrect - britton-centric revisionism?

Even though this article might be primarily about the brittish organisation, it is completely misleading to say that Anti-Fascist Action started in Brittain in the 1980ies and from there spread to other countries - that is such a historical lie... Anti-Fascist Action - as concept, as movement and organisation - did in fact start in Germany in 1923. It has continued to exist in Germany uninterrupted (with periods of illegality) since then, so one can also not say that the modern concept comes from England. The logos that antifascist groups all around Europe use are also variants of the one that was invented in 1923 by AFA-Germany with united front of SPD and PDS. Anti-Fascist Action started in Germay more than 50 years before it started in England!! How can it then be said that it spread from England - the center of the World? Get over it, please, and allow the historical facts be mentioned and not deleted by revisionists. - antifascist greetings from Germany -

• Feel free to provide a reliable reference showing that a group actually called Anti-Fascist Action started in Germany in 1923. This article is about a specific organization, not merely a concept and movement. Also, maybe you can explain why a German group would have an English-language name at that point in history. Spylab 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you please - Feel free to inform us why organisations in non-English countries would have an English name. They don't? They have names in their own languages? Oh, well then if the article is strictly about the one and only brittish and anglo-phone group and not about any other organisations that bear practically identical names, how come the article starts with the - false statement that this "striclty brittish" organisation "spread to other countries"? If you want an article about one group and one group only, then write that (allthough it would be a shame not to mention the historical foundation of the name and concept "antifascist action") but when you clame that this brittish concept spread to other countries, then you are writing a historical lie... and a lie about it only being about this particular group. Antifaschistische Aktion started in 1930 in Germany (not 1923 - sorry) ... and from there spread to other countries. Are you really claiming that a brittish group in 1985 came up with exactly the same name without any inspiration from the allready - for more than 60 years - existing continental organisations? I sincerely doubt that ;-) It must also strike anyone as a bit odd that allmost all the grups in Europe who suppsedly "spread from brittain" use logos similar to the German movement from 1932 without any inspiration from Germany but the Brittish group has a different logo ...but how can that be, when we are all inspired by brittain? (even odder since most continental groups have continual cooperation with the German groups and allmost none with brittain)

If the article is only about one group and not about the historical backgrounds and contexts then a lot of the article needs to be deleted. That would be dumb! Just write the bloody truth. It doesn't have to be any long sentence just delte the one lie, and replace it with historical facts.

A reference: http://www.autonomes-zentrum.org/ai/texte/AAhistory.htm

136.172.134.185 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just googled "Antifaschistische Aktion/Bundesweite Organisation" (I think it was me that added reference to that, taken from the Anti-German WP page) to get a reference, and found a lot of references, including its own (apparently not defunct) webpage http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/aam/aabo.html. This issue kind of raises the one AFA/many AFAs issue discussed above (e.g. do we need someone who knows about the German situation to write a good Antifaschistische Aktion page? should this page disambiguate to an AFA,UK page and other national pages, as per Jobjörn's suggestion back in Jan/Feb? BobFromBrockley 12:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the name of this article to Anti-Fascist Action (UK) and deleted the mentions of other countries (other than the sentence saying AFA Ireland seems to be influenced by the UK group). All those other European groups with names similar to Anti-Fascist Action in their own languages can have their own separate articles if someone wants to write them. Spylab 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• After changing the name of the Britain-focussed article, I turned Anti-Fascist Action into a disambiguation page as has been discussed above. However, there are only two applicable organizations with their own Wikipedia articles, and it is pointless to add groups to the disambiguation page if they don't have Wikipedia articles. Spylab 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you did this with a heavy heart, but I think this was the right solution. Hopefully people will add pages for the other groups! BobFromBrockley 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to be a spanner in the works, but having reflected on this for a few days I think the substantive article should go back to being called Anti-Fascist Action but with a note at the beginning saying This article refers to the organisation Anti-Fascist Action in the UK. For other organisations of this name in other languages, see Anti-Fascist Action (disambiguation) and put the disamb page there. That is because all wikilinks to Anti-Fascist Action are to UK AFA. What do you think? BobFromBrockley 12:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Spylab 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. BobFromBrockley 12:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

References

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

• I changed the tag to say "more references needed" instead of what it used to say. One problem with those types of tags on Wikipedia is that people keep changing the wording, so what used to be appropriate for a certain article may not be appropriate later on, even if no changes have been made to the article. The "more references needed" tag is appropriate for this article because most of the history isn't backed up by references. The only sentences in this article with references are about relatively minor topics. Spylab 15:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Far Left Roots

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

Clearsight (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody is claiming that AFA is "moderate". However, if you want to make any sort of claim about any sort of topic on Wikipedia (such as that AFA is far left, you should back it up with reliable sources or else it can be removed at any time.Spylab (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was the section talking about the publication of the AFA History book removed?

Why was this removed? This is a valid reference to what this page is meant to be about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.108.32 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• That section was just an advertisement for the book -- not what Wikipedia is for. Some of the text was even directly copied from the book's own website.Spylab (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicky Crane - alleged Fascist?

I updated the reference that was made to Nicky Crane being an alleged fascist - he clearly was a fascist. I also put in a footnote giving evidence a plenty sourced from a published book for this. Why on earth was my edit reversed so it now has him back as being an alleged fascist - that is ridiculous - call a spade a spade for fucks sake, your like the lefties who after he was done enquired after his health rather than the wellbeing of those who served time for it

RfC

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

AFA/post-AFA sectariana again

This paragraph was edited into the article in December. I am going to remove most of it, leaving in key factual elements, because I believe it is written in a partisan, non-encyclopedic way. But it could be useful in developing the narrative:

Having left AFA, disbanded Red Action, (and indeed abandoned activist anti fascist activity), to form the local electoral and local activism focussed , Independent Working Class Association (IWCA), ex Red action/IWCA members now argue that, while mainstream liberal anti-racist groups often focussed their attention on black people and other racial minorities as the victims of discrimination, AFA focused its efforts on the white working class, which it saw as the fascist movement's main recruiting ground. However,others, including ex-RA members who did not go down the IWCA route have argued that this supposed unique AFA "white working class focus" is a myth, backdating later IWCA politics into the AFA's actual history. They argue that even after the 1989 split in AFA with the more liberal anti fascist supporting organisations, the "on the ground" political focus of AFA remained essentially a very basic anti-fascist one, without any really significant political break from tactics and priorities pursued by the Anti Nazi League MK I, in its initial activist heyday 1977 to 1979. The ANL MK I , contrary to RED Action/IWCA claims , pursued a distinctly "twin track" , AFA-like, approach to anti fascism too, ie. physical street opposition to fascist marches and meetings, plus aggressive stewarding and violent additional actions by the "Squads", alongside the more populist, mass music carnivals and family day out marches, activities. The real difference being that in the ANL MK I the physical street action and "Squadist" aspect was largely unacknowledged publicly by the ANL leadership.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

References

References

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

Rather sweeping claims backed by non-neutral sources

I think this is an interesting article about a group I didn't know yet (I'm not British). However, a rather broad statement in the introduction caught my eye:

"[Anti-Fascist Action (AFA)] was notable in significantly reducing fascist street activity in Britain in the 1990s"

This claim is sourced by a reference to the book "Beating The Fascists: The Untold Story of Anti-Fascist Action", published by the anarchist publishing house Freedom Press. The book's website describes the book as "a compelling account of the extraordinary activities of Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) – by those who were there on the frontline", describing AFA as "an organised and committed group of ordinary working class people who during the 1980s and 1990s took the fight to the far right – and won!"

My question is: considering that the book appears to be written by, or at least from the perspective and in praise of, the group itself, can it really serve as an adequate substantiation of a claim about how successful the group was? That strikes me as problematic.

Along the same lines, the Wikipedia article now also claims that:

"[the Battle of Waterloo] was pivotal in defeating the street presence of the far right in Britain"

"[the] turn in the BNP's policy from confrontation on the streets to a bid for electoral respectability [came] partly as a response to their defeat on the streets by AFA"

Both statements are substantiated by references to articles in Red Action and, in one case, the above-mentioned book. So we have three rather sweeping claims about how successful AFA was that appear to be based, basically, on the AFA saying so. I don't know enough about the subject to assess whether the claims are *true* or not, that's not the point - but I'd say that, right now, they are not substantiated in an encyclopedia-worthy way. What do you think? No-itsme (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources with vested interest

{(u|Justeditingtoday}} why is an anarchist publisher "perfectly reliable" as a source to call an anarchist group "successful"? Surely there is neutral scholarship on this sociology subject. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

An "anarchist publisher" didn't say anything. Sean Birchall in Beating The Fascists: The Untold Story of Anti-Fascist Action stated that they significantly reduced fascist street activity in Britain and the book was published by Freedom Press. Freedom press is not an unreliable source nor is Birchall. You can't assume unreliability simply because you don't like the source. Justeditingtoday (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Just because I don't like the source", yes because it's not neutral, it's a niche publisher for anarchist special intetest. Do you have any idea how to identify a reliable source? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

From their website: "Freedom Publishing is a longstanding anarchist publisher based in Whitechapel, East London. Founded in 1886, it offered a much needed outlet for radical ideas and a meeting place for the anarchist thinkers of the day, and we seek to continue that tradition today along with promoting and supporting current social and political struggles. We are the largest anarchist publishing house in the nation and the oldest of its kind in the English speaking world." If you think that's a reliable publisher then please read WP:COMPETENCE Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

First, you should read WP:ATTACK because hurling insults at me doesn't make your argument stronger. Second, the fact that Freedom Press is an anarchist publisher doesn't make it unreliable when publishing books about anarchism or anti-fascism. Please read WP:RS. You have admitted that you have nothing more than your own opinion to claim it is unreliable, you need something stronger than that. Justeditingtoday (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"just because this publisher only publishes on a niche political ideology doesn't mean it's biased to that ideology". K then. Still funny how in your first response you denied it was even anarchist, as if you're making this all up as you go along Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't deny the publisher was anarchist. I denied that the publisher stated anything. The author did. I would urge you again to read WP:ATTACK and WP:AGF as you seem to have overlooked them. Justeditingtoday (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether sources are written or published by people with or without political perspectives, but whether sources are reliable in evidencing the claim being made. Clearly the sources used here meet that standard. At any rate, I have added additional sources, which are from academic texts and mainstream media, which substantiate the sources here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn claims

I'm seeing some back and forth over whether to include references to Jeremy Corbyn's alleged involvement with AFA. I'm not familiar with this particular facet of the Corbyn saga; is the objection with the reliability of the source or is it a WP:DUE issue? Simonm223 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems this dates backed at least to this Routledge book Anti-Fascism in Britain by Nigel Copsey - which says Corbyn was honorary president in its founding 1985 - so it would seem to merit inclusion here (particularly since the article is quite brief).Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That does appear to be a WP:RS Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

However "honorary president" is different from the removed statement. Suggest replacing with:

According to Nigel Copsey, Jeremy Corbyn was honorary president at the time of its founding in 1985. During the time he was associated with the organization, AFA was involved "was involved in at least five serious incidents of street disorder". Corbyn later quit his post as leader of the organisation, telling an author of a student thesis that "only defensive physical confrontation should take place", according to Andrew Gilligan in the Sunday Times.

This might help to make it a bit less POV while still including that a noted scholar in the field found him to be involved and contextualizing it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I would cite the [book as well - which is a better source than a newspaper (still a RS, but an academic book is better), though the newspaper is more detailed in regards to Corbyn.Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I added this is a blurb "The organization was headed by Jeremy Corbyn as national secretary." - without going into the recent discourse around this (which might be DUE on Corbyn's page - but for AFA it seems that what's relevant is that he was national secretary in 1985 (until 1989?)).Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Brief mention of Corbyn would be DUE I think if he held office. More than brief mention would be UNDUE in a short article. First, I think it's important that it is clear that Corbyn's involvement was in the 1985 incarnation, not the 1989+ incarnation, i.e. when it was broad-based rather than militant. Second, the more reliable sources (Copsey) say he was "honorary" national secretary. Third, mentioning "five incidents of disorder" in the same sentence as him seems slightly pushing an interpretation which might not be valid, that he was connected to these incidents. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I see Corybn is described as "honorary president" in Copsey's book but "national secretary" in his article. I can't find an end date for his holding office. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Copsey varies in the title - possibly to aim for an international/non-socialist audience? I went with the article which said "national secretary". He definitely was there when it was founded in 1985 (per Copsey and a number of others). Per the interview in this thesis (which also uses "national secretary") - [1] he was there until 1989, but this would not be a RS (tough maybe OK for an interview? Iffy) - The Times [2] refers to the student thesis. End dates may be indefinite as the AFA essentially dissolved on each own accord somewhere between 85 and the reincarnation in 89.Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So national sec seems safe, if 3 sources say that and only one hon pres. Student says secretary on 1985 founding and "involved" until 1989, so looks like we still don't have a strong source for anything beyond 1985? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

With the sources at hand at the moment - I would stick to him being nat sec on the founding in 1985 (which is the most notable/due bit) - and leave the end unspecified. This source (also Copsey) and this (Forbes & Stampton) has him supporting in Parliament banning the sale of "Blood and Hounour merchandise" in 1989, a campaign connected to AFA. This book (RS? Looks like a memoir) in page 104 discusses some pre-founding activity and one page 121 has him speaking in 1986.Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we're moving in the right direction here. Just noting I support the emerging consensus forming on this talk. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

AFA vs Antifa

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