I see that this template was created just a while ago. The creator had chosen the German "Antifaschistische Aktion" emblem with the modification that the black flag has been swapped in front of the red flag (indicating an anarchist POV?). I think it would be better to use a general anti-Nazi logo altogether since this should be about general anti-fascism.

The contents in the template also seem to have an anarchist POV, as it lists "anti-nationalism" as a core tenent for example. But anti-fascists include Italian Roman Catholic partisans such as Brigate Fiamme Verdi, too. This template needs a lot of fixing to avoid WP:SYNTH and to fix WP:NPOV. --Pudeo (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is switching the emblem to a specifically Anti-Nazi symbol making this more general? If anything, you've made it far more specific. This is about anti-fascism, not just anti-nazism. Completely disagree with this change. Parabolist (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, Nazism is more specific than fascism. But a 1932 German Communist Party affiliated Antifaschistische Aktion logo with German text is pretty specific too. That doesn't represent all anti-fascist groups. Not using any specific emblem but a photograph, or not having an image at all would be options too. Or using something like this: File:Bandiera2.jpg. --Pudeo (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)#[reply]

Commenting only on the emblem (will comment on the POV in a different section, as it will be confusing to discuss both issues here). I think it is totally fine to use the antifa logo, as the most visibly recognisable and common anti-fascist logo. Also don't have a problem with the anti-Nazi one, or with the three arrow logo which is quite commonly used. Anti-Nazi does seem more specific, although antifa doesn't capture the full diversity of anti-fascism - but no single image could so I think this is a non-issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per what Bob commented, I used the mentioned Antifaschistische Aktion logo as it was the most recognizable symbol I could find to use for anti-fascism. Since its original use, it has come to be used by anti-fascist groups around the globe, albeit often with modified text. I agree that changing it to an anti-Nazi logo would have been too specific. I'm happy to try and build consensus on the issue of what emblem to use.--Grnrchst (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous section, Pudeo said The contents in the template also seem to have an anarchist POV, as it lists "anti-nationalism" as a core tenent for example. But anti-fascists include Italian Roman Catholic partisans such as Brigate Fiamme Verdi, too. This template needs a lot of fixing to avoid WP:SYNTH and to fix WP:NPOV. I don't know if I'd call this an anarchist POV, but rather a narrow focus. I think we should:

• remove the core tenets and ideas sections, as none of these are ideas or core tenets of anti-fascism
• expand the list of organisations and movements to show the full diversity of anti-fascism, probably broken down by period and place. In terms of period, I'd recommend (a) interwar anti-fascist movements, (b) war-time anti-fascist resistance and partisan movements, (c) post-war anti-fascist movements.
• fold the groups into the history section and make it chronological
• maybe separate "tactics" (milk-shaking, squadism) from "strategies" (united front, popular front)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to, those would be improvements. I don't think anything should yet be seen as "set in stone", as this template was created less than 2 months ago by a relatively new user, as well. --Pudeo (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started populating the middle part in my Sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobfrombrockley/anti-fascism_template I will do some minor amendments first as I don't really know how to work with templates, then move the bigger stuff here. People should feel free to edit there in the meantime. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ziko: While both the points in your edit summary are correct, I'm not sure that either is a good reason not to consider the Iron Front an anti-fascist group, or not to link to it here. A group can be both anti-fascist and anti-communist (certainly anti-Communist), and anti-fascist groups can be opposed to other anti-fascist groups (just as no one hates socialists as much as other socialists, and so on). As such I think it's worth discussing this more broadly. My view is that navboxes and sidebars should be fairly broad in scope; the purpose is to direct readers to relevant articles, and readers will naturally attach more weight to the more nuanced content of those articles than to any conclusions that might be drawn from the sidebar itself. This means that the possible confusion caused by including a possibly marginal case like this is probably outweighed by the benefits of providing more comprehensive coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your comment. I doubt that the organization then would have called itself "Antifascist", and I do not see connections to the more recent a.f. movement. I also doubt that the modern a.f. movement sees itself in the tradition of the Iron Front. But if you can support the claim with reliable sources? Kind regards Ziko (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arms & Hearts. It doesn't need to have a connection to the more recent a.f. movement to be in this sidebar, as the sidebar isn't specifically contemporary. Anyway, it's clear that at least part of the modern a.f. movement does see it as in the tradition of the Iron Front, as its Three Arrows symbol is second only to Antifa's two flags as an a.f. symbol.[1][2] It clearly did consider itself anti-fascist and is considered as such by historians.[3][4][5] And its article is in several anti-fascist categories, suggesting settled consensus here that it is anti-fascist. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted to version by Jaredscribe as Ziko position seems to be the minority one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Bobfrombrockley: and @Arms & Hearts: I've heard from many antifascists who are disappointed by the misappropriation Three Arrows to further an anarcho-communist political agenda that attacks liberal democracy. Removing discussion of the Iron Front from antifascism would be to add insult to injury, and strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed again by Liz on grounds of being defunct for 90 years, whereas other (less noteworthy imho) defunct groups are recent, i.e. she assumes the template should be contemporary not historical. I propose a more useful sidebar would be more historical. See proposal below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per earlier discussion above, I am proposing a complete revamp here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Anti-fascism_sidebar No doubt needs format cleaning etc (first template I've worked on) and am open to additions and removals. Feel free to edit there. What do people think? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley: Where's the proposal? You've just linked to the existing template which hasn't been substantially changed. Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: Thank you! Messed up that link badly. Here's the proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobfrombrockley/anti-fascism_template BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-fascism is defined on its page as this:

Anti-fascism is a political movement in opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals. Beginning in European countries in the 1920s, it was at its most significant shortly before and during World War II, where the Axis powers were opposed by many countries forming the Allies of World War II and dozens of resistance movements worldwide. Anti-fascism has been an element of movements across the political spectrum and holding many different political positions such as anarchism, communism, pacifism, republicanism, social democracy, socialism and syndicalism as well as centrist, conservative, liberal and nationalist viewpoints.

Thus from this definition, anti-fascism is actually a very broad spectrum - you can have anarchist and communist anti-fascists but you can also have liberal and conservative anti-fascists. But the sidebar largely focuses on "revolutionary" anti-fascism. By this I mean the definitions from Michael Seidman on the anti-fascism page:

Revolutionary anti-fascism was expressed amongst communists and anarchists, where it identified fascism and capitalism as its enemies and made little distinction between fascism and other forms of authoritarianism. It did not disappear after the Second World War but was used as an official ideology of the Soviet bloc, with the "fascist" West as the new enemy.

Counterrevolutionary anti-fascism was much more conservative in nature, with Seidman arguing that Charles de Gaulle and Winston Churchill represented examples of it and that they tried to win the masses to their cause. Counterrevolutionary antifascists desired to ensure the restoration or continuation of the prewar old regime and conservative antifascists disliked fascism's erasure of the distinction between the public and private spheres. Like its revolutionary counterpart, it would outlast fascism once the Second World War ended.

So we can see that revolutionary anti-fascism is that of anarchists and communists and counterrevolutionary anti-fascism is that of liberals, social democrats and conservatives. Both are types of anti-fascism but they are distinct (read on the page for more).

However, this sidebar focuses exclusively on revolutionary anti-fascism. It defines anti-fascist ideas as:

• Anarchism
• Anti-authoritarianism
• Anti-capitalism
• Autonomism
• Communism
• Socialism

Where do liberal and conservative anti-fascists fit into that? Seidman identifies Winston Churchill as an anti-fascist, yet he was a conservative, pro-capitalist and imperialist. So how does that fit on the list?

Indeed, under the inclusive definition of anti-facism, this list of tactics is woefully incomplete:

• Black bloc
• Deplatforming
• Direct Action
• Diversity of tactics
• Milkshaking
• Popular front
• Squadism
• United front

How about strategic bombing in WW2? Massed tank assaults? Dogfights? The page for anti-fascism notes how WW2 was conceived of as an anti-fascist struggle by the major allied powers and thus the tactics employed in WW2 are, logically, anti-fascist tactics. This list largely refers to the actions of black bloc groups, anarchist organisations, protestors and a few left-wing governments (such as the Spanish Popular Front). It would be fine if it was about anarchist militants but it's not, it's about anti-fascism.

The problem is summed up thusly: anti-fascism, as defined on the page Anti-fascism used as broad, inclusive definition. The sidebar uses a narrow, exclusive definition that seems to focus on the American group Antifa and other affiliated groups. Thus I propose either:

• The sidebar be changed to reflect the broad, inclusive definition of anti-fascism as it is defined on the page Anti-fascism OR
• The sidebar be explicitly identified as referring to the more exclusive definition of anti-fascism. I would suggest its name be changed to something like "Antifa" or "Left-wing anti-fascism" since this more accurately reflects what it is about. It should not share the same name as the Anti-fascism page if it is about a different concept, this will only cause confusion.

The only part that really reflects the inclusive definition is the Literature section.

I also propose that the Organisations and Movements section also be edited to reflect the more inclusive definition - if Antifa count as anti-fascist, then I'm fairly certain the United States Army do as well given how many fascists they shot in WW2. The current list seems to be reflective of the exclusive definition. Sdio7 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the version of anti-fascism here is too narrow. It reflects militant anti-fascism but not liberal and other forms of anti-fascism, and is a bit US-centric. I support removal of the part of the list starting "Anarchism". This is part of my reason for the revised version I linked to in the previous talk section, and would really like some feedback on that otherwise I will just boldly do it. However, I disagree with the addition of too many strategies and tactics that are not specific (or at least closely associated) with anti-fascism. Yes, anti-fascists have used tank assaults but they have also used doxxing, leaflets, Twitter campaigns and any number of other things so it makes no sense to be comprehensive. I think the same holds for including the US (or Soviet) army, which was deployed against at one point but whose history is pretty rich and varied (including support for fascism at other points) and is not primarily anti-fascist. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the initial focus of the sidebar was too narrow, good to see that it has since been expanded on. As for the issue of the inclusion of US/Soviet armies and the military tactics used in World War II, I think it's rather misleading to argue that either of these were specifically "anti-fascist". These armies weren't formed to fight fascism, nor were the tactics mentioned used only to fight fascism, or only by the side of the conflict that was opposed to fascism.--Grnrchst (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the changes proposed above and not opposed. Other editors please do revert/amend/discuss as appropriate. It is my first major edit to a sidebar, so I hope I've done it right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Have started adding it to relevant pages - will finish later (unless anyone else wants to help!) but might need to check acheives consensus? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit! The sidebar is certainly a lot cleaner and more focused now. The expansion of the history in particular is very well done. I was wondering though if it would be worth re-adding in the antifascist literature section? I understand the reasons for removing the core tenets and ideas sections, as they may not have properly been inclusive of anti-fascism as a whole, but don't think I saw a reason given for the removal of the literature. Apologies for not contributing to the conversation previously, I was unaware it was happening.--Grnrchst (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that, as of right now, the only Asian resistance movement of World War II that has been included is the Burmese Anti-Fascist Organisation. And I was wondering if it would be worth including the other resistance movements that opposed the Empire of Japan. Of course, I understand that many of these units would be better defined as "anti-imperialist", rather than specifically anti-fascist, which is why I thought I should bring it up here first, in order to build consensus on the matter.--Grnrchst (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose a Central European heading to the sidebar under the Interwar section that would include the Arbeiter-Schutzbund, Republikanischer Schutzbund and Socialist Action. Wikociewie (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went ahead and added a Central Europe section Wikociewie (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]