Jump to content

Talk:Antifaschistische Aktion

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

Untitled

[edit]

This is really horrible english, I know. I will ad some pictures to. Can you please check it through for spelling faults Slappis 12:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sd_2.jpg i want to use that picture but it wont show it. How do i do? Slappis 12:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you know the spelling sucks. Please change it. And fix the picture!!!! Slappis 10:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up the spelling and grammar a little. kurt 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo

[edit]

I fixed up the article quite a bit, and I'll make sure to edit it even further. Jobjörn 20:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist or Libertarian Socialist?

[edit]

User:Slappis edited away my sentence "In line with the anarchist thoughts of AFA" and replaced it with "In line with the libertarian thoughts of AFA". This is obviously way wrong, but I'm assuming he meant libertarian socialist thinking. The question now is, should it say anarchist or libertarian socialist? I'm changing it to libertarian socialist in the meantime. Jobjörn 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.antifa.se/index.php?sida=3 "AFA-Sverige har en frihetlig socialistisk grundsyn", but their platform is not bound by any specific political ideology. // Liftarn
Libertarian Socialist it is then. Jobjörn 14:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for being late. Historicly afa have been communist outside sweden and many local groups in the afa today uses the red before the black fana first. And as liftarn said they are libertarian socialist...
greetings Slappis 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, libertarian is in swedish frihetlig not liberal. Slappis 13:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
exactly. within this lies the misunderstanding - that "frihetlig" and "liberal" translates to the same thing (libertarian) in english. the same goes for "fri" and "gratis" - both translated to "free". (Free as in free speech, not free beer would as thus be translated Fri som i yttrandefrihet, inte gratis öl). Not that this is relevant to this article at all... Jobjörn 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

[edit]

I do believe the proper name of this article would be Antifascistisk Aktion, not Antifascistisk aktion. A rename perhaps? Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 10:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky... The name is in Swedish and in Swedish "Antifascistisk aktion" would be correct, but then this is the English Wikipedia so we may want to follow English spelling rules. The rule seems to no capitalise the letters, for instance Så vit som en snö, Hans och hennes and Sista kontraktet. // Liftarn
Granted. But it gets trickier: Antifascistisk Aktion spells it with a capital A in Aktion. (They also spell it with a capital F (i e: AntiFascistisk Aktion) sometimes, but let's just ignore that.) What do you say now? Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer either "Antifascistisk aktion" (correct Swedish) or "AntiFascistisk Aktion" (with he initials AFA capitalised). // Liftarn

Out of that, I'd prefer the current name anyday. You can't go around having capital letters in the middle of words. -_- Issue settled then, I s'pose! -- Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 13:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. // Liftarn

We are dealing with an odd image.

[edit]

Hmm. The image (the AFA logo) is not working properly: one may want to see Image talk:Antifascistisk Aktion black.png. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather see the black fana first (it is historicly more correct) and not as on the swedish page, the red first Slappis 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my point. (I uploaded that image, and put it there.) Try clicking on the image to see its image description page! Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged POV pushing

[edit]

In this diff, Itake accuses me of POV pushing. What I did was merely formatting two references he provided and deleting two others - could someone, such as Itake himself, please explain how that would constitute POV pushing, and furthermore, explain why it was necessary to remove the formatting of the references that were kept? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Antifa in Germany

[edit]

Hello,

i´d like to change the part about germany, as german antifa groups are also well known for their agitation against police, especially at demonstrations or their public tries to block neo nazi rallys. 4 days ago, 3000 militant antifa activists caused high property damage and injured several neonazis and 82 riot police, using sticks, stones, pipes, bottles, petards, signal rockets and molotov cocktails. That´s normality if neonazis try to march, so i guess it should be mentioned. Unfortunately i´m not sure if my english is good enough, could anybody do that for me?

source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngsk8_j3YCE&feature=player_embedded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.176.125 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa groups in Germany are widely regarded as left-wing extremist, dangerous, violent and even racist toward Germans (or any form of affection to Germany). German Antifa's calling everybody a nazi who's criticizing them, they are hurting people just because of their political opinion and agitating against persons who say anything critical about foreigner's criminality, Islam or the European Union. The Antifa in Germany is definitely left-wing extremist and if you're not part of them (which applies, gladly, to the most of Germans) you are automatically considered a racist because you are "not fighting racism." Long story short, it has to be added that Antifa in Germany is not a peaceful racism-fighter but an extremist Germany-hater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.153.69 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These positions are highly opinionated and should be disregarded. A wikipedia article is no place for personal stories and anecdotes without proof. They even contain blatant errors just in these short paragraphs.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.110.1.144 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Antifaschistische Aktion. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch AFA is monitoring the Dutch Wikipedia

[edit]

I discovered this blog. It may be added to the trivia section, I think. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platformist?

[edit]

Calling the explicit network structure of Antifa "Platformist" is offensive, absurd, and historically inaccurate. Antifa are not explicitly anarchist and they have existed throughout their modern revival as a completely decentralized informal organization. There is nothing in their structure that can be even remotely characterized as "Platformist." <-- This unsigned comment was made by Dimadick 07:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC), and replaced here by 83.85.143.141 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my comment. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had to go back a long time, but here is the suspected anonymous which left the unsigned comment at 20:45, August 8th, 2011: 166.129.171.141 by User:166.129.171.141. Apologies. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The United States of America

[edit]

This section seems irrelevant to the article - is there any references that activities of people labelled 'antifa' in the USA are formally related to the German group Antifaschistische Aktion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadramgo (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Antifaschistische Aktion. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not detailed enough...

[edit]

I strongly believe Wikipedia is home to many Antifa members and people who dislike President Trump. In my opinion the dangers of Antifa and what they have done to gain that notoriety has not been typed into this article. Also another thing bugs me "Protesters deliberately causing damage were described as members of Antifa, however were generally lone individuals grouped together by loose radical left-wing ideology." is that some attempt to excuse their actions? How would this go down "Protesters deliberately causing damage were described as members of the KKK, however were generally lone individuals grouped together by loose radical right-wing ideology". The fact remains that those "lone individuals" were still members of Antifa..? I think some facts need to be put into this article because this page makes them look like freedom fighters whereas I know personally a large number of them are violent and willing to use violence. ThePlane11 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa (and KKK members, for that matter) are free to edit Wikipedia, as long as they follow core principles. One way these principle are maintained is be prohibiting original research. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Using unreliable sources, or combining reliable sources to say something not supported by those sources, is unacceptable. If reliable sources don't say this way antifa, Wikipedia should not either. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ThePlane11: These sources are still not usable for this point. This CNN article mentions "antifascist" once, in quote marks, with no indication that it's connected to Antifaschistische Aktion. The quote taken from the Fox Insider article was far, far too long, bordering on WP:COPYVIO. It also heinously misrepresented the statements of a living person. He did not call for violence to 'take down' trump supporters, he called for violent self-defense. Wikipedia is not expected or obligated to repeat incendiary language from sources like this. We have rules about how we cover living people, and twisting their words like this is not acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but how did I twisted his words? I typed in the entire conversation from a Youtube video of the interview you fool? Stop talking rubbish, you only want the page to look good for your benefit. Rubbish. ThePlane11 (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how is the United States related to Antifaschistische Aktion, I assume you are speaking about the original German group. It's quite odd how Sweden is mentioned there too. No indication to Antifaschistische Aktion whatsoever either, they are both different countries? ThePlane11 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd how out of all of the cars, property and the people that were assaulted, only one comment sums it up and even though the comment tries to brush it off as "oh they were lone individuals and basically had no association with the group". Out of the many cases in regard to Antifa there is nothing there. Quite odd ThePlane11 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find reliable sources which actually make this connection. The Fox interview isn't actually doing that, and has WP:BLP issues, also. The CNN one is... better than nothing, but pretty flimsy for anything other than a single sentence.
As I said, copying the entire interview was not acceptable, and copying Fox's description of that interview is also not acceptable. Among other problems, it twists the subject's words. Nowhere is he "urging liberals and progressives to violence [sic] to take down President Trump." Good lord, does Fox ever proof-reader? Read the kid's article if you want, but nowhere does he call for violence, instead, he points out that right-wing groups stoke fears of left-wing violence while themselves being violent. You don't have to agree, but you cannot misrepresent what he actually wrote on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm give me time. There is nothing there about the violence committed by Antifa and that needs to change. Every kid who opens that page thinks the group are some freedom fighters whereas they are basically on the same level of the KKK or near in regard to violence. You know the power that Wikipedia has and this page is sending out the wrong message. I'm for Trump however take him down the peaceful and democratic way ThePlane11 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult line to walk. I'm sure violence has committed in the name of antifa. So should we include that? If so, how? If sources don't discuss this even when it seems like they should, or only discuss it in a round-about way, there's probably a good reason. Not all anti-Trump violence is antifa, and not all antifa property destruction should be described here as violent. You're not alone in comparing them to the KKK, but that's too simplistic to get very far. Just because two groups may be associated with violence doesn't mean they should be described as the same thing. By that logic, we could describe Trump as a thug and a gang-leader because, unarguably, some of his most vocal followers have called for harassment,[1] violence,[2] and worse. That's not going to work on Trump's article, and it's not going to work here. We have to weigh sources and assess what they are saying, not just include the parts we agree with. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My work has already been done by someone else on the Antifa US page and the mention of their use of violence is very clear. Thanks for being patient with me ThePlane11 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Antifa in the United States

[edit]

https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa

Due to recent edits by respective users we now must discuss how to put this into the article.

Its sourced by the official website of the homeland security department of New Jersey so there is no disputing the validity of the source. Regarding the context, "Anti-fascist groups, or “Antifa,” are a subset of the anarchist movement and focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices." the article is also deliberately titled "Anarchist Extremists: Antifa". Aside from that the source links several incidents where Antifa were involved in violent clashes with right-wing radicals which fits the title of "extremist" quite well.

Here is the proposed edit.


They've been categorized as anarchist extremists by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.[1]


Its clear-cut they are being called "anarchist extremists" by New Jersey Homeland Security since that is New Jersey Homeland Security's actual website and the title is what the title is but here we are. May a consensus be built. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it's headlinese and not clear-cut at all. Though thank you for removing the outright hoax version that you originally preferred. I responded below (missed this section initially). TiC (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Anarchist Extremists: Antifa". New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. Retrieved 3 July 2017.

the new jersey bullshit

[edit]

previously the article featured an outright hoax claiming that antifa had been added to some kind of official list of terrorist groups. it is important to understand that this hoax is not original to wikipedia, but is part of the "anti-antifa" canon because of a Daily Caller article itself likely drawn from Alex Jones's infowars.com.

well, now the hoax has been removed, but the text still features a highly questionable interpretation. the entire case for including this text is the headline, "Anarchist Extremists: Antifa." there is nowhere in the text any general claim that "antifa are anarchist extremists" or equivalent. it's based entirely on the headline. but look at the format this source uses for its headlines:

ISIS: Continues to Withstand Leadership Losses
Al-Qa’ida: Rise of Hamza Bin Ladin
New Jersey: Family’s Report Thwarts Pressure-Cooker Bomb Plot

in other words "Anarchist Extremists: Antifa" is plausibly read as headlinese, not "categorization [of antifa] as anarchist extremists."

i have other problems with the reliability of the source (anonymous, no methodology, no indication of editorial procedures, literally an agency that answers to one of Donald Trump's most prominent loyalists, etc) and with just the relevance of this information, but i think this shows why it should be removed. or if it must stay it would have to be in some kind of annoying meta-controversy way documenting what the njohsp article actually said and its representation in the media, rather than just echoing a narrative. TiC (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquent, but your conclusion that the "new jersey bullshit" is a "hoax" appears to be drawn up from simply original research and not from a direct source. Governor Christie is indeed a close ally of President Trump however I don't feel that disqualifies the source's inclusion, say if, Governor Jerry Brown had one of his state's departments classify some random right-wing group as extremists while also being a close ally of President Obama it wouldn't necessarily disqualify it either. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That misrepresents the point. They did not 'classify' Antifa as anything. The article discusses some violent incidents (including some against antifa) and says more are likely. That's it. Big deal. It's pretty bland as far as what it's saying. The claim that Antifa has been 'classified' as something is garbage-level original research. This is why reliable, independent sources should be used for interpreting sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a discussion of this issue at Talk:Antifa (United States)#Nj dhs, where this would hypothetically be a better fit, anyway. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "classify" isn't even used in the proposed sentence for starters. Second I don't see how them including violent incidents against Antifa is some major revelation against the validity of the source. Your opinion that it is "garbage-level original research" is completely ridiculous and I find myself unable to continue this discussion when you're so unable to conduct yourself in a proper manner. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You used the word "classify" yourself, above. Your comparison is only as informative as the words used to make it. I don't know if I would call this a hoax, but it's definitely not well-supported by reliable sources. It's also very heavily covered by utterly unusable fringe sources like Infowars, 4chan, reddit, etc. This is a problem, as Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not unreliable ones, and not hypothetical situations. I also wouldn't discount the NJ state office just because it's connected to the Trump administration. The source doesn't actually say what's being presented here. It's pretty bland in terms of content. That is enough of a reason to treat the government post as a lightweight source. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material on the New Jersey page doesn't even mention violence from Antifa or in one instance even Antifa: "*Beginning in March, the Philadelphia Antifa Chapter used Facebook to encourage followers to disrupt a “Make America Great Again” event in Philadelphia, resulting in over 300 participants. Antifa’s presence resulted in law enforcement shutting down the event early for safety concerns. As of May, a manual on how to form an Antifa group—posted on a well-known Anarchist website in February—had approximately 13,500 views." No mention of violence.

  • On 1 February, the University of California Berkeley canceled a controversial speaker’s appearance following a protest by approximately 100 Antifa members. In response, far-right extremists assembled at a free-speech rally, which Antifa members disrupted, resulting in 10 arrests and seven injuries. Additionally, on 15 April, Antifa and far-right extremists clashed at a demonstration, leading to 23 arrests and 11 injuries." Obviously violence there although not explicitly attributed to Antifa, but I guess we can assume (which is rarely a good idea, though_/
  • On 11 February, members of the 211 Crew/211 Bootboys, a white supremacist gang, allegedly attacked two brothers at a New York City bar after seeing a “New York City anti-fascist sticker” on the back of one of the victim’s cellphones, according to New York authorities." This is an attack on someone with an Antifa sticker, not Antifa violence.
  • In June 2016, 300 counter-protesters, including anarchist extremists, attacked 25 members of the white supremacist Traditionalist Worker Party with knives, bottles, bricks, and concrete from a construction site while rallying at the California State Capitol in Sacramento, injuring 10." No mention of Antifa and here we certainly shouldn't assume it. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for related article

[edit]

See Talk:Antifa movements#Requested move 19 August 2017 Doug Weller talk 12:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the factual accuracy of this article & why it was hijacked from its origin as an article about the Swedish group.

[edit]

The first sentence says "Antifaschistische Aktion, Antifascistische Aktie, Antifascist Action or Antifascistisk Aktion — abbreviated as Antifa (German/Dutch/English) or AFA (Scandinavian) — is a far-left, extra-parliamentary, anti-fascist network in Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Canada, the UK and the United States of America whose stated goal is to "smash fascism in all its forms" and is sourced to a Swedish Antifa website. If you look at [3] it discusses a Swedish national network but doesn't seem to say it's affiliated with any other group. [https://antifa.se/presentation/presentation-2/ This pagf e] says "We are part of an international movement combating fascism and racism all over the world." That's in English so I don't think there's any translation problem. If they are part of a network they'd say so.

The second sentence abandons the 'network' concept and now calls it an 'organisation'.

Then we have "AFA works with other anti-racist groups all over Europe." That's the Swedish group again being used as a source. Yes, the Swedish group called Antifascistisk aktion does indeed work with other groups. But this sentence seems to be about - what? The Swedish group according to the sources, but this article is supposedly about more than the Swedish group. Note: at this point I began to wonder seriously if it actually was. So, I looked at the first edit.[4] Hey, guess what? It's just about the Swedish group. No wonder it uses the Swedish group as a source and about 3/4 of its sources are Swedish.

Can we please get back to the original article about a Swedish group? Doug Weller talk 09:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read this before starting to edit today. What I'll do is make a new page on German Antifa, move the gallery to the Antifa movements page, and make this page just about Sweden - is that sensible?BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EXCEPT the Swedish organisation is called Antifascistisk Aktion so that should be the page for the Swedish organisation, and Antifaschistische Aktion should be the page about the German movement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No anti-communist coatracking please

[edit]

As I mentioned elsewhere, very WP:BOLD major edits that change the pov of the article to make explicit anti-communist claims about the origin of antifascist groups need consensus before inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not checked into this page since the end of July and one editor has apparently totally rewritten it, removing several reliable sources and wikimedia resources, and transforming and text to turn the article into an attack piece equating the subject solely with the KPD, using heavily non-NPOV language. This needs drastic new work, based on scholarly sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rote Fahne

[edit]

I thought you might be interested in the article in the Rote Fahne that announces the establishment of the Antifaschische Aktion on May 26 1932. A scan is available here. I suspect that many people might have difficulties reading a low-quality scan of a page typeset in Fraktur, so I have created transcript of the scan. I'm not quite sure if it is in the public domain yet (Germany yes, I think, US not yet); please ask if you need a copy. Vexations (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa

[edit]

Re this edit: I think it is a bad move to replace the full name "Antifaschistische Aktion" so many times and replacing with "Antifa". There's so much confusion about the latter term, and the various groups and movements it is used in relation to, that it would be safer to retain the full proper name of Antifaschistische Aktion most of the times we talk about them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfrombrockley, I suppose you meant this edit, right? I believe you are right and so I have changed it back to this both here and at Antifa (Germany). Davide King (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Davide King. I think that's better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

[edit]

The article says that it was part of the Communist Party but the 1932 poster attacks communism. How come? 82.37.67.151 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is not theirs, but an SPD poster. I agree it's confusing. I'll remove. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marxists are attempting to appropriate non-Marxist anti-fascist (but also anti-communist) symbols like the "three arrows." Hence, the bizarre ahistorical association of the three arrows with a militant communist group that was in conflict with the very people who created the "three arrows" in the first place. 98.169.246.47 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"three arrows"

[edit]

the three arrows logo is anti-communist (the arrows represent anti-monarchist, anti-fascist, anti-communist); anti-fascist action was founded by the KPD, a communist party. it seems weird to have an anti-communist logo as the main image for this article. this should be changed to just the AFA logo in my opinion, but I'm afraid if I change it someone will start an edit war. thoughts? 69.113.236.26 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is Antifaschistische Aktion doesn't promote or advocate for communism, regardless of who it was originally founded by. Helper201 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "social fascists" would have been relieved to hear that. 98.169.246.47 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifaschistische_Aktion&oldid=1216541412"