Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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
Bandiera2.jpg
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
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
@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. It clearly did consider itself anti-fascist and is considered as such by historians. 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
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
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
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
The symbol used in the anti-fascism sidebar is inappropriate. In Ancient Rome it was a symbol for authority of the state, but since then it has been used as a symbol for collective strength, where lesser men banded together to establish collective strength in unity (symbolized by the rods banded together surrounding a weapon). This symbol is used in numerous instances having nothing to do with the idea of "fascism":
In spite of any scant exceptions to this idea, the image for this side bar needs to be changed, as its misrepresents too many freedom loving entities. The image has been removed from the side bar until an appropriate one can be found, if we really need a symbol for fascism at all. The image by no means is a universal symbol of fascism, and as such seems to be a Wikipedia invention -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, thank you for your suggestion. As you can see from one of the images in the discussion at the top of this talk page, the image of a destroyed fasces has historically been used as an antifascist symbol. I don't think the use of the fasces in contexts outside of fascist symbolism has much bearing on it's use here tbh.
We could open an analogous discussion about how actually the swastika is an ancient religious symbol that has been historically used across Eurasia so shouldn't be used to represent Nazism... but you can see how pointless that would be when we actually mean specific contexts within which these symbols were used to represent fascist movements (and in this case anti-fascism). Wikociewie (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not a very sound analogy. Today the swastika is common place in terms of representing Nazism, a specific nationalistic movement that existed in a relatively short period of time. Today you will never see the swastika used in any other capacity. The band of fasces, on the other hand, has been used to represent many different benevolent entities, all the way up to the present. It is arguable, at best, that it ever represented fascism in the first place. It is totally inappropriate that the same symbol used in the Great Seal of France, the Seal of the United States Senate, etc, commonplace symbols in the public eye, be used here at WP to represent fascism. This is a complete Wikipedia invention. We need to find another image, or remove it completely. There is no universally recognized symbol for fascism and we should not be trying to invent one here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
No it's a good analogy because, like you argue for the fasces, the swastika "has been used to represent many different benevolent entities, all the way up to the present." (See image) It's commonly used today by Buddhists for instance. Historically fascists used the fasces, indeed the name is drawn from the symbol, to represent themselves. If the symbol has been used in other contexts that doesn't change the meaning of its use to represent fascism.
Anyway, that's beside the point because the symbol used in this sidebar is a crossed out/destroyed fasces, which does represent anti-fascism. None of the examples you provide above show a symbol of a destroyed fasces. Wikociewie (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Re your claim: Like you argue for the fasces, the swastika "has been used to represent many different benevolent entities, all the way up to the present."?? Please read what I actually said again. The swastika has not "been used to represent many different benevolent entities, all the way up to the present." Again, there is no universally recognized symbol for fascism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please read what I actually said again. I was suggesting that your argument was factually incorrect as the swastika has been used in the exact same way you argue for the fasces. I would also say that the fasces is a widely recognised symbol of fascism (again, the word fascism is drawn from the word fasces). Regardless of that, the symbol here is a broken fasces, which is a symbol of anti-fascism. Wikociewie (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Add: Looking at edit history, we can see that several symbols were once used in the sidebar, while much of the time no symbol was used. The existing symbol was added with the claim that it is "neutral", but as we've demonstrated, its use is far from neutral as it is completely contrary to what many other entities stand for. Allowing its continued use here presents a serious neutrality and POV issue. There was never any established consensus to use the present POV symbol. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's use here makes sense considering the context: The fasces was a symbol used by fascists; the crossed out/destroyed fasces, was used by anti-fascists. Very clearly the use of a crossed out fasces here represents anti-fascism. Wikociewie (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The symbol was used by groups of people who banded together, not by a fascist dictator. it was first used in ancient Rome, which was not a fascist state. The picture you just posted above. What is it? A warehouse, a dept store? Certainly not anything that compares to the examples provided above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You could make the exact same arguments about the swastika. Which is why i bought it up in the first place.... I used the image above to demonstrate that, contrary to your claim that "Today you will never see the swastika used in any other capacity", it's easy to understand the swastika as a Nazi symbol in context, the same as when the fasces is used in the context it is here it clearly represents fascism not its other historical uses. Wikociewie (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You were asked to provide an example that compares to the examples above. All you've done is post a picture of some commercial building, with not even an explanation as to why it has a swastika. Can you provide one bonafide fascist regime that used the banded fasces, (not even the Nazis used it) Even if you could, since the banded fasces symbol is used in so many democratic instances, it negates the idea that the banded fasces is a universal symbol for fascism. It doesn't even begin to do that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, I provided the image to demonstrate that, contrary to what you said above ("Today you will never see the swastika used in any other capacity"), the swastika is in fact used in other capacities today - even to the extent it's casually used on "some commercial building". Which goes back to my point about the analogy with the swastika.
In answer to you point about the use of the fasces - the fascist regime in Italy used it as their symbol. Mussolini's FIdC used it, the PNF used it, the PFR used it, and it was a symbol of the Italian Social Republic. So, yes a bona fide fascist regime did use it. Wikociewie (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be fair to the argument, yes, the term "fascist" comes from the Latin term "fasces". Both the swastika and the banded fasces were indeed used in antiquity -- but today -- the swastika is a universal symbol for Nazism, whereas the banded fasces is not so for the idea of fascism. We need to find a universal symbol for fascism, if there is one, not something that is commonly used in so many democratic capacities. I believe it would be best if we just removed the symbol from the sidebar. This way we remove any reasons for contentions about neutrality or POV issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC).Reply
This is the anti-fascist sidebar, so the symbol needs to represent anti-fascism rather than a universal symbol of fascism. In this case a broken fasces is appropriate.
Well, I agree inasmuch as we should use consistency when we represent anti-fascism. I still disagree, however, that if we are going to symbolize anti-fascism, it should incorporate an image for fascism -- just as one would use a swatika with a circle/bar over it to symbolize anti-Nazism. Again, there is no official or universally recognized symbol for fascism, given that today the Banded Fasces is frequently used to represent strength in unity -- an image that is incorporated by the country of France, US Senate, Supreme Court, et, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Since the 1920s the fasces has been associated with the ideology of fascism. Yes, historically it's had other uses but that doesn't negate its association with the ideology of fascism. Looking through the examples you provided above, whilst they may still be used, none of them are contemporary:
Emancipation Memorial - 1876
Minnesota Supreme Court Chamber - 1917
Statue of George Washington - 1857
Great Seal of France - 1848
Seal of the United States Senate - 1885
Reverse side of the US Mercury Dime - design from 1916
1989 Congress Bicentennial silver dollar - 1989, but based on the earlier designs
Seal of Carlsbad - possibly 1950s? Unclear but presumably based on earlier design
Grand Coat of arms of Vilnius - (1991) based on historical designs
Most of these were produced before the fasces became the symbol of fascism, or are based on older uses of it. If I use the example of the Elephant Gate in Copenhagen - still there today - that wouldn't detract from the meaning of the swastika. Just because the symbol's used in other contexts that does not somehow mean it can't also be associated with the ideology that used it as their symbol. Wikociewie (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
On a historical note, as we discussed, the word fascist is derived from the Latin word Fasces, a symbol that was used by the Legions of the Roman Empire, which was not a fascist state, so using the Roman symbol with fasces to represent fascism, as we understand the idea today, is something of a historical distortion. Today, the idea of fascism is too often directed at anything military, where the idea is simply something that is in the eye of the beholder. Still think it best to simply remove the image from the side bar, and in so doing, there are no issues, either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
To use the Nazi analogy again - the Nazi's adopted their salute, from the one used in ancient Rome. You can claim that as a historical distortion but it wouldn't be credible to then argue the salute doesn't represent fascism/Nazism. So, wether the fasces was used in ancient Rome is irrelevant to the topic here. Wikociewie (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you were to show an image of a swastika to 1000 people and ask them what it stood for, virtually all of them would of course say it symbolizes 'Nazism'. If you were to show 1000 people an image of a banded-fasces, you'd be lucky if 5% said it specifically stood for fascism, as again, the banded fasces is widely used in the manner demonstrated above. Just as we are supposed to use WP:COMMONNAME:Recognizable names for articles, we should do so when incorporating symbols into side-bars and info-boxes for those articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd argue that in fact most people do associate the fasces with fascism. You personally may not have been aware of the association but your own ignorance of the fact isn't universal.
I think we've gone as far as we can with this discussion, and have started to go round in circles. I suggest that the symbol is left in place until anyone else decides to enter this discussion to reach some consensus on whether the widely-recognised and historical symbol of anti-fascism should be changed to something else. Wikociewie (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You've submitted no viable argument that supports your "most people" assertion. If "most people" actually associated the Banded Fasces with "fascism" we wouldn't see it used in so many official capacities around the world, as demonstrated above. Yes, I've conceded that the sidebar will remain as is, given the standing consensus, that it has remained as such for some time; but we do have solid arguments for its removal, and very little submitted to support the idea that it represents fascism, esp since the Roman Empire wasn't a fascist state to begin with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My "most people assertion" was simply in answer to your own unsubstantiated assertion that "If you were to show 1000 people an image of a banded-fasces, you'd be lucky if 5%". Which is not a viable argument - it's just something you've made up. I disagree with that figure as you've plucked it out of your head. Also, as pointed out above, the examples of the 'official' use of the fasces you provided are nearly all historical relics pre-dating the association of the fasces with fascism.
Again, the meaning of symbols change both in contemporary contexts and historically: whether it was used in the Roman Empire is irrelevant. I compared that argument to the hypothetical argument that the swastika can't represent Nazism because it's been used historically too as a religious symbol, and continues to be used by millions of Buddhists today. That argument just wouldn't stand up would it, but it's essentially the one you're making.
These arguments for it's removal simply don't make any sense. Anyway, we both agree on one thing; that there is no consensus to change it. Wikociewie (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My assertion was based on existing realities, that the banded fasces is used as a symbol in many official and other capacities around the world, as pointed out for you several times now, so it was not simply "made up". Otoh, you have provided nothing that even suggests otherwise. It is indeed a viable argument because the banded fasces is not recognized as a common symbol for fascism, or no one would be using this symbol to represent their country, cities, courts, currency, etc, etc. What have you given us that suggests that the banded fasces is a widely recognized symbol for fascism? You've yet to provide one example, still. Just empty assertions.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
Wikociewie (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
.svg)
