![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"It is well known for supporting the I.R.A. and two members were convicted of carrying out a I.R.A. bombing."
No it's not true. The reference is to Red Action which is or rather was heavily involved in AFA.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Anti-Fascist Action, (AFA) is a militant anti-fascist organisation that started in the United Kingdom and spread to other European countries.
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)
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))
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)
I added in info on their history and current activity.
Jcarax68
12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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 -
136.172.134.185 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
An 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)
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. [1] However,others, including ex-RA members who did not go down the IWCA route [2] 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
In my opinion, this article has enough references and {{ Refimprove}} should be removed. -- J aviP96 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
{(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)
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)
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". [1] 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. [1]
"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)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
What is the connection, if any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.87.190 ( talk) 20:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"It is well known for supporting the I.R.A. and two members were convicted of carrying out a I.R.A. bombing."
No it's not true. The reference is to Red Action which is or rather was heavily involved in AFA.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Anti-Fascist Action, (AFA) is a militant anti-fascist organisation that started in the United Kingdom and spread to other European countries.
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)
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))
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)
I added in info on their history and current activity.
Jcarax68
12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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 -
136.172.134.185 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
An 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)
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. [1] However,others, including ex-RA members who did not go down the IWCA route [2] 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
In my opinion, this article has enough references and {{ Refimprove}} should be removed. -- J aviP96 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
{(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)
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)
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". [1] 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. [1]
"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)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
What is the connection, if any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.87.190 ( talk) 20:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)