Talk:For Britain Movement/Archive 1

Far right?? I propose "Centrist Populism"

The archetypal features of a far right party are (according to Wikipedia) some combination of authoritarianism, anti-communism and nativism. I would add to this militarism, and loyalty to the State apparatus.
Wikipedia also continues with: "Right-wing populism, a political ideology that often combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism, is sometimes described as far-right." 3 out of 4 seem to be the case with For Britain.
For Britain seems to be only some of the above: specifically NOT ethnocentric, militaristic, or authoritarian. Those three are key ingredients for "far right". So I contend the designation is wrong for this party. It isn't even close to correct.
The party self-describes as "centrist". How about Centrist Populist?
See this economic manifesto document which describes a nationalist, democratic, small-government, low-tax party, with a focus on small business, manufacturing, a limited welfare state, deregulation, tariffs to protect British businesses, opposition to Islam and mass immigration, and to overseas military engagement not in immediate defence of British interests. Cheesusfreak (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice is to report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources, such as The Times report the party is "far-right". Do you have any sources for "centrist populism"? Regarding Wikipedia's definition of political ideologies per WP:CIRCULAR we can't use Wikipedia articles as sources. AusLondonder (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable sources, such as The Times" - well that fake fact clearly establishes this wikipedia page as certainly not being a reliable source. What a joke. "Reliable source" = "people whose ideological bias we agree with". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.3.163 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is an eternal discussion, but I strongly agree with you. The 'reliable sources' of Wikipedia are almost always established newspapers that are very anti populist movements and those sources will put the tag extreme right on anything they do not like. A paper like the Times might be reliable for thorough investigation, but that does not mean you should copy an opinionated libel mark they stick on someone. It is a difference, reliable for their mere facts, copying their opinions as facts. But I have said this so many times already. AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My source is the party's own Economic manifesto, as linked. Clearly, updating the page will have to wait for a sympathetic hack to get something published in a reliable newspaper. Excuse my cynicism.. Cheesusfreak (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cheesusfreak (cc AusLondonder), please review WP:primary and WP:RS. I do understand your frustration, however, changing the text at this time to "centrist populism" is most likely inappropriate. While primary sources may be used and are useful in some cases, when it comes to the description of political parties, it is preferable to have third-party reliable sourcing as primary sources do have the potential to be less objective than reliable, third party (secondary) sources. In short, it will most likely have to wait until reliable sources cover it (or coverage is unearthed if they already have). If (independent) reliable sources can be produced stating that the party is "centrist populism", then changing the text within the article would be appropriate. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How is "far right" fairly qualified? The opinion of two journalists, contrary both to the self-definition of the party and the actual definition of 'far right' according to its page here at wiki? Their policy is laid out clearly here, it's getting quite exhausting seeing every party with a 'stricter than open borders' policy towards immigration is labeled as far right or fascist just because one or two journalists have said so. Wiki should be objective and neutral, and when dealing with political articles we have to admit the reality of media smears. Even "described by some as far right" would not be unreasonable, but as it stands this is a fragrant betrayal of wikipedia's nominally objective stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.23.78 (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems very fishy to me. From my exchange with what I believe to be one of the wiki admin, it was made very clear that the media is permitted to make any claim they so wish and wiki is obliged to take this as factual information until there is other third party conflicting data that can than request an edit. This is no different than having the same perspective as a guilty until proven innocent, or victorious until proven to lose. So here we have a party who has yet to write a manifesto and who claims not to be far left or far right, with their only current statements being about upholding western democracy and rejecting Sharia Islam (which is right winged). Yet because of controversial stories that have arisen, the media have used the term "far-right" to describe them. I took it upon my self to edit this to be more accurate and state the following... "For Britian" is a new populist party, (or, new political party) of which various media outlets have described as "far-right" ". But this comment was removed and changed back to "a "far-right" party", despite not even having a manifesto and claiming to be neither far left or right. Seeing as these media outlets have no facts at all to prove that "For Britain" have "far-right" polices, it seems they are simply using mainstream media headlines as an analysis on the facts regarding this party. If this is their new method of collecting data then I think people should be made aware that when researching with wiki, one must be careful that you could simply be reading mainstream news bias and headlines. I suppose if anyone was to input that the party are yet to release any manifestos or official party policies, then I would imagine this fact may well be deleted also, assuring that the page is obviously not promoting factual data about this new party. Tunes666 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The sudden influx of IPs and new single purpose accounts seems very fishy to me. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This page is not meant to promote anything, factual or otherwise, see WP:TRUTH. We only put in articles what can be verified in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Changed position to Right-wing populist as article on this position explains opposition to islam and immigration while refraining from far-right politics. party is merely critical of islam, and being islamiphobic isn't far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

None of the policies of ForBritain are right wing, let alone far right. AMW is a working class labour supporter and the policies of her party promote social justice, equality (womens rights) and a fairer electoral system. The party also highlights the danger of the politics of Islam. This is all populist (and popular), but none of it is far right. Simply because the main stream media opposes ForBritain and has sought to demonise it by describing it as Far Right does not make it so. Wikipedia does itself a grave disservice by ignoring the facts and presenting bias instead of facts in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SociableRealist (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, this party has an interest in describing itself in a manner designed to attract supporters. This is why Wikipedia requires independent sources. The party is free to use its own website to describe itself as it wishes; they can't do so here. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet the two sources currently listed for "Far Right" are articles titled 'Ukip loser Anne Marie Waters to start far-right party' and 'Former UKIP leadership candidate to launch new far-right party'. This is simply the opinion of (possibly the same) journalist, and has no grounding in facts. At the very least it should say "speculated by some to be a far right party." To list them as far right on the speculation of a couple of left-wing journalists is not remotely objective or unbiased. "The party is free to use its own website to describe itself as it wishes; they can't do so here." - OK, so does this mean that we can describe centre-left activists as communists if I can find a couple of Tea Party-type sources that say so? The problem here is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.20.152 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to assert that The Times and Politico are not reliable sources, you are free to do so at the reliable sources noticeboard, though I don't think it likely you will succeed. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

They are established sources, but it is still personal opinion and bias. Established sources, the 'established' media, can be as guilty of prejudices as any fringe source. The line between reporting facts and giving opinions is always blurred, especially regarding politics. We all have bias. The most established of medias have bias. "Speculated by some to be a far right party" would, IMO be still incorrect, but fairer. Far right is defined on Wikipedia as including 'authoritarianism'. The party claims to be for 'free-speech, public service accountability, free and fair elections, freedom of thought and the rights of the individual. Does not seem to fit 'authoritarianism'. (Chwyatt (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

I most strongly agree with you Chwyatt, this is exactly what I always tell Wikipedia writers when the discussion, reliable sources comes up in articles about populist movements. Reliable for facts does not justify copying opinions. AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who talks honestly about the threat of islam is labelled far right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzlemuss McToot (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not true, but it's beside the point. For Britain is far right for all sorts of reasons. The fact that it is anti-Islamic grows from its far right position, not vice versa. Emeraude (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't trust political manifestos. But I do love the idea that they're about free speech. Tommy Robinson has made it clear they want to legalise hate speech. Deport immigrants who commit crimes? Driving through a red light is a crime, and there's no sign that they would care if the immigrant was also a citizen. So I could be deported if I ran a red light or illegally parked. Parents could remove their children from school if the school discussed civil rights - and probably for any form of citizenship teaching and a lot of history. And they say they believe in the "rights of the individual only." What does that mean? Doug Weller talk 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree far right should be removed. They're different to parties like the BNP which came before. It's primarily an anti-Islam party. The opening should reflect that fact. Waters doesn't hold particularly conservative or racialist views, except her opposition to Islam. These sources cited are important but we need to employ WP:V and WP:NPOV here. My proposal is to call them simply an Anti-Islam party and remove the position from the infobox. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well as an experiment lets look at some of their polices Stop mass immigration – introduce a visa system for skill shortages and ensure immigration from culturally appropriate countries only; (no mention of Islam), and very conservative.

Moratorium on asylum seekers: no applications from illegal immigrants; (no mention of Islam), and very conservative.

Remove all Marxist based indoctrination from the classroom; (no mention of Islam), and very conservative (as they were in the 1950's)

One law for all – end politicised and multicultural policing; (no mention of Islam), and very conservative (as they were in the 1950's)

Restore a culture of criminal punishment in policing and prosecution services – police should not act as social workers, but law enforcers; (among a number of "tough on crime) polices.

So yes their manifesto is not only about Islam but resorting "traditional British values" and tackling "PC gone mad". They care very very conservative (at the very minimum), of the "HAw HAw! damn it get out of my way" variety you find in "much whingingaboutbloodyimmigrants in the wold".Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

SlaterstevenYes I know but the counter argument is always that it is not important what they say about themselves. It is important what the reliable sources say. But those reliable sources are very negative about populist movements and often cherry pick, take out of context, and libel. And then the full text is nót a source you can quote, but parts of what they say quoted by the cherry picking reliable media is. It is a Don Quixote against windmills quest to try to tell the majority of Wikipedia editors this is not very logical. The main reason for that in my humble view being that most editors are even more negative about populist movements then the named mainstream media. Wikipedia has a liberal bias in my opinion, and more and more I see this opinion confirmed. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

tHat is because we have a policy called wp:RS. I was just pointing out that their own polices are very (thatcherite) conservative (have you read their manifesto?). Thus saying Waters doesn't hold particularly conservative or racialist views is not born out by the manifesto of the party she forms and heads. All RS call this (not very popular) party far right, only they themselves seem to dispute this. Now I agree that should be in the lead (that is they dispute the label). But I cannot for the life of me see how their polices are any thing less then right of the Tories (and thus far right). I certainty find it utterly unfathomable (and as far as I know even they have not said this) that anyone can think they are not conservative.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The OP said these were needed to be called far right

authoritarianism, They get a pass on this as far as I can tell

anti-communism, Remove all Marxist based indoctrination from the classroom.

nativism, hard as they have a lot of polices about Britishness and prioritization of natives, but they do not come right out and say it.

Militarism, Defence spending to be increased, separate from any operational costs, to rebuild acceptable levels of manning and equipment

loyalty to the State apparatus. Also tough, but a lot about law and order (and this gem "Make police commanders accountable for any failure to enforce the law – police who fail to investigate FGM or grooming gangs should be fired/prosecuted;", Any failure to enforce the law), but again nothing out right.

So a lot that might well pass the text.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

All of these sources violate WP:PRIMARY. We need to follow the secondary reliable sources, all of which characterise the party as being primarily anti-Islam. That's the primary plank of the party's agenda. Unlike the BNP who were deeply conservative and nationalist, For Britain are primarily concerned with anti-Islam, as they don't have their origins in the traditional British far-right (unlike the BNP, etc.)Irishpolitical (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No, they characterize it as being far right and anti Islam.Slatersteven (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see how a two reporters and their heavily editorial pieces are valid. The media in Britain called Nigel Farage many things to de-legitimise him during the Brexit campaign. I came to this page and saw far-right, then looked at the work they have done, the events they have held, and the actual information on their website. Wikipedia is a reliable source to a lot of people, and proclaiming what editorial publications say as fact is worrying. 92.5.8.98 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The party themselves imply that they are centrist; they state that they are not far right. I propose that the Wikipedia article reflect empirical facts rather than media bias. 210.87.3.218 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Parties can say they are anything they like. What matters on Wikipedia is what independent reliable sources say having analysed the policies of the party. In this case, independent RS classify For Britain as far right, so that's what we go with. If the party doesn't like that characterisation they can sue the sources that refer to it that way. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And I disagree it is an empirical fact they are not far right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please offer any independent reliable sources that describe this party differently. That does not include primary sources. This party is free to describe itself as it wishes on its own website; Wikipedia is only interested in how others describe it. If the party wants independent sources to describe it differently, then it needs to adopt policies and leaders to cause those sources to do so. Or, as noted above, it could sue those independent sources who it feels incorrectly describe the party. Until then, we use what independent sources use. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

I would like you to change:

<For Britain is a far-right[1][2] political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded in October 2017 by anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton.>

to: <For Britain is a new political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded in October 2017 by anti-sharia activist Anne Marie Waters after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton.> 148.252.128.244 (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello 148.252.128.244, do you have a reliable source for this requested change? Please also review the above thread, specifically this bit. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on here, my talk page, or at the Teahouse. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources on the far right tag either though. Both those articles were written before the party had made virtually any statements about their policies. "Far right until proven innocent" is not a very useful system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.20.152 (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Brian Silvester

Hi AusLondoner — you removed the section on Brian Silvester with the edit summary 'parish councillors are not notable'. I think it's worth including Silvester, as whilst he's not notable, that only means that he doesn't warrant his own article (though not by much, as he received significant local coverage and some national coverage in his previous position as a disgraced borough councillor). It doesn't mean his existence doesn't warrant inclusion in this article, which is instead governed by due weight, and given that he's the only elected politician the party has, he is currently relevant. If the party ever gets principal authority or district council representation then mentioning parish councillors would be pointless. But for now it's worth including. Ralbegen (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have two problems with including. The first is that parish councillors are often elected in non-partisan contests or even unopposed. On Wikipedia we have a long history of ignoring parish councils and councillors. Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, Silvester's defection has not even been mentioned in any reliable secondary sources so it cannot be properly sourced. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Those make sense. Normally it'd be of no value to mention parish councillors, but seeing as the party's entire representation is one parish councillor, I think it's worth mention here. I don't think there'd be an issue with primary sourcing for it, by WP:ABOUTSELF. Ralbegen (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is though - if no reliable sources consider the defection worthy for even a one-line mention is it of sufficient importance for us to include? AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a matter of editorial discretion, and a matter for Talk page consensus. There's not a huge amount of coverage of the party, which makes sense given how new and fringe it is. Personally, I don't have an issue including uncontroversial verifiable facts where there's a clear encyclopaedic reason to do so. I'm interested to know what you, AusLondonder, and other editors think. Ralbegen (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Islam? Or Anti-Muslim?

I have issues with the descriptions this article uses to describe both the For Britain political party as well as its leader, Anne Marie Waters. For example, take this line from the lead:

It was founded in October 2017 by anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton.

The infobox also lists its ideology as "Anti-Islam." I don't think the label of "Anti-Islam" or more specifically "critical of Islam" is accurate here because criticizing a religion is not the same thing as advocating laws that affect or discriminate against a religious group. Calling for immigration bans of Muslims (regardless of whether you think they're necessary) affects a religious group. Calling for deportations of Muslims (regardless of whether you think they're necessary) affects a religious group. This goes well beyond basic "criticism of religion." As for WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources, POLITICO reported that Waters holds "anti-Muslim positions," The Times reported that Waters "ran a strongly anti-Muslim campaign," The Huffington Post reported that Waters "focus[ed] on anti-Muslim sentiment," PoliticsHome reported Waters was a "controversial anti-Muslim candidate," talkRADIO labeled Waters an "Islamophobe" in a headline, and The Guardian reported that Waters was "an anti-Muslim activist."

Wikipedia relies on what WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources say, so the fact that the leaders of the party say they're "critical of Islam" and not "Anti-Muslim" is not enough to prevent labeling the party as such. Hamas says they're not antisemitic but that doesn't stop us from labeling them as such on their Wikipedia article page. As a potential compromise, I'm fine with putting both "Anti-Islam" and "Anti-Muslim" in the description. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, reporters use the phrase "anti-Muslim" in place of "anti-Islam". Some of the instances cited are just reports of accusations, such as "accused of being anti-Muslim": a rolling, lazy, rumour mill. But the swap also reflects the identity politics idea that an aspect of personhood must be defining for the person: for instance the accusation she called for "deportations of Muslims" (which is not a quote from the linked article) assumes actions against a person who is criminal and Muslim would necessarily be done because the person is Muslim - in which case the "anti-Muslim" / "anti-Islam" distinction is gone. Therefore, stick with "anti-Islam" since it will satisfy more constituencies. Cheesusfreak (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kamalthebest here. Numerous reliable sources of all political persuasions are reporting this party and its leader are "anti-Muslim" and we should reflect that. It is original research to do otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cheesusfreak: Well, her comment was simply "A lot of people need to be deported" so it's completely ambiguous as to who needs to be deported. However, what's not ambiguous is that she and her party call for bringing Muslim immigration to the UK to near zero (or just outright zero). Regardless of whether or not you think that's justified, you can't say that doesn't affect Muslims "because the person is Muslim." There is no other standard that they would be judged for other than their religion (and I guess where they come from). Kamalthebest (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the use of 'anti-Islam' in the lede comes from the lede in Waters's own article. I added it there on 30 September after looking through as many reliable sources as I could find to see how they referred to Waters, and found that 'anti-Islam activist' was the most common way for reliable sources to refer to her as a primary description. Certainly the links you've given above show that it's reasonable to describe Waters as anti-Muslim, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to be her main description, and I'm not sure that there's enough that points to the party in particular warranting the label.

However, I'm not sure it's best practice to link to 'criticism of Islam' from 'anti-Islam'. Elsewhere on Wikipedia we have Pegida where 'anti-Islam' links to 'Islamophobia'. Amongst Category:Anti-Islam political parties in Europe, where the infobox includes 'anti-Islam' in the ideology there's a mixture of no link, links to 'criticism of Islam', and links to 'Islamophobia'. I would support a move to change the link in the lede to 'Islamophobia' from 'criticism of Islam' and the link in the infobox to 'Islamophobia' from the current disambiguation page. Ralbegen (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That certainly would be original research - that you can discriminate informed from uninformed opposition. Cheesusfreak (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Islam leads to a disambiguation page. It shouldn't be linked to. Ralbegen (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with Ralbegen's compromise of labeling her as an "Anti-Islam activist" but having it link to the Islamophobia article. Would Cheesusfreak and AusLondonder also be okay with this? Kamalthebest (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be. The meaning and use of Islamophobia is a mess - from the Runnymede definition and onwards: conflating feelings and facts, uninformed & informed criticism. I would like to keep the distinction. Cheesusfreak (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we certainly shouldn't link to a disambiguation page and this compromise seems to work best for now. AusLondonder (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be 3:1 in favor of linking to "Islamophobia" so I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the link to 'Islamophobia' on the grounds that it's over-precise. 'Criticism of Islam' (obviously) includes Islamophobia, but the opposite is not true. For more on how a link can point to something over-precise, see the discussion of 'Economic libertarianism' in Talk:UK Independence Party leadership election, 2017. Harfarhs (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Harfarhs: No, "Criticism of Islam" does not include "Islamophobia." Islamophobia is a fear or hatred of Muslims. That is not the same as criticizing a religion. Criticizing religion is also entirely rhetorical. Once you start implements laws that affect certain groups of people, you've moved beyond "criticism." Kamalthebest (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. "Criticism" can be of all types, including unreasonable and extreme. In order to use "islamophobic" to describe the whole party one would need more information than just the views of AMW, even if described in WP:RS. I am making a similar point as earlier made in this thread by User:Cheesusfreak and User:Ralbegen. Please see the discussion I cited. Harfarhs (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

..Assuming, Kamalthebest, that no sober, rational criticism of anything is possible, and action is always done in fear and hate. Cheesusfreak (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to clarify my views for Harfarhs and Cheesusfreak. Whether For Britain and Waters's comments about Islam are "unreasonable and extreme" or "sober, rational criticism" is somewhat irrelevant. The 2017 Oxford English Dictionary defines "criticism" as "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes." If I am instituting a law that affects Muslims as people, that is not criticism. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

..but you think it does have to be phobic????????????????????????????? Cheesusfreak (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Cheesusfreak, but you did not tag me so I had no idea that you had responded. Islamophobia is indeed a portmanteau of "Islam" and "phobia" but that does not mean that Islamophobia only refers to a fear of Islam. Homophobia is a generally accepted phrase but homophobic people are not scared of homosexuality. In the same way, Islamophobia can be used more broadly. Are For Britain's policies motivated by "phobia" or fear of Islam? Maybe? Maybe not? I cannot read their minds but the end result is still the same: they are instituting laws that affects Muslims as people. That's more relevant then their motivations. For Britain has clearly moved beyond "criticism of Islam" because Islam (a religion) and Muslims (a religious group) are not interchangeable. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• I invite Harry-Oscar 1812 to contribute to this discussion to explain their concerns. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Right 331dot, just added why I changed the article with their official policy stated on their website so please stop changing with stupid sjw articles as sources anyone can write.

Big Tent?

I have removed the reference to this being a 'big tent' party as it is likely to be misleading. This is clearly a minority party at present, with an extreme ideology which will only appeal to a narrow stratum of supporters; its founders may aspire to it becoming a 'big tent' but it evidently does not have the canvas required as yet. Given that there is not a single elected representative, and little in the way of a thought-through policy platform beyond anti-Islam activism, it would be fair to term this a single-issue campaign group - but I think minor party comes closer to the neutrality Wikipedia requires.GibbonsDecline&Fall (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The phrase 'big tent' was added by a user in their second attempt to remove descriptions of the party as far-right and sources that describe the party as far-right. The article has now been restored to form! Ralbegen (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Very good - it now reads more appropriately. I have added the link to [minor party] too. GibbonsDecline&Fall (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2017

Please add the following to the ideology section

Fiscal conservatism On their website, their policy statement reads "For Britain believes in a free market and capitalist economy." and the reduction of tax. It also calls for "public workers to be held accountable to the public", hinting a opposition to work unions. Their former manifesto (now removed and being updated) called for a massive reduction in waste through deregulation and reduction of corporate tax.

anti-Islam On their website, their policy statement reads "Public recognition of the teachings of the Koran and Mohammed", meaning they believe the government should be anti-Islam. Their former manifesto contained an abundant amount of government policies against Islam. Anne Marie Waters is well known as a anti-Islam activist.

social-liberalism For Britain appears to be the first none anti-gay far-right political party. Waters is known to have a history campaigning for gay rights like same-sex marriage and is a lesbian. Msdgsdgwer134234 (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately, what you suggest is practically all original research and your interpretation of what they say. As far as I know, there are no reliable sources stating that For Britain is fiscal conservative or social liberal, though anti-Islam is a better bet. Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's harder to prove these points since they removed their manifesto. Hopefully greater clarification is given to what they believe at a later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.254.179 (talk)

Harry-Oscar 1812

To editor Harry-Oscar 1812: You are edit-warring. You have been repeatedly warned and I've since reported you. Before you get blocked, please discuss. Keep in mind Wikipedia operates by consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Warned of what? I'm giving the party's official manifesto as a credible source and explaining being critical of a religion isn't far-right no reason to report me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:EW and WP:TRUTH. The messages on your talk page were meant for you to read, not ignore. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Implying I haven't read these articles before, I don't see how a party manifesto is a poor source. My edit is correct just look at the amount of users agreeing that far-right is not a correct label, besides right-wing populist is much more accurate when descibing a party critical of the islamic faith, being eurosceptic and calling for reduced immigration numbers. Waters is also a supporter of various socially liberal policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia prefers third party sources; how the party describes itself is not a NPOV. 331dot (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

Change 'For Britain is a minor far-right[1][2] political party' to 'For Britain is a minor political party that has no alignment with the usual associations of far-left, left, centre, right or far right'

My reasons for making this request are that Ann Marie Waters specifically states on the Home Page of the For Britain website the following: 'We are not far-right, we are not far-left' 86.177.118.86 (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortuantely, reliable sources disagree- as the article notes- and equally unforunately, what AMW says is a self-published source and these "are largely not acceptable as sources." Regards, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; how the party (or its leader) describes itself is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The party is free to use its own website to describe itself. We go with what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How can any newspaper or an organisation such as Politico be classified as a reliable source when being cited to ascertain the position of a party on the political spectrum? All media organisations have an inherent political bias. Citing a politically biased mere opinion from a newspaper or some media organisation is an absurd precept in this matter. Wkuser17 (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wkuser17: If you wish to contest the reliability of any source, the proper forum to do so is WP:RSN. Primary sources are not usually permitted on Wikipedia except in very specific circumstances, usually only for indisputable factual information(like location, number of members, etc.). In this case, a political party(any party, not just this one) has an interest in describing itself in favorable terms in order to attract members or to attempt to improve its public image. The party is free to describe itself as it sees fit on its own website; they can't do so here. Third party reliable sources are required to remove that bias. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@331dot:You say that 'Third party reliable sources are required to remove that bias.' By citing such as a newspaper as a reliable source you are in fact introducing a bias – an unfavourable bias in this case. I have contacted Wiki direct to see if we can get the rules and regulations changed regarding content so that a 'Reliable source' is not allowed to be cited to validate what is essentially a contributors political opinion. The reader should be able to formulate their own opinion of where the party lies on the political spectrum by reading the factual aspects of the article.Wkuser17 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wkuser17: I'm not sure who you contacted but Wikipedia has no central authority to set rules or resolve disputes. I've already indicated how you can challenge the validity of a source; there are also dispute resolution procedures available to you- but that will not change the fact that primary sources are not usually acceptable, nor the fact that Wikipedia is not interested in how any organization describes itself or how it wishes to be portrayed. If the party, which I presume you belong to or support, wishes to be described in a certain way, it needs to indirectly get third party sources to do so. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the above; what Waters says is not acceptable as a reliable description and reliable sources are needed (and given). It's worth noting that when Waters states that "We are not far-right, we are not far-left", she does not say what it actually is. "Extreme right", perhaps? Emeraude (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

For Britain is not a far-right party. Typically far-right means neo-Nazi and that's certainly not the ideological stance For Britain has adopted. While For Britain is tackling the Islamic problem that the UK faces which includes things like organized gang rape, terrorism and female genital mutilation this is not proof that they are racist or out to marginalize minorities. To conclude, the leader of For Britain is Anne Marie Waters who is a lesbian, if For Britain was truly far-right, Anne Marie would not be leader as it is well known that those on the far-right hate homosexuals.

I would appreciate if you would edit the content of this article as it is inaccurate. For Britain should be recognized as a center right party, not "far right". Sincerely SJacks 82.32.204.158 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reliable sources disagree- as the article notes- and equally unforunately, what you think of AMW is original research which is forbidden by poicy. Regards, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You keep repeating that reliable sources disagree, yet fail to list these sources. The sources currently cited on the page are not remotely "reliable," they reflect the political bias of certain journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.20.152 (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources are listed in the article. Again, if you disagree, this is the forum to debate the reliability of a source. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

...and to provide sources that say the opposite. Emeraude (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

Please remove far-right from "For Britain is a far-right[1][2] minor political party in the United Kingdom" because the citation given [1] is by Will Humphries who has no political qualifications allowing him to make such a judgement and associates himself with Jeremy Corbyn on both twitter and linkedin platforms, therefore indicating bias. The article in the second citation actually references the article by Will Humphries and so can not be considered an independent opinion. Orbit67 (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hello again Orbit67; I can't facilitate you over this I'm afraid; my reasons on your talk apply to this article as well as that for Anne Marie Waters. Thanks anyway! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As asked for above, please give an independent reliable source that describes this political party in a different manner. A journalist does not need to have a degree in political science or other "political qualifications" to be a journalist. If you wish to challenge the validity of The Times as a reliable source, the proper forum to do so is at WP:RSN. As long as The Times has editorial control and review, or you can demonstrate (as has been done with the Daily Mail) that they just make stuff up, there is little chance of it not being considered a reliable source. This article has tended to attract members or supporters of this party who want it described in a more favorable manner; we don't care how the party wishes to describe itself. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello 331dot. Interesting perspectives and use of 'we'. Which 'we' are you talking for? Interesting also how you only reference the Daily Mail specifically in your response when pretty much all newspapers in Britain have at one point been successfully sued for inaccuracies. Given the history on this page there is no chance a change will be allowed, however please consider this: The second citation (from Politico) actually references the article in the 1st citation. Is that two separate citations or one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbit67 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"We" refers to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write or say about article subjects. As The Times piece is behind a paywall(which is fine per policy), I suspect the Politico piece was added as a freely accessible alternative. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment although I would disagree that that constitutes two citations (giving the impression its two independent opinions). My concern here is that by definition the label "far right" is not representing an objective neutral point of view. It's use in this context is done deliberately to undermine the policies put forward by the For Britain party and stifle debate along the lines of they can't win an argument, they are far-right, racists or extreme right (as another editor above would have it). Be that as it may, I note that on the Socialist Worker Party entry there is the text "The party considers itself to be Trotskyist" with no citation. So clearly what the party thinks of itself is a permissible addition on Wikipedia, and a similar reference should be permitted in this case ? Orbit67 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Material in the lede should not need to be referenced, as it merely mirrors the article (see WP:LEAD). And ironically, it also calls them "far-left"...the mirror of what you've been moaning about :D >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and the irony was not lost on me, I specifically used that entry as a template. So I can add "The party does not consider itself to be far-right or far-left" ? Orbit67 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I am aware of the only person saying that is the leader of the party, which has an interest in describing the party in a manner that will garner supporters and as such is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please see Other Stuff Exists. Something being on one page does not automatically mean something similar can be on another page. As Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, quite often inappropriate content gets through, sometimes for years. I would submit that the entry you speak of should probably be removed as well- although it is also described that way in its infobox which suggests it has independent sources that also describe it that way. As has been requested numerous times of other users above, if there is an independent reliable source that describes this party differently, it should be offered.

I did not claim that the two citations were different, I said that one is a freely accessible version of the other. No implication is made about each citation being a different opinion, they are presented for the reader to evaluate and verify.

The party is free to describe itself as it wishes on its own website. If this party does not like how independent sources describe it, they need to adopt policies and views to cause those third parties to describe the party differently. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If the party describes itself as something, and someone says it is something else, some evidence (not opinion) needs to be provided to show it is not. (Chwyatt (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

That is why the source is provided, so readers can look at it for themselves. If you disagree with what the source claims, you need to take it up with them. If you want to challenge the accuracy or reliability of a source, you may do so at WP:RSN, the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

194.126.69.130 (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

it is not far right

As requested of numerous others above, please offer any independent reliable sources that describe this party differently. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Far right is defined on Wikipedia as including 'authoritarianism'. The party claims to be for 'free-speech, public service accountability, free and fair elections, freedom of thought and the rights of the individual. Does not seem to fit 'authoritarianism'. (Chwyatt (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

As noted numerous times above, how the party describes itself is irrelevant as they have an interest in describing themselves in a manner to garner supporters. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So the bias and opinions, and it is just opinions, of critics is valid, but their position is not? Leaving a clearly unbalanced article. It is important to recognise one's own bias Chwyatt (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As with any article, the subject's opinion of themselves is regarded as WP:POV pretty much by definition. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chwyatt: The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what third parties state about article subjects. Wikipedia has very little if any interest in what an article subject states about itself. Wikipedia requires information to be sourced to an independent reliable source in almost all cases; the sources are provided so readers can see them and evaluate them for themselves to see where the information is coming from. For Britain is free to describe itself as it wishes on its own website. If they want third party sources to describe them differently, they need to adopt views and policies to cause those third parties to do so. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And as I stated above, if you wish to challenge the reliability or validity of a source, the proper forum is WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@331dot:

In cases like this, what I read mostly in Wikipedia articles is: "X is being described as far right, by Y, but denies that itself". Perfectly neutral and stating the facts. No long discussions needed. The sentence should be: "For Britain is a minor political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded by the anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters in October 2017, after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton. It is described as far right by e.g. the Times[quote], For Britain does not characterize itself that way[quote]". Simple edit that would make everyone happy and also is according to the facts. Why is there so much resistance towards doing that? I do not see this in other articles. AntonHogervorst (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen that proposed before, usually it is party members or supporters who come here and object to how independent reliable sources describe the party, and only source another description to the party's own website, which isn't appropriate. Feel free to formally propose this yourself if you wish. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: I am not a member of For Britain, I am Dutch I cannot be a member I guess. :-) You can read my opinion on reliable sources somewhere else. In short it is the difference between having carefully checked your story (reliable), and a political comment that is mostly not neutral (independent). Old discussion of course. I will officially suggest this change later in a separate paragraph. I will try to make out something neutral in my humble view, and hopefully acceptable for everyone. AntonHogervorst (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

Remove all references of "far-right". This is factually incorrect. The For Britain Movement is an official registered political party and has never had any connection to far right organisations. David Banner1 (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@David Banner1: Please offer any independent reliable sources that describe this party differently. As noted numerous times above, Wikipedia is not interested in how any article subject describes itself, but is interested in how third party sources describe it. In this case, third party sources describe this party in the manner that the article states. If any describe it differently, please offer those sources. Such sources do not include primary sources such as how the party describes itself, as it has an interest in describing itself in a favorable manner in order to garner supporters. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The page about this NEW PARTY is so inaccurate - why is this not being corrected as requested

The question is who is trying to label this party before it even had a chance to take off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExM4321 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find that your question has been answered each time an edit request has been declined. Emeraude (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

For Britain is a libertarian 'right leaning' party , right leaning does not necessary mean 'Far Right' on the political spectrum. I believe the current information on the For Britain wikipedia article is biased and not based on fact ! UnbiasedPolitiking (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the numerous declined edit requests above which requested precisely what you have requested for why this is not being done. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The party came last

Does this give valuable information? It sounds like a writer rejoicing himself, and using Wikipedia to 'rub it in': "The party came last in almost all the seats it contested." I would say: "none being elected", dot. Neutral voice, that is what happened. AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Far right or not, let the reader decide that.

I would like the change the text in such a way that Wikipedia does not judge whether or not the party is far right, but for the moment just state that the party is considered to be far right, but disputes this itself. I think this is a way we can more or less satisfy all readers that can either think: 'Yeah right, the Times says everyone is far right', or 'Yeah right those far right parties always deny that they are extreme', to say it simplistic. Here is my suggestion:

For Britain is a minor political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded by the anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters in October 2017, after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton. For Britain is considered far-right[1][2][3] by many, but opposes to this itself.[4]

The reference I've put in '4' is this one: Waters demands apology over racist headline And you can also see my suggestion with links in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AntonHogervorst/sandbox2 --AntonHogervorst (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between judging and summarizing sources.

If sources say "far right," it would be judgment to not include "far right." So far, there's four sources (including The Times, Politico, The Herald (Plymouth), and The Guardian) that refer to For Britain as "far right." The Times and The Herald both lean to the right.

For Britain also holds positions that you generally find more often on the far right, and it has worked with and merged with other far-right groups.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, congregates with other ducks, is identified by other birds as a duck... It's probably a duck. Whether or not it's OK to be a duck (judgment) is a different matter from whether or not it is a duck (summarizing sources). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as undue and self-explanatory; maintain status quo. We go by the WP:RS; their own opinion is not an RS, thus we don't go by it. It's a worthy effort, attempting to satisy everyone—although be warned, those who do attempt to satisfy everybody, oftimes end up satsfying nobody :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already said what I think about reliable sources a few times. A reliable newspaper, can have a highly opinionated point of view. Reliable for investigation does not mean neutral especially on these political sensitive subjects. In my opinion at least there should be a note they themselves oppose the qualification. Furthermore about the Duck tale, I do not agree, look at the far right description of Wikipedia. There are quite a few things that do not add up there, especially authoritarian tendencies. This also has been said before. AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

How about

For Britain is a far right[1][2][3] minor political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded by the anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters in October 2017, who has denied they are far right[4]. after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton.

Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Standing description is the same used by reliable sources. In addition to those cited, there's the NME, the i, Leeds live (in body rather than headline), PinkNews, and Searchlight Magazine. Ralbegen (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Morrissey says he “despises racism and fascism” in open letter supporting far-right party".Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm advocating for the status quo under which the party is described as 'far right' in this article. Ralbegen (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What then is 'far right'? If you look at the description of ideology (of For Britain I mean): Anti-Islam, Right-wing populism, British nationalism, National conservatism, Euroscepticism. That is correct. But does that qualify as far-right, I would counter and say, what is far right? If it is term we used for neo-Nazis, no, but the description 'far right' has depleted over the years. There is no fascist or authoritarian or racist tendency in For Britain. Nevertheless if anti Islam and Eurosceptic is already far right, then it qualifies. Then maybe the real neo-Nazis are extreme right? Or ultra right? AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is that a party described consistently in reliable sources as far-right should be described on Wikipedia as far-right. Ralbegen (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if this is e.g. mentioned in a political column? Even if they have no reason to do so? All what Wikipedia calls reliable sources are media highly hostile towards populist movements. Therefore I am not surprised these media would describe a movement as far right. But on the other hand, I am also less and less 'impressed' by such a label. As I said: The only effect is that people take the term far right less and less seriously. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be okay, but I think the sentence is too long, less readable. AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This maybe: "For Britain is a far right[1][2][3] minor political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded by the anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters in October 2017, after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton. Waters has disputed the far right qualification.[4]". The 'is a far right' stays in, but there is stated she herself disagrees with the label.AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That she disputes it is neither here nor there. One can only speculate on her reasons for doing so, but there is absolutely no reason for us to go against what myriad independent reliable sources agree. Emeraude (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• It would be WP:UNDUE to mention her opinion in the first sentence. That would mean that Wikipedia—in our voice— is suggesting a parity between what the reliable sources say and what she personally opines. The latter, per MRDA, is clearly self-serving. And it's still WP:SPS, and a primary source, so WP: BLPPRIMARY apples: and this is policy. (Has this "primary-source material...been discussed by a reliable secondary source"?)
  In any case, I think that User:AntonHogervorst— who considers that "Reliable for facts does not justify copying opinions"—does not yet fully understand our responsibility towards the reader: that verifiability + reliable sourcing = verifiability not truth is important. This is not necessarily surprising, as with only 37 edits to articles, there is no evidence that they have ever had to actually wield the policies under discussion. I suggest a trifle more article work to really get a feel of the sources, how they intermesh with the known facts, and how we dovetail them into neutral articles. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Ha, ha. About the 37 changes, remember English is nót my first language! :-) And yes, I do not agree with the reliable sources argument, but that would lead to an endless discussion anyway. It is enough to state you do not agree with my suggestion. I am not really bóthered by calling For Britain far right. I do not agree, but Wikipedia is not my 'personal project'. AntonHogervorst (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

All mentions of 'Right wing' or 'far right' need replacing with Centrist party.The party has never been far right and is only called that by people wishing to discredit the party.

As you can see from the party manifesto below it isnt right wing or far right.

https://www.forbritain.uk/policy MOOREKARL (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

MOOREKARL Please see the numerous declined edit requests above, which ask for exactly what you are asking for, as to why this is not and will not be done. What the party states about itself is actually irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we are only interested in what independent reliable sources state. If the party does not like how it is described by those sources, they need to adopt policies and staff to cause those sources to describe them differently. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please can you clarify a list of all Wikipedia reliable sources? i would like to post links to 'reliable Sources' that say the party is centrist.

How many links to reliable sources do i need to supply in order to get the page to reflect the truth? 3 articles? 5 articles? 3 articles 10?

Regards

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOOREKARL (talk • contribs) 11:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is not a single list of sources that are considered reliable. Please read WP:RS to learn more about what reliable sources are generally. Reliable sources do not include primary sources such as the party's own website or its press releases, as the party has an interest in describing itself favorably in a manner to garner supporters. There also is not a certain number of links required, but I think if there were appropriate sources out there that describe them in that way, they would already be here given the extensive discussion on this subject that has already occurred(as seen above). 331dot (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please can you add these news link to the page. I'ts like the other news links youve allowed but without the bias and far left propaganda.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/anti-islam-ukipper-anne-marie-waters-tommy-robinson-set-new-political-party-155212286.html?guccounter=1

http://www.bromleyboroughnews.co.uk/article.cfm?id=120234&headline=Orpington%20resident%20Mandy%20joins%20new%20political%20party%20to%20fight%20for%20%E2%80%98total%20destruction%E2%80%99%20of%20the%20EU&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018

https://www.therebel.media/tommy_robinson_anne_marie_waters_launches_for_britain_party

https://altnewsmedia.net/politics/should-we-be-taking-for-britain-seriously/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOOREKARL (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

None of those sources are appropriate, for a variety of reasons. I encourage you to read about reliable sources at the link above as well as the extensive discussion above. This article is not going to be worded as this group wants. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"This article is not going to be worded as this group wants." I would argue that your political bias is showing with that statement.

Please can you remove the hopenothate link and pinknews link. I've checked and they arent reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOOREKARL (talk • contribs) 12:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how the link below doesn't class as a reliable source. I say it does based on your own guidelines.

http://www.bromleyboroughnews.co.uk/article.cfm?id=120234&headline=Orpington%20resident%20Mandy%20joins%20new%20political%20party%20to%20fight%20for%20%E2%80%98total%20destruction%E2%80%99%20of%20the%20EU&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOOREKARL (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain where it says they are a " Centrist party"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed it said that. It is however a balanced and unbiased article worthy of being included on the forbritain page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOOREKARL (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So it does not support your requested edit?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You cannot add a link just for the sake of adding a link. It must serve some purpose- and it does not say what you claim it says. I have no political interest here as I am not a UK citizen, my only interest is in independent reliable sources. That is all Wikipedia is interested in. This group is free to describe itself as it wishes on its own website. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the validity or reliability of a source, WP:RSN is the proper forum to do that, but I don't think you will succeed. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

The claim that For Britain is far-right, as mentioned in the first line and throughout, is completely unfounded and based purely on (minor) opinion pieces as seen in the reference list. Please removing such misleading text. GavinGlasgow (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per the myriad of questions asking the same thing above and archived, and an equally myriad number of rejections for such a change to be made. Many thanks! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018

The term "far right" is increasingly being used to describe anyone who opposes the Islamisation of the West. This is a nonsense and is below Wikipedia's standards. Windymac (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read all the above threads and add something new.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - that is your PoV - not an edit request supported by reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

Describing For Britain as 'far right' is disingenuous and will only be seen as a smear tactic. Also, stating that someone else labelled them as Nazis and racists appears to be a typical comment/slander that a militant leftist would use. Philjones99 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see the numerous similar requests above, that were all declined, for why this will not be done. If you have independent reliable sources that describe this party differently, please offer them. The currently available sources describe the party in this manner; if the party wants to be described differently, they need to adopt policies and leaders to cause sources to do so. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

please correct the errors.

For Britain is not far right. Mangelau (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

RS say it is, what sources do you have that contradict this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that this has been discussed over and over above, and the issues have not changed. There needs to be independent reliable sources that describe this party differently for it to be described differently here. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

The information on this page is totally inaccurate. Please check your sources.

1. For Britain is centrist not Far right 86.139.29.82 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

See above, no one will be convinced by launching a constant barrage of similar edit requests.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ralbegen (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOR / sources do not support

Article reads: "The media personality Katie Hopkins and the Holocaust denier Ingrid Carlqvist spoke at the party's 2018 conference..." [emphasis mine]. One RS reads "Katie Hopkins to speak..." and "Katie Hopkins is due to address..." and the other (unreliable) source reads "The conference is set to feature both disgraced “journalist” Katie Hopkins and Ingrid Carlqvist..." [emphasis mine]. Clearly the two sources do not support the paragraph, thus writing that they "spoke" is WP:NOR, yet reverts here and here were made without any policy or reasoning justifying the reverts. Waiting for the reasoning of your reverts. The Kingfisher (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would think that instead of just removing the information, either 1) the paragraph could be rewritten to conform with the source information or 2) sources could be found showing that they did indeed speak at the conference(I'm not clear on if you dispute that they spoke at the conference or not). 331dot (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think that I would do, please point me to the policy that states that material unsupported by sources should stay. The Kingfisher (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it should, only that we should look at the other possibilities first. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

For now I have changed the wording to "were invited to speak". That is supported by the sources. If a source can be found confirming that they actually did speack, it can be changed back. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

RS does not support that they "were invited to speak", so that is WP:NOR.The Kingfisher (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally conferences only permit people invited to said conference to speak. They were "to speak", they can't do that against the wishes of the conference organizers. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It is surprising to see an admin talk about what conferences permit or don't permit and what people can and can't do at conferences. Here's a refresher: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." The sources clearly do not support the text, yet you reverted.The Kingfisher (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

They support their being invited; no other claim made is sufficient. ——SerialNumber54129 23:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No RS presently states that they were "invited." If I'm wrong, why don't you give me the RS's wording that states that they were?" The Kingfisher (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's use some WP:COMMONSENSE here. Please give an example of a conference where it was announced certain individuals were speaking whom were not invited to do so. ("We're holding a conference, and John Public will speak at it, but we didn't invite him to.") 331dot (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

True, but being invited does not mean you wish to attend (let alone will).Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Its a valid point, if they spoke we can find sources that say it. If we cannot it should not stay. I do not agree that them being announced as attending is relevant and may even be a BLP violation (as it implies they may support something they do not).Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on if this is just a sourcing issue or if it is disputed that they spoke at this conference. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said I think this is a relevancy issue. If they did not speak it does not matter if they were invited, it tells us nothing. The only thing that would matter is if they spoke.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There are normally non-RS sources that indicate that Hopkins was happy to be invited - her Twitter feed for example [1]. If she is saying on Twitter how thrilled she is to be speaking it is not really a BLP issue to say that. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If they are not normally RS then they are not reliable, thought if it is a confirmed twitter account we could certainly use it to say she accepted.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case Twitter would not be acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE: "It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." The Kingfisher (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a claim about a third party, it is a claim about herself, that she spoke at the conference. If the speaker themselves isn't a good enough source to say that they spoke at the conference, then nothing is. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The claim also includes For Britain, which is a third party. Regardless, have you tried to reconcile what you wrote with what was on the Twitter? You wrote that she "spoke" at the conference. In the Twitter she wrote: "Delighted to be guest speaker at @ForBritainParty conference in September." Do you not understand the difference between the two? Or is that COMMONSENSE replacing reliable sources?

I've seen a YouTube of her speaking at the conference. That doesn't mean that I can justifiably manipulate text as I please when it doesn't fit the sources. As Slatersteven wisely stated: "...if they spoke we can find sources that say it. If we cannot it should not stay." The Kingfisher (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No one wants to manipulate anything, all I want is to get it right. If you have video of her at this conference I'm not sure what we are discussing when you could just use that as a source to show she was there instead of this discussion. I guess I am just not getting my message across with my choice of words, and for that I am sorry. 331dot (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

YouTube without secondary sources is WP:NOR, and it does not account for the other speakers. The Kingfisher (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

From the Guardian article: "Hopkins, who has promoted her appearance as “standing up for Britain”...". So the question of whether she was a willing participant rather than just being invited (and turning doen the invitation) is abswered. She promoted her appearance. This discussion does seem vexatious. There is no question from their public statements that both Hopkins and Carlqvist support For Britain and that For Britain accepts their support. To meet the requirements of WP:BLP, a statement made by the subject on their own platform is sufficient. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

YOUtube is not an RS, but I would say the verified Twitter account is. So we have an RS for her being invited and an RS for her accepting. We also have two other people mentioned, we need RS for them having (or accepted) attending.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A photo or video of her at the conference is not OR for the mere fact that she was present at the conference. WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." 331dot (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• The New Statesman describes them as having appeared on the same agenda at the conference, FYI. And, of course, that they were "delighted" to do so  :) ——SerialNumber54129 11:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

82.41.0.99 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a bias site from the left they are not far right

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would add that there are numerous requests like this one above, and have all been and will be rejected for the same reason; Wikipedia only uses what independent reliable sources use. Please offer any such sources you have that describe this party differently. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Is Hope Not Hate considered a reliable source?

Per this revert, can someone please provide any consensus or reference backing that Hope Not Hate is considered a Wiki reliable source? The Kingfisher (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

HNH isn't considered a Wikipedia reliable source here, but this Economist report raises serious questions about HNH's journalistic integrity and reliability. As the Economist wrote:

"An investigation by The Economist has found that Hope Not Hate misrepresented the findings of its own report when first releasing it to the press. The report itself gave a confusing impression of the number of tweets that celebrated Ms Cox’s murder. We estimate that, in reality, of hundreds of thousands of tweets mentioning the MP by name, the number that celebrated her death was at most 1,500, and probably much lower."

Unless other reliable sources support the text, the edit in question needs to be deleted. The Kingfisher (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Read it carefully. The Economist does not criticise Hope not Hate's report so much as the press release that accompanied it, which HnotH corrected. As if The Economist never made mistakes! Emeraude (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, read it carefully: "An investigation by The Economist has found that Hope Not Hate misrepresented the findings of its own report when first releasing it to the press." If they "misrepresented the findings" of their "own report," how much weight should be given to their findings and reports? Here, HNH reveals an "internal poll." Nothing about the polling methods used. Considering that they are a biased and activist group, and under the headline of "EXCLUSIVE," this feels more like a primary source, and should be supported by secondary sources. If in fact the poll is legit, it should not be difficult to read about it in the Guardian, et al. If it can't be found elsewhere, it should not make it into Wikipedia. The Kingfisher (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Also this is on incident, we need a pattern (but as far as I am aware it has been found to be an RS at RSN). BUt as to this, yes I think it needs attribution, and then the economist caveat.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has this to say about Hope not Hate:Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a biased and opinionated source and their statements should be properly attributed. That's fine; used properly it's a reliable source. But The Economist is totally irrelevant here: the edit that The Kingfisher is objecting to has nothing to do with that at all. Emeraude (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

See above comment. The Kingfisher (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Economist is irrelevant and there certainly should not be an Economist caveat. Just attribute it. What poll is being discussed? I don't see one mentioned in the revert by User:Serial Number 54129. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It is neither about the poll or the Economist. That is just more information that HNH should not be considered a reliable and main source to build this entire article, which it seems to be. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)