Talk:Anne Marie Waters

New Material

Hey all,

I think there is probably going to be a lot of new material coming in from larger sources and as more things become unearthed about Marie-Waters if she manages to get further with the involvement of Ukip. It might be worthwhile holding out a little bit to see what happens or the article might just go back and forth constantly, just requiring more clean ups. What new material has everyone got at the moment that s/he would like to add? Where do we think the relevance of Marie WAters is going over the next few months. It probably doesn't have to be a super long article if she loses significance in politics as quickly as she's gained it. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Alexandre8! I think that what the article would most benefit from would be more basic biographical information and discussion of her political background outside of the ongoing Ukip leadership election. What springs to mind is her involvement in and resignation from One Law for All.

Whilst most coverage is due to her candidacy, I think a lot of material relating specifically to her candidacy is more appropriate in the leadership election article. With regard to her lasting relevance, I think that the length of the article will regulate itself. If she remains a significant figure on the British hard right, then reliable sources will continue to cover her and the article will grow. Ralbegen (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anne Marie Waters

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anne Marie Waters's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto2":

• From United Kingdom general election, 2015: "Seat Calculator". May2015: 2015 General Election Guide.
• From Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2017: "Election 2017: Ukip will not contest three Redbridge constituencies to help pro-Brexit candidates get elected". Ilford Recorder. Retrieved 2017-04-29.
• From Breitbart News: Goodwin, Matthew; Milazzo, Caitlin (2015). UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-0198736110.
• From UK Independence Party leadership election, 2017: correspondent, Peter Walker Political (2 July 2017). "Large influx of new Ukip members prompts fears of far-right takeover" – via The Guardian.
• From Marine Le Pen: "IVG : Marion Maréchal-Le Pen recadrée par sa tante". Le Figaro. 6 December 2016. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
• From United Kingdom general election, 2017: "Ashcroft Model update: absent UKIP, and Labour's enthusiasm question". lordashcroftpolls.com.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Nationality and place of birth

People keep trying to change her nationality to Irish. She lived in Dublin as a child, is sometimes said to have been born in Ireland, describes herself as British http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/anne-marie-waters-ukip-irish-13309240 Nationality is defined by passport and may be different from place of birth. We can only go on what is reported in reliable sources so please don't change unless one can be provided.Weburbia (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

There are conflicting sources that describe her as Irish or British. We can't call her Irish-British because that would imply dual nationality and there is no source for that. The only option is to leave nationality blank in the infobox. However, we can paraphrase the following quote "Despite being born in the Irish capital, Ms Waters defines herself as 'passionately, loyally, resolutely, and proudly British" i.e she was born in Ireland but describes herself as British.Weburbia (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The only citation in the article for her nationality so far is Irish (New Statesman). The Dublinlive piece you quote above calls her an "Irish woman" in the lede and says she was born in Dublin. Have you a reliable source that states she has UK nationality? Nedrutland (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Weburbia:People keep putting she was born in Dublin, Ireland because several reliable sources say she was. The following sources say she is Irish: The Guardian, The New Statesman, The Irish Post, and The Times. She lived most of her life in Ireland. Can you clarify what sources describe her as British? AusLondonder (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I am repeating myself but it is clear from the context in those articles that when they call her Irish they mean that she was born and lived in Ireland. Nationality has a different meaning. Please read the Wikipedia article Nationality if this is not clear. In the Dublin Live article it is said that she defines herself as British. This does not confirm nationality either. So we have no information about her actual nationality from these sources.Weburbia (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed all references to nationality given the lack of an unambiguous source. Ralbegen (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Weburbia What evidence to you have to support your assertions about what the sources mean when they said "Irish"? Again, can you please provide the sources which state she is of British nationality? AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is now the fourth time I have tried to explain this and it will be the last unless someone finds another reference. At no point have I said that there are sources that state she is of British nationality. What I have said is that there is no source that states directly that her nationality is either British or Irish. It would be fine for this article to say that she was born in Ireland because that has been stated directly in sources that we can assume to be reliable. You should read the sources very carefully to avoid misinterpreting what they say. For example the cited Guardian article carefully avoids calling her Irish directly. To me that indicates that they have been unable to verify where she was born or her nationality. The New Statesman article calls her Irish but supports this only by saying that she started life in Dublin. Calling someone Irish is not the same as stating that they have Irish nationality. The Irish Post article explicitly calls her Irish-born and says she defines herself as British. The Times article calls her an Irish lesbian and mentions her Irish accent, I don't have a subscription but what I can see is very vague about even where she is born. If anyone wants to assert that her nationality is Irish they need to point to a reliable source that makes it clear that it is asserting her nationality and not just where she was born, where she went to school or what she sounds like. Weburbia (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you did. Your words "There are conflicting sources that describe her as Irish or British." I disagree with your interpretations of the sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Weburbia:, you've broken the three-revert rule. You and @AusLondonder: are edit warring. Please stop going back-and-forth on nationality until there's consensus here. In terms of the actual discussion, the coverage doesn't make claim of nationality but uses Irish as a demonym. I don't think it'd be inaccurate to refer to her as Irish in the lede given that, and would be okay with it being there (though I'm not sure I'd prefer it to be there). However, to include a Nationality field in her infobox labelling her as an Irish national on the back of the sources currently used on this page is a stretch, and we should always avoid making stretches in biographies of living persons. Ralbegen (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I am agreeing with Ralbegen; leave the Nationality field in the infobox blank until a clear statement in a reliable source, but the lede can have a cited claim (as it could for, say, Scottish or Kurdish which are not (for now) nationalities). Nedrutland (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly exactly what I have been saying. The Nationality field should be blank and my reverts have been to that state. She can be described as born in Ireland because that is referenced. Calling her an Irish activist seems disingenuous given that she has called herself "proudly British" in a campaign video as referenced in the Irish Post. If people know that and still call her Irish I have to wonder about their motives. By the way I am very much NOT her supporter and am only trying to keep the article honest.Weburbia (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That, @Weburbia:, is factually incorrect - you have several times removed the cited description from the lede. You may, if you wish, add "or British" (with citations) to the lede. She was born, raised and educated in Ireland (as cited) and, apparently, left as a teenager. The only sources I have yet seen would suggest she came to the UK in the last two decades (poss. 15 years) after stays in Germany and the Netherlands. Nedrutland (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Check again. Three times I reverted the nationality field and once I reverted the lede by mistake, mea culpa. I am now weary of trying to explain the difference between nationality and place of birth so I will leave it there.Weburbia (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I have checked and again your comment is regrettably, factually incorrect; you reverted the lede several times (along with the infobox field). However, I welcome your statement that you will leave it there. Nedrutland (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In the whole history of the article I reverted the lead once when it said she "is an Irish fascist posing as a concerned British patriot" and once yesterday. I have reverted the infobox several times to clear the nationality field as has been agreed as correct by several people including yourself. Your lying about my changes is not helping the discussion. Now I will change the lede to something that is more accurate. Weburbia (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You have several times edited the page to remove from the lede a cited description of her as Irish; for example,

this edit. Therefore, claiming that I am "lying" about your changes is evidently inaccurate. Nedrutland (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that her nationality is now established as British it seems wrong to call her "Irish" in the lede. I propose that this is changed to "Irish-born" with different source such as the Irish Times as the reference. Weburbia (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm perplexed that this is such a big deal. I'm happy to be considered part of a consensus for "Irish" (as demonym), "Irish-born" (to avoid implying citizenship) or "British" (by nationality). Any of the three can be justified by policy as far as I can tell, so it's just a matter of editor taste. Ralbegen (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You (@Weburbia:) state that "her nationality is now established as British"; is there a RS for that? Nedrutland (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not wanting to butt in but here is the source. It's not 'unduly self-serving', so it passes WP:ABOUTSELF. Ralbegen (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think it is self-serving. She is running for the leadership of a British nationalist political party so it is certainly in her self-interest to establish her "British-ness". I don't buy into this self-identity lark: if she has a British passport she is British; if she has an Irish passport she is Irish. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and it shouldn't be propagating claims that are not factually established. There are several different possible scenarios : she may have been born Irish and just identifies as British; she may have been born Irish and obtained British citizenship down the line; she may have been a Brit born in Ireland. What we can reasonably establish though is that she was born in Ireland and is now a permanent resident in the UK. I don't really understand why we can't just say that util more information is available. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Her statement of legal nationality was unambiguous and should be taken in good faith and in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. Given that she is campaigning for UKIP leadership and has many detractors who would not miss a chance to find fault, it would be insane for her to lie about her legal nationality, a fact that could be easily challenged if false. If it is self-serving for her to cast herself as British then by the same token it serves her opponents to cast her as other than British. We should be very careful about making sure this biography is neutral. The bias was very clear in some of the earlier edits about nationality which were reversed. I assume good faith in later edits, but I have always been of the opinion that calling her Irish is not neutral. This is justified only by one or two news sources which have a left wing editorial bias. Other sources make it clear that she is Irish-born and that is the correct interpretation of the news stories on the matter. I think that if the lede needs to mention nationality at all it should describe her as an Irish-born activist/politician with current British nationality. This is well-supported by sources and anything else is not neutral. Weburbia (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If it is self-serving for her to cast herself as British then by the same token it serves her opponents to cast her as other than British. — I agree with this. In this particular instance it serves Waters' interests to promote her nationalism/patriotism and her opponents' interests to attack it. Therefore the neutral position to take here is to simply state the facts as generally known: she was born in Ireland and lives/works in the UK. If an independent secondary source explicitly confirms she has an Irish or British passport at some point the article can then take a definitive stance on the issue. The fact is given her controversial political position there will be a lot of rhetoric and misinformation about her and Wikipedia has the opportunity to lead the way here: readers should be able to look up her article and just get the plain facts. Betty Logan (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Her statement of nationality could be slightly self-serving but it is not "unduly self-serving" especially as it comes too late to influence the leadership election result, and it is hardly an exceptional claim. Irish nationals are allowed to stand as MPs in the UK so being Irish would not count much against her. I think it is acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF. Weburbia (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

We should change it to British. She leads a British unionist party. Maybe she's ethnically Irish but she has forfeited any right to be called Irish by her deeds. Irishpolitical (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what she leads or her deeds, she was born in Dublin. That's a bit more than being ethnically Irish. Nationality is a legal issue and nothing more. Emeraude (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think "Irish-born" is the best descriptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.202.166.178 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

She considers herself British, is resident in Britain, she's British. Not Irish. Irishpolitical (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair play ​on her self-identification: but we do not use wikilinks to make WP:POINTY edits, and in any case please see MOS:OVERLINKING, specifically major examples of: geographic features and Everyday words understood by most readers. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Irishpolitical is editing outside of verifiable fact with edits such as this one. As I outline above, there are only three possibilities here: she is an Irish national living in the UK, she is a Brit born in Ireland or she is naturalised British. It is unclear which. However, one thing that remains true is that British nationality is an aspect of your legal status, not a matter of self-identification. The Home Office outlines the criteria at https://www.gov.uk/types-of-British-nationality. Unless you can demonstrate that Waters meets one of the criteria through reliable sourcing then it is factually inaccurate to describe her as "British". Nobody seems to actually know whether she is Irish or British and yet some editors seem determined to push for one over the other and do not seem to care about establishing fact. Of the three sources currently in the opening senetence all three describe her as being from/born in Ireland, one describes her as Irish and none describe her as British. Given the confusion over whether she is a British or Irish national it is not in the spirit of WP:NPOV to select one over the other. MOS:BLPLEAD states that the country where the person is a "citizen, national or permanent resident" should be given in the lead. It is very straightforward to present this information without POV editing. For example, describing Waters as "...an Irish-born anti-Islam activist based in the UK, who is..." would be entirely consistent with Wikipedia's MOS and would not overstate or twist the facts. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on the wording here but if editors keep changing the wording or we cannot come to a consensus I will put the decision in the hands of the community by filing an RFC. Pinging @Weburbia, Nedrutland, AusLondonder, Ralbegen, Emeraude, and Serial Number 54129:. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As before, I'm happy with this per WP:ABOUTSELF as not being "unduly self-serving". I think some reference to her being Irish is useful as a demonym, because that's how she's described in sources. I think there's also a second point, in that she is notable as a figure in British politics, so it's unhelpful for readers to describe her just as "Irish", as she was before Irishpolitical's edits. Ralbegen (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A brief reference to her Irish birth in the early life section may be where it's most applicable. But not in the lead. She has more to do with Britain than Ireland. She's British. Saying otherwise is disingenuous and misleading. Irishpolitical (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

She is British based on what? A single tweet as far as I can see that provides no corroborating evidence. I don't see any secondary sources substantiating or even repeating this claim. They invariably describe her as Irish or Irish-born, or "from" Ireland etc. I do not agree with Ralbegan that her tweet is not "unduly self-serving". She is the leader of a British nationalist party so it is clearly in her interests to present herself as British. What is disingenuous is to present unsubstantiated claims as facts. Do you know of any credible sources at all that describe her as British? I think we need a little more than what we have here if we are to pin our colors to the mast. Betty Logan (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This should be a no-brainer. It is a fact that she was born in Ireland; we have reliable sources for that. She lives in Britain; we have reliable sources for that. But that's it. Some (reliable) sources say her nationality is Irish. None say she has ever acquired British citizenship and residence is not the same as nationality. The fact is, we don't know for sure what her nationality is though I suspect it is Irish; for historical reasons Irish citizens in the UK have a status not accorded to other aliens (they can vote for example). So, "Irish born activist in the UK" is entirely accurate and reliably sourced. (Good job she's not from the north though - that would raise a whole new ball game!) Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Being born in Ireland is not relevant to the lead or her nationality, for example many British politicians were born in places like Pakistan but they aren't described as "Pakistani-born" or "Pakistani" in their lead. The fact she was born in Dublin should be included in the Early Life section and in the infobox, but it isn't relevant to the lead or determining her nationality. However, the woman's own statements on her nationality are the most salient detail of this discussion, she has been very forthright about her being British, in the interests of WP:NPOV we shouldn't ignore that. I would be inclined to describe this as a WP:SKYISBLUE issue, we don't need to run round looking for secondary sources that call her British when she herself calls herself British and she is far more relevant to Britain than Ireland in every respect, such as by leading a British unionist-nationalist party. Another compromise here is that we remove reference to her assumed nationality from the lead and let the article read: AMW is an anti-Islam activist based in the United Kingdom. Irishpolitical (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Waters' own comments about her nationality are not sufficient. British nationality is not an "identity" issue (whereby her tweet would be acceptable) but rather a legal one. You need a secondary reliable source that confirms her nationality, and none of the current sources describe her as British. To the contrary, we do have one reliable source describing her as "Irish"; the rest invariably describe her as "Irish born" or "from Dublin". If you think we are giving too much weight to the "Irish born" bit then I am willing to compromise on that aspect and defer it to the early life section, but I am not willing to compromise on describing her as "British" when you have produced no reliable sources that do likewise. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Would everybody be happy with "based in the UK" and no inclusion of either "British" nor "Irish" in the lead as recommended by Irishpolitical? That seems like an appropriate compromise to me. Ralbegen (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problems with the compromise wording. Betty Logan (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we've all reached an acceptable compromise. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry top tell you this Ralbegen If she was born in Ireland she was born BEFORE the last constitutional Referendum on citizenship which awarded Irish citizenship to any person born in Ireland. this would mean she is an Irish citizen whether or not she holds a passport or claims to be British. Also under British Law and Under Irish Law based on the Good Friday Agreement people are entitled to be Irish or British or both but they are NOT entitled to be neither so not mentioning she is Irish or British does not remove the fact that she must be one or the other or both. Isaw (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's suggested that Waters is stateless. Ralbegen (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing

Edits were made to this article earlier today relating to the ITV documentary ""Undercover: Inside Britain's New Far Right"". While it is entirely proper to document the allegations within the documentary, it is definitely not OK to turn it into a character assassination. ITV gave Waters the right to respond to the allegations and it is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV to include them here in the article. Waters has the right to clarify her Islamaphobia: being an Islamaphobe is not inconsistent with not being racist—no evidence has been presented that her prejudice is directed at other ethnicities outside the Muslism religion—and she also has a pretty good track record on feminist issues. Secondly, if the documentary is alleging that she has an association with a white supremcist she also has the right to clarify the nature of that relationship. The fact is people with dangerous beliefs will attend party conferences and meetings and Waters has the absolute right to clarify the nature of her relationship with such a person. And her position on whether such a person should be allowed to continue attending her events is absolutely central to the allegation being made. For example, Jeremy Corbyn currently has associations with anti-Semites, alleged rapists and Hamas terrorists but it would be improper to misrepresent that association with support for their actions. I get it: she is an Islamaphobe and you want to stick the knife in, but Wikipedia is not a political platform, and even The Guardian has taken the view here that Waters' response to the allegations should be included. Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(Make sure to WP:AGF). I thought that my original introduction of the material was an adequate summary given the fairly modest amount of coverage and the length of the rest of the article. If you think it warrants a longer paragraph; I've extended and tidied it a bit. I still think that a couple of sentences is due weight, though. Ralbegen (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole inclusion of the fact that a white nationalist attended one of her meetings is WP:UNDUE. We don't document every extremist who attends or meets with a mainstream politician, and given the fact there is no evidence of a personal relationship or endorsement of his views I don't particularly see why it is relevant here at all. It seems to have only been added to the article because it appeared in a TV documentary and covered in the mainstream press, as has her response. I think the "right to reply" is a principle central to neutral coverage in instances where allegations are made against somebody, which is essentially why The Guardian has also chosen to include her response. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The "right to reply" is not a right in any meaningful sense (e.g. right to life, right to a fair trial, right to vot) but something often given by media outlets to subjects. It is NOT an appropriate policy for an encyclopaedia. Regardless, her denials were not backed up by what was already said (by her) and shown in the programme. ("Well, she would say that, wouldn't she.") And it might be undue weight if ONE extremist had unknown to her attended ONE of her meetings, but.... Emeraude (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It's WP:OR to judge her denials. They are part of third party RS coverage, so I think it's fine to include them, but not fine to make them the focus of the passage. Given the extent of the coverage I thought that a couple of sentences were sufficient and would be happy to return to that length. Ralbegen (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

White nationalism and Islamaphobia are distinct ideologies. You can be a Jewish Zionist and Islamaphobic, without being a white nationalist. In the UK white nationalists have a monopoly on the Islamaphobia platform and many of these people end up in Ukip, where Waters also resided, so it's not a surprise there was some interaction. Nothing Waters has said has actually contradicted what the documentary showed—she notably didn't deny being Islamaphobic—and both ITV and The Guardian felt the inclusion of her response was a fair counterbalance to what was shown. We're only talking a couple of sentences at the end of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

For Britain

After her failed UKIP leadership bid, the article says that Waters founded a new party, For Britain. While she announced this intention, did she actually go through with this? Bondegezou (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:, it's blue linked, so we have an article on it. Liberty GB merged with it and it registered with the Electoral Commission in March. The article needs updating, it ran several candidates but only got a few hundred votes. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Doug Weller. I'll look at adding to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of article for propaganda?

It's quite hard to see what is "far right" about Anne Marie Waters or For Britain, yet the information seems to keep being removed and added back to the article. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's true that Waters has left-wing leanings on some issues, but the main purpose of her party is to oppose Islam, and targeting a particular faith is generally considered a far-right ideology, which is why "For Britain" is considered a far-right party. If mainstream reliable sources retract the "far-right" label and start to describe the party in other terms then this article should rightly reflect that, but not until that happens. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Anne Marie Waters, and For Britain are clearly anti-Islam. That might or might not be a "far right" point of view, but surely it would be more accurate to describe it using the term "anti-Islam party" rather than "far right". The words "far right" usually imply a raft of other political opinions such as expansionist militarism, nativism, nationalism, racism, support for eugenics, colonialism, authoritarianism, etc. For Britain isn't particularly "far right" in any policy direction except perhaps the "Rule of Law" area, which could be seen as a shift towards authoritarianism.

Anne Marie Waters' opinions about Islam originated from concerns about British women friends of Pakistani ethniticy who were threatened with honour killings by relatives, hardly a "far right" concern.[1]

I notice the article on Geert Wilders does a far better job of portraying the individual's opinions. Perhaps the writing of that article should be a model for this one. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Wilders article is far ahead of this one, both in terms of content and quality. As you can see from the "non-neutral editing" section above, I am aware that Waters is somewhat unorthodox in her political trajectory—she was in the Labour party for a long time and has a respectable record in feminist activism. I have no objection to using the Wilders article as a model for this one, but we are still confined by how the mainstream sources describe her and her party. It might be a better approach to cut through lazy tabloid journalism and look for academic sourcing when describing her political positions. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide whether a party is far-right or otherwise based on a checklist, just on the basis of how reliable sources describe it. Reliable sources describe For Britain as far-right — not 'lazy tabloid journalism', which typically doesn't constitute reliable sourcing, but include the Times, Politico, the i, the NME, the Plymouth Herald and Leeds Live. If any user wishes to contest the reliability of these as sources, they can do so at WP:RSN. Ralbegen (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the NME, a former music newspaper now reduced to a web site, is a reliable source on British politics, is laughable. I examined the Irish Post article, the Times article, and the New Statesman article used in the lead section of the article to verify the statement that it is a "far right" party. Neither the Irish Post, nor the New Statesman, use the words "far right", but rather "anti-Islam", the exact replacement I've suggested. The paywalled Times article was actually written before the party had been formed, or any of its policies declared, thus it is overreaching to use that as a reference for the statement that For Britain is a far right party.

This is exactly what I am concerned about in bringing this topic up on the talk page. You have not provided any clear or convincing evidence that it is a remotely "far right" party, and yet you insist on repeatedly re-adding the information back to the article over many people's objections. I do not feel reassured that you are not using this article to propagandise, but to pursue the truth about this political group. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The New Statesman article is a source for 'anti-Islam activist' — references are usually at the end of the sentence, referring to all parts of the sentence. The Irish Post is a source for Waters being described as Irish. You can see that both sources were in use before For Britain was a thing. The Times is a reliable source, and reliable sources have continued to describe For Britain as far-right. There are more sources on the For Britain page, and I've linked to many more in the Talk page, where this is perennially raised. The party is described as far-right in reliable sources both at its inception and subsequently, so that's how it's described here. Ralbegen (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The basic problem, though, is that it's not actually a far right party. It's an anti-Islam party, with no actual discernable far right policies at all. You can call a spade a chicken all you want, and find "reliable sources" that claim that shovels are being turned into nuggets, but that doesn't make my garden spade grow wings and fly away. So the question remains why you are not calling a spade a spade. Your hiding behind the claims of "reliable sources" doesn't explain why the words "far right" appear before the party's name almost everywhere it appears on Wikipedia, and the several people who've removed this falsehood from the article over the time I've been watching it confirm that many others have noticed this. Rather, the way you respond makes me feel that my claim that this article is being hijacked for propaganda has been vindicated.

Regardless, this comment will be my final one on this matter. Thank you to all participants. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"The paywalled Times article was actually written before the party had been formed": Just 3 days actually; the article appeared on a Thursday and says the party will be launched on Sunday. It makes clear what Waters is going to do, quotes from her video and other sources. Regardless, we are here concerned with Waters, not the party, so the question of when it was founded is irrelevant. Emeraude (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Other sources not used in our article consistently describe Waters as far right, including, to cite just a few, Nick Cohen, who "once knew and admired her as a principled Labour activist" describes her "swerve to the far right..." ("Bigot who would lead Ukip is a product of our times", The Guardian, 29 July 2017), an ITV News investigation which described some of Waters' "extreme far right views" ("Ex-Ukip leadership candidate's extreme views revealed", 7 November 2017), Ellie Mae O'Hagan ("The far right is rising, and Britain is dangerously complacent about it", The Guardian, 7 May 2018) and even The Sun ("Who is Anne Marie Waters? Far-right Ukip leadership contender and anti-Islam campaigner", 2 October 2017).

Cf., Hsiao-Hung Pai, Angry White People: Coming Face-to-Face with the British Far Right (Sharia Watch...ideologically no different to far-right groups such as the EDL or Britain First). —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

2018-05 AMW & Eurabia

In 2017, Anne Marie Waters supported the Eurabia conspiracy theory

• "The EU agreed to turn Europe into an Arabian Islamic continent in return for trade essentially" in this video at 1 min
• "If interested in the submission of the EU to the Arabic world, and would like to see proof, i suggest reading 'Eurabia' by Bat Ye'or. She provides concrete evidence throughout that what I have said is, once again, the truth." here

Is there reliable sources about that? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think for reasons of WP:PRIMARY and WP:V these sources are therefore not usable. Is there a reliable secondary source which definitively states that she supports the Eurabia conspiracy theory?Irishpolitical (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Remember this is WP:BLP and a tweet is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia for this purpose. Is there a reliable secondary source which describes her espousal of the Eurabian conspiracy theory? Irishpolitical (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Politician or activist?

The lead which describes AMW as an "anti-Islam activist" is flawed. Surely, now that she has founded her own party and is leading it and has led it into elections it makes sense to refer to her as a "politician". The anti-Islam portion of the sentence while true prior to her founding of For Britain seems to be outdated, given she is now a politician running a party which a platform more wide-ranging than Islam (although admittedly it is their biggest concern). I propose the alternative "is a politician in the United Kingdom" or "is the leader of For Britain". Irishpolitical (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked over the corpus of reliable source coverage a while ago, and 'anti-Islam activist' was the most common description. Going through the recent mentions of Waters in broadsheet and former broadsheet newspapers:

• The Telegraph describes her as a "failed Ukip leadership contestant"
• The Times describes her as an "anti-Islam activist"
• The Financial Times describes her as an "anti-Islam campaigner"
• The Guardian describes her as an "ex-Ukip candidate"
• i describes her as a "defeated, far-right Ukip leadership candidate"

Which means that there isn't such a uniform way of describing her as there was when the "anti-Islam" descriptor was introduced. Three of the sources emphasise her unsuccessful leadership candidacy, and the other two emphasise the anti-Islam aspect of her politics. Maybe "anti-Islam politician" would be appropriate? And given its prominence when reliable sources introduce her, it may be worth bringing her UKIP leadership candidacy further forward in the lead. Ralbegen (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think "anti-Islam politician" is non-neutral. She is either a "politician" or an "anti-Islam activist". While I agree that leaders of political parties should be described as "politicians" I do question whether a party that has no political representation at any level (European/parliamentary/regional/council) can be classed as a "political party" in any meaningful way. Personally I would have stuck with the status quo, but it's not a "red line" issue for me. Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As a compromise, perhaps we could reword the second sentence to "She is the founder and leader of the far-right anti-Islam party For Britain". I think that would keep things neutral and would include all the essential information. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could explain why you think "anti-Islam politician" is non-neutral. Anti-Islam is a common descriptor for Waters, and if we're describing her as a politician (which there's RS precedent for), I don't see the issue. I think putting two modifiers for For Britain gets a bit cluttered.

Perhaps "far-right politician" and "anti-Islam party" could work if you're concerned about synthesis? (There's RS usage of "far-right politician" here and here, and "anti-Islam party" here). Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think "far-right politician" and "anti-islam party" would be better phrasing in this case. The reason I think it is non-neutral is because while you have single-issue activists you very rarely have single-issue politicians. They generally have to develop positions on a range of political issues, so to focus on just one seems to violate WP:DUE to me. We wouldn't describe Caroline Lucas as an "environmentalist politican"—even though the environment is the main thrust behind the Green Party's policies—because in her political life she has adopted other political positions beyond environmental activism. As such politicans are best described by their position on the left-right spectrum. Personally I don't consider For Britain a valid political party and thus I do not consider Anne Marie Waters a valid politician, but if we are are going to write about her in those terms then the article should follow the standard template for politicians IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I get your point now. It seems fair enough to me to characterise Waters as an anti-Islam politician, but not strongly enough to argue the point. Especially without a consistent description in reliable sources. I've made the above change on the page. Ralbegen (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Caroline Lucas as referenced isn't described as being a "left-wing politician". Per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP I would suggest describing AMW as "a politician in the United Kingdom" for the lead. Then further in the article the nature of her being far-right can be further added on. But no other, or very few, UK politicians' articles use the lead "is a left-right politician", I see no reason to make this particular article an exception from the established norm. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that the lead of the Caroline Lucas article is flawed in that respect, because I think it would be helpful to a reader to know where a politician lies on the political left-right spectrum. The Jacob Rees-Mogg article is probably a better model because it states his political leanings and policy position all in the second sentence of the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of other articles (though admittedly usually for non-UK politicians) that describe their subjects such, including Paul Weston who's linked in the lead of this article. There are others such as Philippe Poutou and Giuseppe Torri initially described as "far-left politician", and others still described as "left-wing politician", "right-wing politician", "centre-left politician" and "centre-right politician" as their initial description in their articles. I've included references to reliable sources that use the precise phrasing, and it is an aspect of Waters's politics that reliable sources emphasise. Ralbegen (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead should be mostly basic info. That she's a politician, that she's UK based, that she leads a far-right party. That is the way we should handle it. That's the custom for most politicians: what they are (a politician), which country they're from (the UK), what office they hold (be it a party leader or an MP or a ministry). Irishpolitical (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The framing "far-right politician"/"anti-Islam party" was to include both aspects regularly referred to in RS descriptions. I'm not sure common practices in other UK politician articles are that helpful. For instance, most politicians with their own articles are from major political parties which is sufficient to identify them. Do you agree that both "anti-Islam" and "far-right" should be included prominently in the lead? If you do, what'd your preference be for phrasing it? Ralbegen (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see a civilised debate on a politics talk page. I'm with Ralbegen on this - her anti-Islam stance is a defining characteristic as much as the far-right and both ought to be in the lead. Emeraude (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that both labels should be at least somewhere in the lead. Ideally a reader should be able to read the lead and get the general picture without having to read the entire article. I am fairly open about how this information is incorporated into the lead though. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In the case of AMW, as has been discussed earlier there is significant debate over the nature of her politics/ideology. She leads a political party and I think that and her UKIP leadership bid are the most salient details of the article. Therefore I'd push them to the top. As in that she is a politician in the UK, that she leads a party she founded after she lost the UKIP leadership election to Henry Bolton. The current wording of the lead is problematic, it would be more accurate to call For Britain far-right than anti-Islam since it has broadened to include other policies which can be described as far-right. A separate sentence that the party is anti-Islam may be appropriate. I'm also inclined to remove from the lead the reference to her personally as far-right, given the label is not wholly accurate when contrasted with other British far right politicians (e.g. Nick Griffin). Irishpolitical (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources are pretty uniform in describing Waters' politics — I'm not sure what significant debate you're referring to? There are a number of instances of reliable sources that describe her personally as far right. (I provided two above for the precise phrasing "far-right politician" here and here; there's also this, this and this describe her personally as far-right in other formulations). Ralbegen (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say the "far-right" label is problematic, given she is clearly a different sort of far-right to a more open-and-shut case of being far-right (a la Nick Griffin). However, if the sources are saying far-right, I suppose it makes sense to go with them - even if that label is flawed. I question the relevancy of the label in the lead, especially given it's not particularly the custom to describe a politician in the lead with their position on the left-right axis. I would suggest it should be moved further down, and let the lead read with WP:NPOV and no mention of her place on the left-right axis. Irishpolitical (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It seems to me to absolutely be NPOV compliance to describe Waters as anti-Islam and far-right, and to give the labels the prominence they have in reliable source coverage. I think it'd be inappropriate to bury the "far-right" descriptor on the basis that editors think she's different to Nick Griffin. Ralbegen (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am citing NPOV as very few other British politicians are described in their lead as being anti-[whatever] or their position on the left-right axis. A few months ago before the party was founded I would be in agreement on using anti-Islam as the most salient detail about her beliefs for the lead, however given she has created a political party I would remove these descriptors from the immediate lead and move them elsewhere in the article, that she has been called "far-right" and "anti-Islam". Irishpolitical (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

She is essentially an Islamaphobic socialist. Basically every other political position she holds is on the left and cannot be characterized as "far right". We touched on this issue at #Misuse_of_article_for_propaganda?. We are still limited by how sources describe her position on the political spectrum though; peer-reviewed scholarly sources are the "preferred" sources on Wikipedia per WP:SOURCETYPES and we should look to those if they exist for a more nuanced appraisal of her. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Therefore I think most of us would concur the sources calling her far-right are unreliable to some extent. This is why I am arguing for the removal of far-right from the lead. We should move them to elsewhere in the body in a way which is more consistent with WP:V, that "she has been called far-right by numerous media sources" and also touch on her Islamophobia in the same section. Would we agree to this? Irishpolitical (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"Islamaphobic socialist"? Socialist??? Come on, let's be real. Emeraude (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

She has a respectable record in feminist activism, supports gay rights, worked for (and supports) the NHS and belonged the Labour party for a while; she was even considered as a Labour MP candidate. I think that qualifies her as a socialist, or at least having left-leaning tendencies. To put it another way, if you take away her stance on Muslims then which policies does she promote that you would consider right-wing? If it weren't for the Islamaphobia she would be a fully signed up Corbynista. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably worth veering away from WP:FORUM discussion of the article subject. There is uniform description in reliable sources of Waters as far-right. If any user wishes to contest the reliability of any sources, I gather WP:RSN is the place to do it. Ralbegen (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Organizational edits

My recent flurry of edits may be confusing for watchers of this article. Carpatho added some content that I did not feel was fully corroborated or neutrally worded, so my first set of edits solely addressed his edits. This net effect can be seen here. My second set of edits neither added nor removed content, but simply relocated some content to more appropriate sections. No wording was changed in the second set of edits, apart from some conjunctions to join up sentences I had moved. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the "white genocide" material can be deleted outright. Its importance isn't established by secondary sources, and using primary sources means that the section just repeats a lot of Waters's words. This approach in general could either selectively or indiscriminately parroting Waters's self-described views, which I don't think is appropriate.

The rest of your changes seem good to me, and thank you very much for this precis! Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I was in two minds about removing the "white genocide" segment but didn't want to act unilaterally. While I think her stated opinions do amount to "white genocide conspiracy theory" on the basis of what I read at the linked article I do actually think a secondary source is required to identify her views as such. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Today's Observer newspaper has something on her in the context of Generation Identity in the UK

It's summarised in The Guardian: Infiltrator exposes Generation Identity UK’s march towards extreme far right[2] - the UK GI party has been expelled from the wider movement and is discussing a merge with For Britain. I've also found Draft:Generation Identity United Kingdom and Éire. --Doug Weller talk 12:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of the content from The Guardian article. The Guardian discusses a possible alliance but it is just a rumor at this stage, nothing concrete, so I left that part out. If something comes of it we should ad it in then. Betty Logan (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

far right

she ran for a position as a labor party politician, she's not religious, she's a feminist, she opposes racism, misogyny and anti-semitism, but she is "far right." This place is an insane asylum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.90.31 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

« she ran for a position as a labor party politician » →‎ In 2013, 9 years ago. Human beings are allowed to change their opinion (and as soon as 2013 she made a rant against islam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQjZHFnmADQ ).

« she's not religious, she's a feminist » →‎ So what?

« she opposes racism, misogyny and anti-semitism » →‎ In the ITV documentary Undercover: Inside Britain's New Far Right, Anne Marie Waters regurgitate the Eurabia thesis ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IM4wtEr4No#t=27m and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/generation-identity-far-right-group-training-camps-europe-uk-recruits-military-white-nationalist-refugees-a8046641.html « We are becoming an islamic state. The EU agreed to turn Europe into arabian islamic continent, in return for trade essentially. »), a racist conspiracy-theory which is very similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (an antisemite canard) according to https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2018.1493876 (an academic article).

Also she ran for a position as leader of UKIP, a british far-right political party, and ended second. Hope this help. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)