Talk:For Britain Movement

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

There is zero evidence that ForBritain is far right and the only sources for that are opoinion based not fact based. This article lists ForBritain as anti Islam and that is a reason for being far right. Anti any reigion in Europe is protected by the articles of human rights. Wimipedia now use opinion peices then cite that as evidence and activists lock tha page. This site isnt about inormation its about controling the narrative and that is dishonest to say the least. The article evene claims the party is Conservatism which is a joke surely because it is nothing lie that at all. Nationlistic ? yes thats correct but nationaism does not equal far right nor does opposing communism which killed over 100 million people and holds one million muslims in concentration camps in China. Wikipedia is no longer trustworthy

Take Far right out of the description as they have left leaning policy’s. Pleasefact check properly, your reputation depends on it.. 2A02:C7F:C21D:6700:F118:4C2A:922C:E32 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:22, 4 March 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) 23:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Today's Observer newspaper has something on this 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[1] - 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 12:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy

Is it possible that we could amend this page so that it reads accurately without it being changed back immediately by anti-British fat left activists so that it reads like we are witnessing the rebirth of the Nazi party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.8.16 (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If there is specific information you are concerned about, please describe what it is, but keep in mind that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. If the sources describe this party as written in the article, there is nothing that can be done. Wikipedia is not interested in how the party describes itself. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As with above, we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

However, it might be useful to readers to include the fact that FB styles itself as 'not on the Left nor on the Right' Readymix89 (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Readymix89 Wikipedia is not interested in how a subject describes themselves, only in how independent reliable sources describe them. This group is free to describe itself as it wishes on its own website, which is linked to at the bottom of this article. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppose we can say "but describes itself as...", but not greatly fussed as wp:primary comes into it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If a RS writes about how they describe themselves, that might work. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Only if the RS takes it seriously. Emeraude (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Is For Britain a far right party?

The references are either not visible or are opinions without sufficient back up. According to Wikipedia, far right means extreme nationalism or authoritarian tendencies. The party believes in patriotism, but patriotism is not extreme nationalism. The party has never promoted authoritarian tendencies. It champions free speech. The editorial decision to call For Britain far right is therefore wrong. A conservative party maybe, but the far right label is not backed up. The opinion of some journalists without evidence is not encyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.152.152 (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, if you do not thin they are RS take it to wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s funny, isn’t it? For Britain say they’re not far right, but because The Guardian et al say they are, Wikipedia MUST call the party “far right”. Ellen Page calls herself Elliot and says she’s a man, and all her pronouns are switched to male.

Life in 2021!!49.198.38.238 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, they say that and lots of people say they do not do things they do, its called lying.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

Change "In the 2021 United Kingdom local elections, For Britain is standing 60 council candidates; at least 10 were former BNP members" [27] to: "In the 2021 United Kingdom local elections, For Britain is standing 60 council candidates" Hty990 (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The reference supports the content as currently written. The material is plausibly on-topic and you have provided no reason to remove it. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done The source is yellow on RS/P, so it's likely the last bit was inserting POV. The total number of candidates is probably not controversial enough to need a new source, but a better source should probably be found. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Far-right??

From the view point of a Communist already the political centre is being considered "far-right. 46.93.240.215 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

See discussions above. Multiple reliable sources describe Britain First as far-right, so that's what we go with. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, but is their manifesto a reliable source? UnofficialMalmo (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No. It doesn't matter how they describe themselves if multiple reliable sources described them as something else. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well i can not alter the ruels but should we mention that they call themselvs center-right and that they have some rather leftist economic leanings? UnofficialMalmo (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No. Emeraude (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Mabye we should say: the party denies the far right label stating instead that they are neither lett or right? UnofficialMalmo (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• left

UnofficialMalmo (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No. If people want to know how the party describes itself, they can go to its website. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have no issue with adding their denial, this is a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If an independent reliable source describes that they reject the far right label, that might be okay, but not telling how they describe themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No it is not a BLP. It's an article about an organisation. Waters' own article is a BLP and we quote some of her statements on her political views there. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Per wp:blp "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." this page is about living people, as the people we name are still alive.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

So are you saying that Waters and the party are one and the same(in terms of applying BLP)? 331dot (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Which is why we link to Waters' article so that people can see what her personal views are. But there is no BLP violation in describing the organisation as reliable sources do without qualification. We are not saying anything about Waters specifically on this article. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

331dot if people Santesson to know How ”reliable sources” describe them they could go to the gaurdian or BBCs website. UnofficialMalmo (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The point is to gather information in one place. UnofficialMalmo (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

UnofficialMalmo (ec) Yes, except that Wikipedia exists to summarize independent reliable sources, not to summarize what people or groups say about themselves. Groups, especially political parties, often describe themselves favorably to cultivate a positive public image and gain supporters. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

331dot we won’t be saying that they deffinetly are cetrists instead we will simply be presenting both sides of the argument. There are many articles on political parties that state that they (the other parties) deny the far right label. UnofficialMalmo (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There aren't "both sides of the argument". There is what reliable sources say. If reliable sources said they were centre-right, we would say that. But they don't. I'm not sure what other parties you are referring to, but do familiarise yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

UnofficialMalmo (ec) Wikipedia does not provide equal time with equal weight to all points of view, it depends on the sources. If you have an independent reliable source stating that the party rejects the far right label, let's see it, but this article will not state how the party describes itself, because that's not what Wikipedia is about. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

We wave to use common sense it is obvious from their own website that they deny the label. It does not need to be reliable because we are not stating it as fact. UnofficialMalmo (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

UnofficialMalmo (ec) You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Information must be sourced to an independent reliable source. The party itself is not an independent source as to its own views. As I said, political parties describe themselves favorably so that they can gain supporters. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They are not a reliable source on their own views. ”Do you even hear How you sound”? UnofficialMalmo (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

What about: on their website the party describes itself as centrists but this is disputed by reliable sources? UnofficialMalmo (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You are not listening to me and us. They are not a reliable source as to their own views because they have an interest in describing themselves favorably so that they gain supporters. We need an independent reliable source that says they reject the far right label. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:RS. No, their own website is not a reliable source as they can describe themselves as anything they want, however far from reality that might be. So where reliable sources differ from a group's self-description, we go with the reliable sources without qualification. It's not a matter of "dispute" - except for For Britain and its supporters who are trying to push their POV. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well then we cannot say anything about specific policies on healthcare or freedom of speech. UnofficialMalmo (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

We can if independent reliable sources discuss policies on health care and freedom of speech. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a third party to read their website publish an article and then we can Edit?

UnofficialMalmo (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

331dot since they don’t have any voting records the only way to know their positions is there Word. UnofficialMalmo (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make any of these edits you need to find reliable sources to support them. Their website is not a reliable source. Please move onLard Almighty (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Truth be told i have long since stoppet using Wikipedia when i can avoid it. We clearly do not understand each other so you may continue with your lies. Don’t thread on me and thanks for your willingness to debate. UnofficialMalmo (talk)

UnofficialMalmo Please read WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not claim that anything here is "true", only that it can be verified. Only you can decide what is true for you. Good day. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the last comments by UnofficialMalmo (who restarted this conversation) which demonstrate that he really doesn't care anout Wikipedia but just wants to push his own views, can we now declare this issue closed? Emeraude (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Emeraude i care about the truth. It can be verified that they claim not to be right or left by looking on their website the debate was over wether or not to add a lime saying that they do not ser themselves as far right. UnofficialMalmo (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why this thread is so pointlessly long and convoluted. There is nothing complicated here. Mainstream Reliable Sources describe them as far-right so we describe them as far-right. Their denial can, and probably should, be noted but we are not required to give such denials any sort of parity of esteem with the Reliable Sources. As a great thinker once said, "After all, “I’m not a fascist” is exactly what a fascist would say." --DanielRigal (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

they claim not to be right or left. There is the problem. As you have been told before, it does not matter what they do or do not claim. They can claim to be anything. What matters is how they are described by reliable sources. Reliable sources say they are far right, so that is what we rely on. It really is that simple. If you are going to continue participating in Wikipedia, you really need to read the links that have been highlighted for you (here and on your talk page) and understand how things work. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

DanielRegal we agree. I have never states that they were not ”far-right” my point is that the page should include their denial of only in one place. Nothing else needs to change. You can stil call them Nazis or something. UnofficialMalmo (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have an independent reliable source that reports on this group's rejection of the far right label, please offer it. Otherwise there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

Get more income in PSM on www.olivercoins.com and get a new job, meet our rich PSM Mummies and Daddies in worldwide PSM pay £11,199 pounds for a wonderful night, registration wapsite: www.olivercoins.com change your life for good worldwide PSM+ #trusted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike9730 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)