Talk:Britain First

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Fascism Claims

Is it fair to call the party Fascist? Authoritarian, sure, but their official policies do claim that they are interested in extending freedom of expression and democracy. Now, of course, these are only their claims, and their actions may contradict this, but I don't think it's fair to label them as fascist. donnellan

talk) 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

It is validly referenced content. That trumps their own claims. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed at length in archive, the sources calling them Fascist are incredibly weak and dated. Most recent sources tend to use the term far-right. --Salix alba (talk): 22:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable. Their age only becomes an issue if later sources show otherwise, and they don't. And since when were fascists not far-right? Emeraude (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a recent upsurge of Britain First supporters in Scotland, as reported in the The National (Scotland). Nicola Sturgeon is quoted as calling them "fascists" and "racists". Similarly newspapers in Northern Ireland contain recent reports about harassment of immigrants lodged in a Belfast hotel. Perhaps, because of Jayda Fransen standing as an independent candidate in various by-elections, less attention has been paid to Paul Golding's activities. Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I were nitpicking I would say that "fascist" and "far-right" aren't synonymous, but ultimately fascism is sourced so it's fine. — Czello 12:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do these sources cite as their evidence? If it is not their policies or their actions, then surely it's not reliable content. Ghhyrd (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you reproduced this "This guy is he best acter evar e duz waesom stunts and doesn't afraid of nething i met im an e rools", what language were you using? Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All mammals are animals, but not all animals are mammals. While fascism is a far-right ideology, it has a specific set of beliefs concerning the totality of the extent of the state which is not a part of other right-wing ideologies. Calling them fascist because they are right-wing is inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. Ghhyrd (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have about 10 edits on wikipedia, dating back to 2008, and the article page is protected. Even after 14 years of dormancy, please note
WP:NOTFORUM. Mathsci (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Fascism is sourced, I'm not sure I see the issue. — Czello 12:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently one source for the Fascist claim. The Nation "Trump Is Now Openly Supporting Fascists"[1] The argument in the article is that it broke away from the BNP which is described as a fascist group and the authors claim "They are, and always have been, deeply fascist in inclination and in action." Previous sources have been weaker than this, just calling them Fascist without any rational.
I've added a source for the Lammy Tweet, and one from
neo-fascist might be a better description than British Fascist
which is not used in any source.
We can't use the fact that Sturgeon calls ex-Britain First deputy 'racist' and 'fascist', as at the time Frazen had left the group by then.
Still we have the distinction between being called fascist and being fascist. Until we clarify our language we will continue to get these chalenges. --Salix alba (talk): 09:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reports were about Britain First supporters, not about Jayda Fransen. The newspaper The National was mentioned specifically and the 4 August 2021 report Britain First sparks fury with "battle bus" tour of Scotland was not hard to find. These were supporters with specific local targets in Scotland; so for example the local newspaper report from the Ayr Advertiser has the headline Britain First's Troon "battle bus" visit branded "fascist" in 2021. That article states:
Labour's Carol Mochan, MSP for South Scotland has hit out at the parade, branding Britain First as a 'fascist party' that the people of Ayrshire with 'reject'. She told the Advertiser: "Britain First is a fascist party who are only coming here to stir up trouble. This is solely about creating controversy to draw attention to their defeated cause."
Similarly in August 2021 The Herald had the headline "Fascist" Britain First setting up official Scotland branch. In that article, MP Allan Dorans is quoted in the Daily Record as calling the BF supporters "racists" and "bigots". Mathsci (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the Lammy tweet should not be included regarding this group's ideology, as it is likely that political opponents would use the term "fascist" as an insult (even if it is correct in this case). I think Lammy can be cited as an example of "David Lammy thinks this group is fascist", just not for a statement of fact. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When this issue has come up in similar articles, we have always sought an expert source such as textbook about the far right. While CNN and other news sources are reliable, that applies to their reporting, not their expertise in political and social sciences. TFD (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually the case. We often say "described" etc based on generally reliable sources including the media. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Because of its fairly recent history, this organisation is rarely documented in text books; but, as well as the media, there are Hansard reports at Westminster or the equivalent at Holyrood. Mathsci (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it has been done does not make it consistent with policy or guidelines. I noticed that in
Hope Not Hate's report "State of HATE 2022"
, it does not use the term fascist to describe BF. Under "Nazi and Fascist Groups," it lists Patriotic Alternative, the British Movement, Combat 18 and several other groups, while Britain First is listed under "Far right parties." Their report on the Patriotic Alternative refers to it as the largest fascist group in the UK, implying that they do not consider BF to be fascist.
In fact there is a lot of literature (peer reviewed articles ant textbooks) discussing BF. I don't have easy access to most of it though.
TFD (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"For instance, on November 29, 2017, US President Trump, retweeted three anti-Muslim propaganda videos that were originally shared by Jayda Kaleigh Fransen, deputy leader of Britain First, a far-right British fascist political organization in the United Kingdom." in Zeinab Farokhi, "Cyber Homo Sacer: A Critical Analysis of Cyber Islamophobia in the Wake of the Muslim Ban", Islamophobia Studies Journal, volume 6, issue 1, April 2021, pages 14-32. Emeraude (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In Britain, neo-fascist groups such as Britain First....", Jason Lee, Nazism and Neo-Nazism in Film and Media, 2018, Amsterdam University Press, page 49 Emeraude (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. Mathsci (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that no one considered them fascist. But this appears to be cherry-picking. Instead of looking for sources in political and sociology textbooks on fascism the far right or the British National Party, you present passing references by people writing outside their area of expertise. Farokhi is a doctoral student in women and gender studies. Lee is a professor of film studies. It's not as if we would expect them to review the literature on whether BR was fascist or just a party that has some ties to historical fascism and other extremist trends.
In an article about the Roman Empire, we wouldn't use an article about 20th century literature. We wouldn't use a textbook about Rome for an article about water on Pluto. Per
Context matters
, "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible."
TFD (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. The sources used in the page seem biased and some of them don't even explain how the group follows fascist philosophy, and use the term mostly as an insult. This seems more like a whim from @
talk) 00:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
A source being biased doesn't mean it isn't reliable. They also don't need to explain why either - that's not how
WP:RS works. — Czello 08:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The WP:RS literally says in the Questionable sources section: "... Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". The sources used to claim that the organization is "fascist" don't explain how the organization follows said philosophy and rely mostly on personal opinions. "Fascism" as an insult is different from fascist philosophy.
Also you are completely ignoring the sources that don't claim and even reject the "fascist" label, such as Hope Not Hate or OpenDemocracy sources, just because they don't fit your perspective.
talk) 02:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I've recently removed the term "fascist" from the Wikipedia introduction of the "Britain First" article. My rationale for doing so is based on the principles of neutrality, verifiability, and the need for balanced coverage in accordance with Wikipedia's content guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BALANCE).
While it is true that some sources have referred to "Britain First" as "fascist," there are also other reliable sources that describe the group as "far-right" or utilize different terminology. Wikipedia should aim to present a balanced and verifiable representation of the subject matter, considering all available perspectives and avoiding undue weight. TheologyAnswers (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... And I've restored the longstanding consensus. Since 2016 we have discussed this issue on this talk page, and the result is always that the secondary sources saying "fascist" are strong enough to include the label. Take a look at the two archive pages and you'll see. Plenty of sources share the opinion of career journalist Sasha Abramsky who wrote, "Britain First is and always has been deeply fascist in inclination and action", in Nation magazine. If you want to remove the label, you must establish a new consensus through discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheologyAnswers is CU blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Racist

I agree. This group is not racist they are just patriotic and for the English people. 2.28.90.28 (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources overwhelmingly say otherwise. — Czello 10:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"for the English people"? So not the Welsh, Scottish...? That sounds racist to me. Emeraude (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, on the official Britain First website it states the following: "Britain First rejects racial hatred in all its forms." But they also welcome people with any racial background: "Britons from all backgrounds are welcome to join our struggle to put British people first." They refer to all British people, not just Englishmen. Svsivard (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But no mention of French, German, Indian, Pakistani, Arabic........ Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism & Hate Group Claims

while certain news outlets & sources may call them fascist, they themselves do not claim to be fascists. Additionally, they are not a hate group, they merely wish to see illigal immigrants deported & stop the spread of Islam. While these aren't the best policies, calling them fascist & a hate group is misinformation & when it comes to politics it is key we do not allow misinformation in Wikipedia. RuleBritannia1879 (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources describe the subject as, not what they themselves claim to be (obviously, as almost no groups would ever describe themselves as fascist). The labels of fascist and hate group are both adequately sourced. — Czello (music) 15:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if the source/sources are wrong. There are also sources that claim the party aren't fascist yet the ones that do get the benefit of the doubt. The party doesn't meet enough of the ideological tenets of fascism (which most people use as a perjorative) and should be considered radical right-wing instead. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is ultimately
WP:OR. As long as we've determined a source is reliable, it's what we use – we don't make judgements that they're wrong based on our own interpretation. — Czello (music) 09:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

But it's crucial the sources understand the terms they use, how can you be sure they are applying them properly? What methadology do they use when they get to that conclusion? This is why a greater burden of proof should be based on the claims themself rather than instantly sticking a tag on something. Fascism is a very specific ideology that spans the political spectrum and being rather right-wing or outspoken on something doesn't mean they are fascist. I'd be surprised if they met half the tenets of actual fascism which I'm sure many people do not understand well. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't make those interpretations ourselves. The point of determining what constitutes a
WP:RS is trusting their reporting is accurate. — Czello (music) 10:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Well that's the problem because there are countless sources that aren't credible and wikipedia can't determine this but always treat them as such by default. I'd rather use political scientists as sources who understand these issues well then anyone else on this subject. One of the sources used on this page is a progressive magazine which is obviously biased and shouldn't be used as an accurate source. It would be like Fox News calling someone on the center-left a communist. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel we're using sources that aren't credible you can list them; many will appear at
WP:RSN. — Czello (music) 10:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Funnily enough it's appropriate you mention Fox News – per
WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS we don't consider them reliable on political topics. But again, if there are sources in this article you feel are unreliable they should be listed. — Czello (music) 10:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

But why aren't these articles just put on these lists automatically? I think only academic sources should be used on articles like this, because they accurately use these terms for actual ideological components and not perjorative reasons. Journalists using these terms which they most likely couldn't well define or understand past perjoarative use is not credible at all and makes wikipedia a biased website, whether the media leans left or right. Anyhow, enough venting. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources are certainly preferred, but as long as a journalistic source is deemed reliable then they aren't precluded. — Czello (music) 10:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a leftist news outlet as I stated before, their bias can't be compatible with accurately diagnosing a political group on the right, as such is this case. I just said this with Fox News but you guys don't seem to realise the left can do the exact same thing if not more. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They just shouldn't be used at all if they are biased to any degree, only academics. But I guess i'm much more conservative on sources because I see so many abused on this website. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which source specifically are you referring to? Either way, we don't oblige our sources to be completely apolitical as long as we consider them reliable. For example,
Skwawkbox, and the Canary are all left-wing, but only the first is considered reliable. Similarly we could include The Daily Telegraph, which is right-wing, but not Fox News, which is also right-wing, for the same reasons. — Czello (music) 10:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Well I think reliability of a news outlet doesn't mean it's appropriate for them to understand said issue. Almost anyone can be a journalist (especially with the proliferation of the internet) but less people can be academics of history, politics or other fields which have extensive knowledge and understanding of these areas that the former profession does not. The only thing a journalist needs to do is relay information in a colloquial manner for the average person to understand. Anyhow, I'll leave it here becuase this thread is really getting on now. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can be a journalist, but the point of us considering a source reliable is whether they're a journalist for a reputable outfit. For example, anyone could be a journalist for the Canary as it's fairly low-quality, but not anyone could be a journalist for the Telegraph as they have higher standards for entry. — Czello (music) 11:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

There is no proof Britain first is a fascist or racist group 81.103.23.159 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Czello (music) 16:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Britain_First&oldid=1216331658"