Talk:Britain First/Archive 2

My edit
The previous revision of this page stated that Britain first is a fascist party, even though the latter section of the same article stated that Britain First denies fascism and even seems opposed to it. So it seems Britain First has only been DESCRIBED as fascist. Also, one of the sources (reference #80 as of now), openly states that they are NOT fascists even though they are labeled that. Describing Britain First as far-right seems more neutral in this case. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As you can see in previous discussions, there are more sources calling BF fascist than not. Your reference #80 which says they are not fascist admits that many other observers call them fascist, so it's hard to use that source to reverse the others. In short, the weight of sources is still in the fascist camp. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well you are confusing being called a fascist with actually being a fascist... Many sources call Donald Trump a racist, but we are not going to write that down are we? Also, they do NOT seem to be endorsing fascism. Maybe we could write something like "a far right group that has been labelled a racist." My problem is that, Wikipedia is a reliable source for MANY people, and we are not supposed to be engaged in political activism. When we say that they are fascist instead of saying that they are LABELLED as fascist we are misleading people and leading people to misunderstand Britain First. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Lets actually look at some of these sources. The Independent has the title: "'Fascist' group Britain First to start 'direct action' on Mail and Sun journalists over Lynda Bellingham post". Note the scare quotes. This article in turn refers to a Sun article: "Fascists hijack tragic Lynda". The sub heading of the sun is "A FAR-right group is exploiting the death of TV’s Lynda Bellingham to spread its fascist views." There is no justification of the fascist label in the article. So this whole line of arguments rests on the unsource opinion of one Sun journalist - hardly the most reliable of sources. I not sure many of the other sources would stand up to enough scrutiny to destinguish between "Britain First have been called Fascist by ...." and "Britain First are Fascist".--Salix alba (talk): 13:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. Britain First is NOT fascist. It is described as such. It is an extremist group, and media does not usually distinguish between these groups. Morover, wikipedia itself cites a source which busts a "myth" of them being fascist. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of the leading fascism scholars were asked to address the issue of whether Trump was a fascist and they unanimously agreed he was not. That's why we can call BF fascist while we can only say that Trump has been called a fascist. TFD (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait, which scholarly source argues that Britain First policies are fascist? They seem to be AGAINST elitism and FOR democratic election and voting. Where is the justification that their policies are fascist? None of the sources Wikipedia gives actually describe what policies are fascist and Wikipedia OPENLY states that BF has NO CONNECTION with any known fascist groups. So my best guess is that the Media uses the term fascism interchangeably with far-right ... Which an encyclopedia should not. And to repeat AGAIN, Wikipedia itself cites a source which OPENLY states that their policies are NOT fascist. While the sources which DO call BF fascist do NOT explain why. But again, my guess is that the media uses the term interchangeably. They make no distinction between Alt-Right, Neo-Nazi, fascist etc. These terms are used to refer to the what they see as right win extremism. We have to be better. We have to look at the facts
 * Britain First OPENLY condemns fascism.
 * Wikipedia cites a source which BUSTS a "myth" of them being fascist.
 * The sources which Wikipedia cites for calling Britain First fascist DO NOT explain why deeply, they simply are content with referring to them as fascist.:::: I will repeat, NONE OF THESE sources openly explain why Britain First, DESPITE denying and opposing fascism qualifies as fascist.
 * Fascism is NOT synonymous for ultra-nationalism. According to Wikipedia Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce. There is NO evidence that Britain First supports this type of government.
 * The truth is, of course, that this group has been LABELLED fascist. This is a neutral way of stating things. Saying that they are fascist is a form of political activism, trying to dissuade people for associating with them (because fascist is a dreaded term). That is unencyclopedic. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See the above comments and stop edit warring - until you have agreement on the talk page for contested material don't edit the article.  A slow edit war is still an edit war. -Snowded TALK 20:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I do NOT see a reason why they should be called fascist, INSTEAD of us explaining that they have been CALLED fascist... I gave the reasons above, and I will give them again:
 * Britain First OPENLY condemns fascism.
 * Wikipedia cites a source which BUSTS a "myth" of them being fascist.
 * The sources which Wikipedia cites for calling Britain First fascist DO NOT explain why deeply, they simply are content with referring to them as fascist.:::: I will repeat, NONE OF THESE sources openly explain why Britain First, DESPITE denying and opposing fascism qualifies as fascist.
 * Fascism is NOT synonymous for ultra-nationalism. Many prominent websites and people use the word fascist as an insult! Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We've all tried to explain this to you. Sources say they are facist, if you disagree with the arguments in those sources, or feel they have not explained their position then raise it with them and see if they will change.   Its not out role to do this - its called original research but to reflect what they say. -Snowded TALK 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You said it: Sources say... In other words sources CALL them fascist. So let's write that down! I have already said, the sources DO NOT explain why they call them fascist, there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that BP opposes democratic elections, and Wikipedia OPENLY CITES A SOURCE WHICH SPECIFICALLY explains that BP is NOT fascist. What original research are you talking about? Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't argue or qualify reliable sources and a web site is not a reliable source.  You are interpreting sources and synthesising opinions.   I gave you a link to the policy - read it -Snowded TALK 20:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok... If I find enough sources, CNN, MSNBC etc right now that refer to Trump as a white supremacist, am I allowed to insert white supremacist in the Trump article? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want some more academic sources given that far more people write about Trump than an obscure and largely irrelevant group of British Fascists - but yes we do with reliable sources. -Snowded TALK 21:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "More academic sources", do you mean "more than none"? Why won't you ask the author of the original article (whoever that was) to cite at least a single academic source which states that Britain First is fascist? After all, the burden of proof rests on him. Calling BF is clearly just an opinion (as their political program doesn't have much to do with academic definition of Fascism), and the quoted sources are considered as biased -  Dinth (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Mediabiasfactcheck is an group of amateurs and their ratings are contradictory at times. And most people are biased against Fascism, do you have a problem with that? Doug Weller  talk 18:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course that im 100% anti-fascist and im glad that except of Spain there was no fascist political party in Europe post-WW2. Dinth (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is what I am trying to tell you sweet summer child. NO MAIN STREAM academic or historian will agree that Britain First is fascist.. NO ONE! NOT ONE! Fascist is a pejorative term today. So why not err on the side of safety and write it more accurately... "BF is an ultra nationalist group which has been CALLED fascist." No statement from BF is quoted to show that they are fascist, none of their policies show that they are fascist... EVEN WIKIPEDIA ADMITS THIS IN THIS SAME ARTICLE! Why do you oppose writing: "BF is an ultra nationalist group which has been CALLED fascist." Instead of "BF is fascist." Why do you disagree with this edit? Where is the original research? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a mainstream academic reference with says they are ultra-nationalist and not fascist and we can look at it.  All we are interested in are sources but thank you for calling me "naive, untested and young", that hasn't happened in several decades. -Snowded TALK 04:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think the burden of proof should rest on those making the claim we can say more than just "so and so said BF are fascist". Above I looked at the Independent/Sun reference. Looking at the politics.home one "Britain First: The violent new face of British fascism" the word Fascist only occurs in the title and no attempt is made to justify that label. The Telegraph "The loathsome Britain First are trying to hijack the poppy" sub title "don’t let them Britain First, the neo-fascist organisation, are using the Remembrance poppy to push their racist agenda on social media". So the only justification we have is three hacks: Adam Bienkov, Willard Foxton, and Lamiat Sabin chose to use the label in their headline. There is no serious academic analysis of political ideology.

Further if you look at most news sources they are described as "Far Right" or "anti-islamist" so really we have a case of cherry picking sources.--Salix alba (talk): 07:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, the burden of proof is on someone making the claim. In other words, you support them being known as fascist on Wikipedia, despite providing no sources which support the fact that they are actually fascist. Wikipedia itself states that fascist is often used as a pejorative. Wikipedia itself later clarifies that the group has been CALLED fascist, but the group disavows this. Furthermore Wikipedia brings a source which openly debunks the idea of them being fascist. Look, I am not asking you to do original research. We are asking that you write down what the sources do. And the ONLY thing sources do is CALL BF fascist. So say it as it is. BF is CALLED fascist. Outside of this name calling, there is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that BF supports fascist policies, wants to seize commerce, seeks dictatorship etc etc. NONE! Several people support this also, and it seems like a few people are controlling this article. My demand is MORE reasonable and MORE neutral. Right it down as it is, "an ultra nationalist group, which has been called fascist by several sources." I don't see a reason why not. HONESTLY Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kingdamian1, as John E. Richardson points out in Cultures of Post-War British Fascism, "the true nature and consequences of the anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian drive of fascism needs to be concealed in order that it can better appeal to, rather than alienate, the populace." (p. 204) I don't think with any political party, it would be possible to evaluate them based on a literal interpretatio of their stated policies, and it would be original research to do so. You have to read between the lines, taking into account the leadership and membership and their histories. TFD (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But that has got nothing to do with whether reliable sources are sufficient to label this group as Fascist. If Richardson specifically mention this group as an example then we could call them Fascist. But the book dates to 2015 so is a bit too early. I would be very happy if a work with the weight of Richardson applied the Fascist label, I would consider that a RS. As it stands we have three or four mentions in headline with no justification in the body of the text and looking at the subsequent articles from the same newspapers they all use the term Far Right. --Salix alba (talk): 14:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight, you are telling me we should read between the lines and then I am the one doing original research? For the umpteenth time, we should simply DOCUMENT what the sources say/do. We shouldn't simply quote sources, otherwise Donald Trump is a white supremacist,. But we WOULD NOT ACTUALLY WRITE IT LIKE THIS! And remember, in THIS SAME ARTICLE ABOUT BF wikipedia later clarifies that they have ONLY been CALLED fascist and there are sources that DO NOT agree with this and their policies ARE NOT FASCIST. Why can't we write THAT SAME THING in the beginning?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop shouting. It only makes it less likely that people will read your posts.
 * Other Wikipedia articles are not usable as sources, per WP:CIRC. If this is about the OpenDemocracy source, I'm the one who incorporated it into the article. It's an obscure article written by a student. It's fine for what it is, I guess, but it specifically says that BF has been described as fascist by other sources. Also, the main thrust of the source is that BF is both extremely bigoted and largely ineffective. Any use of that source must also reflect the main point it's trying to make, otherwise it's cherry-picking. This is a source which is presenting its author's minority opinion specifically as a minority opinion, based on a narrow definition of a term ("fascism") which isn't shared by other sources. Attributing this as the opinion of Bertie Vidgen seems like it would kind of a stretch, WP:DUE-wise, and the current single sentence from the source seems plenty in context. The entire "policy" section should be rewritten based on reliable, third-party sources, but I don't see any compelling argument that those policies are incompatible with fascism, and that would be original research, anyway. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2018
Change: Britain First is a British fascist[2][3][4] political organisation formed in 2011 by former members of the British National Party (BNP). to This:   Britain First is a British patriotic political organisation formed in 2011 by former members of the British National Party (BNP).

BECAUSE:

Source: www.britianfirst.org  They openly and continuously deny that Britain First is in any way a fascist organization.

Note: Most supposedly independent sources for this article are claiming and asserting that Britain First is a "facist" organization. They are doing this by citing other media outlets that are claiming and asserting the same thing. But the fact that the Media sources are stating and repeating this over and over again does not in and of itself make it true and prove that Britain First as now constituted is in fact a fascist organization. Britain First as an organization does not qualify in definition as a fascist organization. The established media outlets and most of the established reporters are not being truly and responsibly objective in their analyses and reporting of Britain First. The media in general are biased, not objective, mis-informed and ignorant of the true nature of Britain First as an organization.

Source: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascism

The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy. 1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator. 2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government. 3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

Given this definition by the man who founded and created the first fascist state and government Britain First does not qualify in actual definition as a "fascist" political party. Multiple assertions with no current proof and based upon circular references to each others articles and assertions does not establish fact. It does however qualify as propaganda by multiple sources who in unbiased, objective circumstances would normally be consider "reliable". SeldomSeenUtah (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see this is much discussed above so you should probably just read that. --regentspark (comment) 19:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We can probably elaborate a little here
 * We have policies (which carry a little more weight than recommendations and are generally followed), which apply to the above suggestion
 * regarding user generated content - such as Urban Dictionary, for example. We don't count it among reliable sources upon which to base our article texts - in part for the reason stated below as well as to maintain quality.
 * Primary Sources Such as the website for the subject of this article. They can write whatever they like about themselves, therefore common sense dictates that we don't allow this to be used as a source, otherwise they'd essentially be writing their own article and could claim to be able to open canned food on their chins and produce fully inflated balloons from their nostrils, for example.
 * Do have a read and reassess the proposal. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how this works but Britain first are clearly not a fascist party and calling them one is misleading and very likely just Character assassination by one of its political opponents.
 * it works like this: the three sources given to support that sentence mention the organization’s connection with British fascism no less than eleven times. Our article duely states therefore, that the organization is fascist. If you feel that more sources are required, they do of course exist in abundance and we could add them and bundle them together. At this stage if they wanted to be known otherwise they could rebrand and move on under a new name - of course they’d want to stop terrorizing minority groups and maybe hand out some apology notes at their local mosques. Cake would be nice. Edaham (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do they?
 * politics.co.uk politics.co.uk mention fascism one in the title and makes no assertion to facism in the body. They do mention the anti-facist groups in the body of the text. Instead they article refers to BF as " dangerous group of religious fundamentalists".
 * telegraph call them a "neo-fascist organisation" once in the sub-title, call them "pound shop fascist" in the body and there is a reference to "fascist fashion"
 * the independent calls them fascist in the title and refer to the Sun and Daily Mail articles which call them fascist. It call the a far-right group in the body.
 * To me these are all week sources. References are all basically the writer or copyeditor assigning the label, basically name calling. No attempt is made to backup this label, yes the group does attack Muslims and use some paramilitary styles, but that is along way from real fascism.
 * The other problem is these are all very dated sources, all from 2014. If we look at other later articles by the same publications Far-Right seems to be the more common label.
 * Basically we have a strong case of WP:UNDUE we have cherry picked three four year old sources which use the term. Most more recent sources uses Far-Right. Even the "anti-facist" Hope Not Hate label them as "Anti-Islam, anti-immigration, nationalist" . Open Democracy has spent considerable time to state that "Britain first is not Fascist". instead they call them "…but they are Islamophobes and xenophobes". Its worth noting that BF are currently campaigning to have the term lifted from this wiki. --Salix alba (talk): 19:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. If the campaign to alter wiki becomes notable and verifiable then it might be worth mentioning!
 * Paraphrasing here: "Adopting a paramilitary stance and attacking Muslims is a long way from real fascism" - I'm going to let someone else take that one.
 * The BBC source I mentioned makes a more up-to-date mention of their fascist alignment. Would you like to include that? I'll add it for you if you like. Also, I'm sure that many of them have changed immeasurably in the three and a half years or so since those sources were written, but this period of time isn't really what you'd call dated in wiki-terms.
 * Since there's a reasonable amount of sourcing, and the term seems to accurately contextualize their activities, is there some other reason you'd like to see this term altered? Just asking.
 * Edaham (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't object to calling them Fascist somewhere in the article which some analysis of this characterisation. The big problem is using the term in the first sentence of the lead where the majority of sources use the term far-right or islamophobe, that remains WP:UNDUE.
 * The dating does matter as it generally reflects a change in editorial policy its often the first article on the group which use the term. We can see this with the BBC as all the more recent articles use far-right. --Salix alba (talk): 08:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2018
the term British fascist is factually incorrect....a direct opposition to a cult religion does not constitute fascism.

The term cult usually refers to a social group defined by its religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. The term itself is controversial and it has divergent definitions in both popular culture and academia and it also has been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study. 2A02:C7F:742A:9F00:5DB7:68AA:B96C:1121 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See the repeated and extensive discussions on this topic further up the page and in the archive of this talk page. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018
Please change Information Box Address from London to PO Box 35, Donaghadee, Northern Ireland, BT21 0XZ citation https://www.britainfirst.org/contact  Barliner  talk  05:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Not actioned: we currently reference the Electoral Commission - that is a third party source -Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Russian links of Britain First
It is highly likely that Russian president You-Know-Who Putin personally created Britain First to destabilise British democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.209.248 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Links to blanked page. Is this a different Putin?213.205.241.0 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2018 I am donator to wikipedia please make my name public. Wikipedia describe fascism under "fascism" and enter such a name in the content of "Britain First". This is absolutely a criminal error and must be changed. ==

173.252.6.89 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Not actioned: and don't threaten please. See the discussion above in respect of this issue. If you are a donor or not is irrelevant and you have edited under an IP address not your name. Everything is wikipedia is public -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The accusation of threat should be withdrawn and an apology made. No threat was ever made and I've checked the page history too.213.205.241.0 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "This is absolutely a criminal error and must be changed" is an implied legal threat, and Wikipedia doesn't allow legal threats to be made through article talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

New material for page
' Britain First is in the process of instructing our legal representatives to take action against Wikipedia.' From Britain First site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.194 (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove embarrassing 'fascist' description.
Re the claim that Britain First is "a fascist party", which makes The Wikipedia look silly.

Checking this quaint term:

"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed." (Cambridge English Dictionary.)

Apart from, possibly being proud of their country, which is normal, not fascist, none of this applies to Britain First.Jylinn (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"Definition of fascism: a political philosopy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, forcible suppression of opposition

1: a tendency toward or actual exercising of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

Definition of fascism in the English Language Learners Dictionary: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

very harsh control or authority "

Kids Definition of fascism: a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted."

(Merriam-Webster.)

None of which applies to Britain First.Jylinn (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"Fascism is a set of right-wing political beliefs that includes strong control of society and the economy by the state, a powerful role for the armed forces, and the stopping of political opposition." (Collins English Dictionary.)

None of which applies to Britain First.Jylinn (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"a very right-wing political system in which the government is very powerful and controls the society and the economy completely, not allowing any opposition. Fascism was practised in Italy and Germany in the 1930s and 40s." (Macmillan Dictionary.)

None of which applies to Britain First.Jylinn (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the issue here is whether the party believes in, or has associations with, a wider political end-point which is itself fascist. If BF members are themselves extremely proud of their country and race, that is not fascist in and of itself. HOWEVER, the end point of that view could be that only people from a certain race should live in a particular country, and if that can be shown to be the majority or leading view within BF, then it could be surmised that fascism has somewhat of a flavour within the party. I don't want to land either side of this debate if I can help it, but I am keen to make clear that we are talking about a political viewpoint which is, shall we say, associated with certain elements who might be associated with BF support or supporters, and that's why the label is so often attached? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting - a quick Google shows a lot of what we'd call reliable sources calling Britain First a "a fascist party", but also turns up articles such as Mythbusting Britain First - 5 things you need to know (blog? stating it is not "a fascist party") and Britain First Is Campaigning to Change a Wiki Entry Calling it 'Fascist' (Vice News) - one thing everyone can agree on is that they are a xenophobic and Islamophobic party - TNT User talk:There'sNoTime


 * We got the message the first time, thank you I'm not sure repeatedly posting dictionary definitions is going to help here - TNT 💖 20:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Policy says that we should not take a dictionary definition and determine what meets it, but should present the conclusions determined by experts. Wikipedia articles merely reflect what one would expect to find in mainstream academic sources and news media. You really have to make the argument with them before changing the article. TFD (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Far right or right-wing?
Various newspapers including "The Daily Telegraph" and "The Daily Mail" describe the party as right-wing. (86.158.167.87 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC))
 * They're not reliable. The telegraph is WP:PARTISAN and the mail has been altogether depreciated. &#91;Username Needed&#93; 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph is regarded as reliable. They may have Tory opinions but they are fairly straight with the facts and in separating the facts from their Tory opinions. (The Mail is far less so, hence our deprecation of it.) The point that should be made is that "right wing" includes the far right. If we have good references that say "far right", then any other references merely saying "right wing" do not contradict or undermine that description at all. Those sources may have opted for vagueness but we should use the most specific correct description that we have good references for, which is "far right". "right wing" is correct but it is also excessively vague. It doesn't say which type of right wing it is. Also, we do nobody any favours (apart from the far right themselves) if we conflate the far right with the ordinary, conservative right. Let's not do that. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Emeraude (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook ban lifted
According to the Independent today Facebook has lifted the ban on Britain First creating a new page and has been criticised for allowing Britain First to run paid articles on the site, not sure if its worth making a referance to this in the article? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facebook-britain-first-page-far-right-advert-paul-golding-adverts-a8828386.html <b style="color: Blue">C. 22468</b> Talk to me  05:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they have put references to Britain First and Tommy Robinson being banned from Facebook and Twitter.86.187.165.253 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the article a bit different. Its not that a ban has been explicitly lifted, more that pages created and adverts displayed on FB. It could easily be the case that they slipped though the net. The article is written in the past tense, indicating the paged had existed. Looking now I can't find the "authentic Paul Golding" page mentioned in the article. --Salix alba (talk): 00:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Salix alba is correct here. If they had been deliberately unbanned as a matter of policy, particularly at this time, then I would have expected this to have kicked up an almighty stink in the UK media. I have heard nothing. If the pages are gone now then I think this corroborates it. As Wikipedia itself knows only too well, just because somebody is banned that does not always mean that they go away quietly. I see no reason to mention this in the article unless additional information emerges but there is no harm in keeping an eye out for any further developments that might change this. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

lead
et al.

Going as with the style of most articles for political parties in the UK, especially the major ones, I propose swapping out the charged term "fascist" in the lead sentence with "far-right" to firstly avoid confusion in terminology and secondly to remove any political bias. My reasoning is that the term "fascist" to the lay person has a very broad meaning, as opposed to "far right-wing, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation" with which this places defines it as. Our sister project, Wiktionary, defines a third meaning to fascist as Unfairly oppressive or needlessly strict. and the entry on fascism gives (by extension) Any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting, and/or violence against largely unarmed populations. Whilst not dispelling said sources given for such, it is rather clear that the use of the term is far more common as a form of degradation for political opponents either because they come across of authoritarian, rule-breaking or even violent, but also largely for opponents who an individual simply does not agree with. Wikipedia has an article for this use (see Fascist (insult)) which states in the lead As early as 1944, British writer George Orwell commented that following its widespread use in the European press "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless" due to its non-specific use detached from its original political associations. As early as 1944, the widespread usage of the term is pretty far from Gentile's own writings which I must therefore conclude that the way it is used in the lead here hints towards bias and potentially degradation of said subject and should be changed, whilst of course maintaining the integrity of the descriptor and its refs. UaMaol (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Britain First have their headquarters in England so they are probably a "legal person" covered by English law. Calling a right wing person a Fascist is as insult frequently used by left wingers. Britain went to war with Fascist countries in 1939 and interned members of the Fascist Party. Fascist people are barred from working for the UK Government Security_vetting_in_the_United_Kingdom and Fascist organisations are subject to hostile police surveillance. Consequently a false alligation of being a Fascist can do enormous damage to an organisation's reputation. Simply quoting a newspaper article is not sufficient to prove the insult is true to an English court. Changes to the article removing the word Fascist been reverted more than once so use of the word is definitely not accidental. British libel law is covered by this article English_defamation_law. Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI, pings only work if they are added in the same edit as a signature.
 * The claim that "fascist" has a more broad meaning than "far-right" doesn't make any sense to me. We are not interested in WP:OR about the definition of the term, we are interested in WP:RS. Regardless, the term is widely discussed by political scientists, and being unflattering doesn't make something untrue.
 * As for libel, See No legal threats, which you have already been warned about. If you, personally, intend to bring legal action, you should not be discussing it on this or any Wikipedia talk page. If, instead, this was merely a concern, it was also obviously intended to have a chilling effect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we are interested in accuracy, not in helping a fringe political party with its public relations problems. We are also not particularly interested in back-seat lawyer. If you are a legal professional, you already know that this isn't the appropriate format to give legal advice, but even if you are, this is just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH intended to support a specific preference. We are interested in policy-based suggestions for how to improve the article, not vague legal speculation in a backdoor attempt to make an article more flattering. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Whilst the individual has been banned indefinitely for alleged legal threats for simply mentioning the potential libellious use of the term, I must make the point that being a "fascist" in any definition of the term, nor being called one, will most definitely not bar you from working for the UK government. I am well aware of how vetting works. That Wiki article makes no mention to the term "fascist" but I have to say that thoughtcrime is unconstitutional and therefore illegal in the UK. The only restrictions regarding such is membership of racist and/or extremist organisations, but this could potentially be extended to any organisation regardless of whether or not they are politcal. Those with Security Clearance have a public duty to not compromise themselves, their job, their colleagues, their organisation and their government. Why on earth you chose to bring this up is beyond me however as this most certainly is not the place for it. UaMaol (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

We have had this discussion numerous times before on this page. I think far right is a better term to use. Only a few of the older sources use the fascist term and more recent sources use far-right or ultra-nationalist. Some recent articles So 3 out of 4 sources use Far-Right and the 4th source is the Morning Star not really what I would call a reliable source. --Salix alba (talk): 22:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Far right Britain First patrolling beaches to 'catch migrants crossing Channel' Mirror 19 Sept 2019
 * Far-right Britain First vigilantes pelted with rocks before mounting patrols on cliffs of Dover, Independent 20 Sept 2019 [ https://uk.news.yahoo.com/far-britain-first-vigilantes-pelted-123527932.html]
 * Anti-racists outraged by fascist group's migrant hunt Morning Star, 19 Sept 2019
 * The Home Office has said people “must not take direct action” against migrants, after a far-right group threatened to “intercept and deter” any crossing the Channel to the UK. Press Association 20 Sept 2019

The current lede accurately uses the term "fascist" as found in sources and also notes the "far right" label. That should keep (almost) everyone happy. They're both.  Volunteer Marek  05:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources are old and outdated. The three sources was from 2014, when the group first started making news and the various publications had not established their editorial policies on the group. Now papers are a little more careful. Take the Independant which has a topic devoted to the group . In it, it uses the term Far-Right 14 times and Fascist no times. I've struck the Indipendent source as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to one dated article. --Salix alba (talk): 06:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise the politics.co.uk source is outdated. This article by the same author, Adam Bienkov, changes the characterization to "Far right extremists Britain First ...". --Salix alba (talk): 06:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As a political party, it is now "defunct", and 'fascist' is specifically political. If a source was reliable when the party was active, it's should still be reliable now, usually. While more recent sources might be generally preferable, this seems like a double-edged sword, because, for one thing, newer sources can safely presume that their audience is more familiar with the topic. We cannot make that assumption, so we will need to evaluate these sources on their own merits. Grayfell (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is very little merit in the sources which do use the fascist term. Essentially they amount to name-calling by a journalist. They provide no justification as to the use of the term. The only serious article which really tried to analyze the appropriate label is the Open Democracy one which concludes they are not fascist.
 * Looking through the telegraph, which is a bit harder as its paywalled. It seems they to tend to use far-right now.
 * I don't object to facist being used somewhere in the article. But it should not be on the first line where all major source routinely use the far-right label. --Salix alba (talk): 08:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the second time that Andrew Swallow has made what could be considered a legal threat - this one is clearly meant to be chilling even if he doesn't say he intends to take legal action and I blocked him. He's appealed but the appeal was rejected. Doug Weller  talk 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on use of the term Fascist as opposed to Far Right
Should the first term used to describe the group be changed from Fascist to Far-Right? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC). --Salix alba (talk): 13:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Case for using Far Right

Arguments for using the Fascist term rely on three references. these references are all dated, going back to 2014. They are also contradicted by more recent references from the same publications which routinely use the term Far Right. For the first reference, the same author has now used the "Far Right" term for the second two we can look at numerous more recent articles by the same publications. The independent has a topic devoted to the group and used the Far-Right term 14 times and Fascist not at all. The Telegraph also has a topic on Britain First There the majority of recent articles, use Far-Right. There is one which uses Fascist but in that case the person in question is also a member of the British Fascist Party. We can go to other major news sources like the Guardian Or the BBC it Far-Right again. So any detailed look at the recent reliable news sources will consistently use the Far Right label. In fact the only recent source I've found is the somewhat less than reliable Morning Star
 * (web archive)

If we actually look at the sources which do use the term its generally in a pejorative manner like the Morning Star. The telegraph reference calls the "You may not have heard of the pound-shop fascists of Britain First. They are, in many ways pathetic losers of the Oswald Mosely type...". Clearly just a commentator name calling. The Independent ref actually calls them Far Right and reports on the Sun and Mail using Fascist terms. (The Dail Mail is not regarded as a reliable source and The Sun?). The politics.co.uk article just uses the term in the title and Far Right in the body.

There is little in the way of real analysis in those citations. There are some more thoughtful articles. Open Democracy devotes a couple of paragraphs to why they are not fascist, and another couple to why they are Islamophobes and xenophobes. Perhaps the strongest source for the Fascist label is The Nation a US progressive magazine, linking the group back through the BNP and then to National Front who were Fascist. Specialist Anti-Fascist organizations are more nuanced in their descriptions. Hope not Hate describes their ideology as "Anti-Islam, anti-immigration, nationalist"

Looking at wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch - Contentious labels applies here.
 * "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

Fascist is value-laden, Far Right less so. The phrase used widely in reliable sources is Far Right.

WP:BLP may well apply here. The organizers are all living people.

There is an interesting BBC Magazine article [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8316271.stm What is a fascist? ].
 * "Broadly speaking, in political discourse, it is a "boo word", a term used more for purposes of condemnation than precise categorization. The Nazis were bad, and in this view their ideology was fundamentally linked to fascism, meaning that fascism is fundamentally bad."

Most of the sources use the term this pejorative "boo word" sense. Sources which attempt a more precise categorization use other, more nuanced, descriptions.

To sum up. The majority of reliable sources use "Far Right". Those sources which use the "Facist" term, have multiple more recent article using "Far Right". When the term Fascist is used it is often cheep name calling. --Salix alba (talk): 13:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Far right seems like the far better sourced, more accurate and less inflammatory term. So "they are far right ... they have been called fascist" or something. Vashti (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed far right is more of an unbiased term than "fascist". Using the term in the lead creates a totally biased tone to the article in violation of Wikipedia policies.  Having a paragraph in the body of the article which describes that the group has been characterized by some news articles as fascist and providing some quotes would fix the problem in my opinion. Sf46 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Fascist" reeks of opinion whereas "Far Right" would be both accurate & non-judgemental in tone, hence the greater tendency to use the latter term. Gwladys24 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No. "Far right" is vague. "Fascist" is specific (and, in this case, accurate). Emeraude (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you give any justification for why this might be an acurate term, and not just one used in a pejorative sense?--Salix alba (talk): 22:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fascist is a subjective term. What one might consider fascist, another would not.  Using "far right" would be a more objective way to present the material in a non-biased way. Sf46 (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, "Far Right" is too broad a term and the origins and nature of this group are clear -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 06:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the term is used more frequently. It is broader, but less ambiguous. I prefer to reserve the word fascist for the interwar parties that self-identified as fascist, and there are far right groups such as the KKK which do not have their origins in fascism but can be seen as in the same ideological family. TFD (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Far right on several levels is better: Appears to be better sourced; "Fascist" is not a clear, definable term or, rather, it can be defined too many differing ways to be fully useful; it is far more pejorative and frequently used that way ~ Broadly speaking, in political discourse, it is a "boo word", a term used more for purposes of condemnation than precise categorisation. The Nazis were bad, and in this view their ideology was fundamentally linked to fascism, meaning that fascism is fundamentally bad from the BBC ~ and WP's voice shouldn't be passing judgement.  Happy days, LindsayHello 07:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's exactly what you mean, that WP should not say that fascism is bad. Should WP be neutral on this? But your key point does not hold up. Yes, "fascist" is used as a "boo word" or perjoratively in some circles, but this is an encyclopaedia which uses vocabulary in precise ways. It is not defined here in "too many differing ways to be fully useful" but in a precise sense as understood by political scientists and reliable sources. As I said above, and have others, "far right" is altogether too vague and lumps BF with UKIP and countless other groups/parties from which it is clearly distinguishable. Emeraude (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, i'm sorry i was unclear; i intended to imply that in labelling any group as Fascist we would be making a judgement about that group, not about Fascism. As to your second point, i disagree that it is always possible to use some words "in a precise sense as understood by political scientists and reliable sources"; apart from anything else, the RSs don't always agree on the meaning and, also, we are not writing for political scientists but for the general public, so it is perhaps helpful to use their language ~ i'm reminded of Genesis Creation narrative, where it has become necessary to actually define the word "myth" in a note to the first sentence of the article, because it is used in a different by so many readers. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course we shouldn't write in the language of the general public, or else I would have to agree with what someone once said to me in the pub: "Margaret Thatcher is a fascist bastard." I pointed out that while he was wrong on both counts, but she was definitely not very nice. The point is always that precision is possible and achievable, but lumping BF and Thatcher together is what you get if use "far right". Emeraude (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Stick with fascist because of the many sources describing them as such. GQ magazine calls them "feeble fascist criminals", Politics.co.uk says Britain First represents "the violent new face of British fascism", British Labour Party MP David Lammy tweeted that Britain First is "a fascist, racist, extremist hate group", the Independent calls them "neo-fascist" and the Nation magazine says "Britain First is and always has been deeply fascist in inclination and action." Even this source that says BF is not fascist admits that "Many people have been quick to associate Britain First with fascism." Chris Allen wrote in 2014 in the scholarly journal The Political Quarterly that BF has "filled the void" left behind by the waning of the fascist far-right British National Party and the fascist hooligan English Defence League, although the BF is "more confrontational and militaristic" than either of its fascist forebears. In the Routledge textbook Anti-Islamic Protest in the UK: Policy Responses to the Far Right, William Allchorn analyses BF through the lens of radical far-right politics to conclude that BF's direct action violence against Islamic targets is racist in exactly the way that they deny. Allchorn points out that anti-fascist street tactics have been used to counter BF. I don't see why we should turn our backs on these sources to ignore their labelling and analysis. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have trouble with the argument that headlines that are clearly meant to be alarmist click bait should be justification for labeling an entire political movement. Specific content of the source should be used before a headline designed to move units.  I despise BF, so I don't think it's right for me to comment directly, but sensational headlines should never be considered a reliable source. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

far right per better sourcing and WP:LABEL. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll support far-right as the first term, but we need to mention that they are described as fascist. I agree that headlines (any headlines) shouldn't be used as sources, so that rules out GQ and Politics.co.uk, but when even the Telegraph calls them fascist.... Doug Weller  talk 12:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ↑This. Fine to use fascist if we're reporting how they are described; not fine to use it if we are defining them that way.  That's what i was aiming for further up the page; my thanks to  for being better with words than i. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Far-Right I am not sure how I missed this before and am surprised I wasn't pinged in, but here is my point as per the discussion I started which promoted this RfC:
 * "Going as with the style of most articles for political parties in the UK, especially the major ones, I propose swapping out the charged term "fascist" in the lead sentence with "far-right" to firstly avoid confusion in terminology and secondly to remove any political bias. My reasoning is that the term "fascist" to the lay person has a very broad meaning, as opposed to "far right-wing, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation" with which this places defines it as. Our sister project, Wiktionary, defines a third meaning to fascist as Unfairly oppressive or needlessly strict. and the entry on fascism gives (by extension) Any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting, and/or violence against largely unarmed populations. Whilst not dispelling said sources given for such, it is rather clear that the use of the term is far more common as a form of degradation for political opponents either because they come across of authoritarian, rule-breaking or even violent, but also largely for opponents who an individual simply does not agree with. Wikipedia has an article for this use (see Fascist (insult)) which states in the lead As early as 1944, British writer George Orwell commented that following its widespread use in the European press "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless" due to its non-specific use detached from its original political associations. As early as 1944, the widespread usage of the term is pretty far from Gentile's own writings which I must therefore conclude that the way it is used in the lead here hints towards bias and potentially degradation of said subject and should be changed, whilst of course maintaining the integrity of the descriptor and its refs."

UaMaol (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Both Using both terms wouldn't be too hard, especially if you put an explanatory note with the fascist term to give it context. RockingGeo (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Both but if a choice fascist - far right is far to broad a term -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Both. I don't think it matters too much which term is used in the very first sentence but both terms need to feature prominently in the first paragraph of the lead. I think the first paragraph is basically OK as it is. The second sentence is a little clunky but that is merely a style issue. The content is fine. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Far-right and Qualified fascist - Per Vashti; we ought to say something like "a far-right group that many sources have labelled fascist". NickCT (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Far-right - Per Jimjammcjames; far right is much easier to verify and support, as even Britain First would agree that they are very right wing. Fascist is much harder to verify and could bring into question the impartiality of the article if not cited carefully. Jimjammcjames (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2019 (ETC)

Britain First was a political party in the UK... Deregistered 2nd November 2017...

Unfortunately, the source does not say was. It says that BF is deregistered, not that it doesn't exist or is not a political party. There is no legal requirement for a party to be registered unless it wants to contest elections. Emeraude (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Jayda Fransen
There are indications that Fransen had stepped down as deputy leader and left Britain First by January 2019. Here is a separate story from May 2019 reporting that Fransen and Golding were in dispute. The article describes Fransen as Golding's "former deputy".

Fransen's comments from September 2019 do not represent the views of Britain First, since she was not spokesperson for the organisation or in any way affiliated with the organisation by that time. --Hazhk (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That all looks a bit tenuous and there is too much a history of far right parties creating factional disputes and claiming no responsibility etc. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 09:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the article that references the comment names her as "former deputy leader of Britain First" --Hazhk (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first quote is only 'reportedly' and not from a mainline source, the second is irrelevant as it doesn't state that she has no official role. The Vice quote might establish something but it would be good to have something more substantial - it might be that we can then add "former" to the text -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 09:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Vice story is the reference within the article that is used to support the paragraph I removed. I agree that it would be good to have a source that is more substantial. Of course Fransen should, at least, be referred to as the "former deputy". I find it bizarre that the comments of a former deputy leader should be given a prominent position and presented as the position of the party. --Hazhk (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't find it remotely bizarre especially given her role in the 'party'. If there is a more substantial source we can return to this -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 10:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Her former role you mean. If the paragraph is not removed then she ought to be referred to as "former deputy leader", as the source states. --Hazhk (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You stated, "Regardless of Fransen's current allegiances, that was the position at the time." I assume that you misread my edit summary or were confused about the dates (January 2019 is before September 2019). Her "position at the time" was former deputy leader. Please would you revert your revision or insert the word former. I'm unhappy that you also reverted some other changes that I made to the section, such as my removal of the second link to Paul Golding. --Hazhk (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite right - I entirely misread the dates. Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you make the change? --Hazhk (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020
Britain First is not being correctly represented and, as the Conservative candidate for Ashfield and having investigated them, I wish to correct this. They are no longer a fascist group and are not anti-Islam, they are anti extremist Islam. Loveabele (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "the Conservative candidate for Ashfield": I don't see why the Tories would have a candidate for Ashfield when the current MP there is already one... In any case, whoever you are, Wikipedia policy on original research means that this cannot be changed unless it is discussed in reliable sources, i.e. I can't quite take your word for it unless you find sources, such as the BBC, The Guardian, or others, which explicitly say this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  23:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020
They are not a fascist organisation. Can you remove this please 82.28.151.84 (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The fascist label is supported by numerous sources. No change should be made. —  Richard  BB  09:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are reliable sources which support this description. Jack Frost (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020
Fascism is a style of government and Britain First do not advocate a facist government to take control in Britain. 82.28.151.84 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources say that they are fascist so we follow that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020
Fascism is not a type of government that Paul Golding is asking for in the UK. So why are you describing them as fascist? Paul believes in democracy but fascists do not. He does not want the government to be a fascist one. CKD Cjabingham1973bbuk (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As above. There are ample reliable secondary sources describing them as fascist, so that is how they are described. Jack Frost (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

showing. Fascism is an ideology in which the government is headed by a dictator and run by a combination of politicians and large corporations. Ordinary people can only take part in politics by joining the Fascist Party, and it is their employer who takes part in government. It is a copy of the way things ran in Imperial Rome with an emperor, and a government consisting of the Senators - the heads of what we would now call Mafia families - and the Knights, who were actually the businessmen and bankers. When Mussolini took over Italy there was no "common foe"; he just wanted an empire Cjabingham1973bbuk (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually there is not "ample reliable secondary sources". There are a few dated sources, which use the term as a pejorative manor, with little backing. Reliable secondary sources most frequently refer to them as Far Right. See for example the first two which came up in searches.|independent May 2020, |Mail Sept 2019. --Salix alba (talk): 11:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , we have three separate sources which refer to fascism. They may be dated, and somewhat less neutral than I would like; however the sourcing is ample enough in my view to support the description. A point of view in which I do not appear to be alone, looking at the archives. Jack Frost (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the archive.[Talk:Britain First/Archive 2#Far right or right-wing?] These are rubbish sources. Dated, all publications now regularly use Far Right in their articles. Indeed the author of the poltics.co.uk article published subsequent articles with the Far Right label. Further there is no rational in the articles for why the term is appropriate, just a headline writer looking for an attention grabbing headline. I've replaced those by the one source with any sort of justification for the term. --Salix alba (talk): 11:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OP blocked after an anti-semitic edit. Doug Weller  talk 10:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with you. "Fascist" is incredibly vague, as shown by my lengthy post, and is a charged term. "Far-right" is a far more generic and neutral term, and shown by the sources you shared, widely used to describe BF. It sure is mad how the most interesting thing to talk about on this talk page is the word "fascist" 😂 UaMaol (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "Fascist" is not "incredibly vague". You're correct that "far-right" is a "far more generic and neutral term", which is precisely why it is of no use here - it's totally vague. We use the reliable sources and they are quite specific. Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "We use the reliable sources and they are quite specific." Indeed and virtually all use the term "Far right". --Salix alba (talk): 12:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No they don't, but make your mind up. Is it (to quote you) "virtually all" or "all publications now" or "most frequently"? Emeraude (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We can verify this. Just check, the title of the articles cited here. 3 uses Fascist, 19 use Far-Right. --Salix alba (talk): 14:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? Emeraude (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because, the vast majority of reliable sources, including almost all recent sources, use the term Far Right rather than Fascist. It becomes a question of undue weight about using the term Fascist in the header. --Salix alba (talk): 15:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. So to "virtually all" or "all publications now" or "most frequently" you are now adding "vast majority"! Emeraude (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Far right" does not in any way contradict "Fascist". It is just people opting to use a broader term. If we have sufficient valid sources for "Fascist" then we can use it and the number of other sources that say "far right" do not count against that because there is no contradiction there. Only if we lack sufficient valid sources for "Fascist" should we avoid it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of these three sources, one of them now results in a 404 error, one of them only quotes a description of them as being fascists instead of actually making the claim themselves, and the third one does not actually link the party to fascism in any political or empirical way, other than pejorative accusations and cosmetic resemblance. Ghhyrd (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with appropriate references to claims of Fascism in the body of the article, or even somewhere lower in the lead. It is dealt with in quite a balanced way in the Policies section. Its just the use of the term in the very first line, which is why there have been so many requests for the term to be removed (about 12 to date). Dates of sources matter as well, fascist sources stem from early day when they were using paramilitary uniforms. Now the group has morphed into a more clearly anti-islamic, anti-immigration group. To be pedantic the very first line is wrong to use British Fascist and sources just use Fascist. --Salix alba (talk): 16:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then provide reliable sources for the morphing. Becoming "more clearly anti-islamic, anti-immigration" does not make it less fascist. Besides, "using paramilitary uniforms" is not a defining characteristic of fascism either. Emeraude (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There actually plenty of sources which have changed the term used to describe them.


 * Politics.co.uk. One article in 2014 uses Fascist, a subsequent article by the same author in 2015 uses Far-Right. Note the paramilitary imagery in first article has already gone. (Only two articles on whole site mention them).
 * GQ contradicts itself. Headline (often written by subeditor) use Fascist, subtitle Far-Right, body "counter-jihad" street protest organisation. This does document the change in tactics. A few other mention none explicity try to characterise the group.
 * Daily Mail. Far-right: (Aug 2020),  (Spet 2019),  (Feb 2020),  (Nov 2016),  A couple of other don't mention an idiology. (I've taken justthouse appearing on the first page in Google as too many othe article)
 * The Sun. Far-right and British Nationalist: (June 2020), Far-right and British Nationalist (March 2018), Far-Right  (Dec 2017), Far-right  (May 2020)
 * "The group began its confrontational political activities by promoting actions designed to ignite violent responses from the Muslim communities. This tactic has been implemented less often since the departure of their founder Jim Dowson."

So thats all the sources mentioned in the Policies section have changed the term used.
 * New Yorker. 2017 had Fascist, 2020 has a white-nationalist.
 * Politico articles All use "Far-right" and never Fascist. They also occasionally use ultra-nationalist, extremist, anti-immigrant.
 * I can't seem to search The Independent archive, but I know they now regularly uses Far-Right, and they only once used Fascist when they reported on what the Sun said.

Alternatively: you provide a single source dated this year that any newspaper or other organisation still regard them as Fascist. --Salix alba (talk): 18:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not looking into this specific issue but asking why we don't call them white nationalist, which seems obvious and can be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 17:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2021
Dear Wikipedia, I request that you remove the ludicrous reference to Britain First being a "fascist" party. This is simply wildly erroneous and is offensive to our ethnic minority members and activists. Britain First was recently APPROVED by the Electoral Commission as being Equalities Act 2000 compliant. Because of this, we were registered as a legitimate political party. Britain First would never have been registered if we were a "fascist" party. Please take a look at this page that shows many of our ethnic minority activists and members at party events: https://www.britainfirst.org/racism Your sincerely, Paul Golding Leader, Britain First Paulgolding1982 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The Wikipedia article reports what has been stated by multiple reliable, published sources. If those sources are inaccurate, please take this issue up with them so they can correct their reporting, or present independent sources (i.e. not the party's own website) that contradict the existing sources. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 21:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What "reliable" sources are you talking about? 80.47.159.141 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, There are four sources claiming Britain First is "fascist". Two of them are American, which surely cannot count if massively outnumbered by British sources claiming that we are "far right". Of the two UK sources, one of them is only quoting, and not making the claim that Britain First is "fascist". Therefore, there is a single source, from the UK, claiming that Britain First is "fascist". This single source is hugely outnumbered by hundreds of articles claiming that Britain First is "far right". Therefore, surely Britain First is best described as "far right"? Your sincerely, Paul Golding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1A:2B01:8D5E:62E3:DD80:E876 (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Why do you think far-right and fascist are mutually exclusive? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 15:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Slight correction : there are four sources in the article because four is sufficient there and American sources are as valid as British (or any other reliable source). There are more not in the article. Emeraude (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While "2" is in the numbers "Smaller than 4", not all numbers "Smaller than 4" are "2". Ergo, while "Fascism" fits into "Far right-wing ideologies", not all "Far right-wing ideologies" are fascism. Conclusively, while far-right and fascist are not mutually exclusive, it is illogical and inaccurate or misleading to claim that they are identical or interchangeable. Ghhyrd (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No one has said they are interchangeable or identical. But Paul's argument above is that Britain First being labelled as fascist and far-right is some kind of contradiction, which it's not. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 09:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, UKIP has been described as "far right" by the media, but their Wiki page describes them as "Eurosceptic, right-wing populist political party", and not "fascist". We understand fully that Wikipedia is based on REFERENCES from mainstream sources, therefore, surely it would make sense to describe Britain First as "far right" (which makes up around 99% of our day-to-day media references) and not "fascist" which makes up around "0.1% of our day-to-day media references". If the focus is on media references, then the use of the word "fascist" is running counter to this policy. If Wikipedia is based on references from mainstream sources, then it makes no sense to go with the 0.1% instead of the 99%. We are described as "right wing" and "nationalist" FAR MORE than we are "fascist", so why not go with "right wing" or "nationalist"? The use of the word "fascist" runs contrary to your own policies, and it is false information too. If you insist on referencing some of the outlets that call us "fascist", then surely a sentence within the page that runs like "Some media sources have claimed that Britain First is fascist" would be more appropriate than a DEFINITIVE statement in the first sentence? Surely the end-goal is truthful information on Wikipedia and not false information? If the UK Electoral Commission has approved Britain First as "Equalities Act 2000" compliant, then surely the word "fascist" shouldn't be used? Your sincerely, Paul Golding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1A:2B01:8D5E:62E3:DD80:E876 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Britain First" is not a fascist group
The organization by itself has declared itself opposed to fascism, since they see it as an "alien and destructive political or religious doctrine" in their statement of principles. The group has officialy complained about this specific article in their official page (https://www.britainfirst.org/wikipedia_describes_britain_first_as_fascist_movement). OpenDemocracy even claims that the group is not "fascist". The sources used to qualify it as fascist seem pretty biased. For example, one of the sources (9) is directly a tweet by David Lammy, an opposition politician. The other two (1 and 10) seem to be also biased and use the term as a pejorative term rather than arguing why is the organization "fascist". The organization could be ultranationalist and even xenophobic, but calling it directly "fascist" it's wrong. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It is fascist and reliable sources say so. What it says is not a reliable source, just as what anyone says about themselves is not a relaible source. Its own history and prehistory and those of its founders and leaders are clear that "fascist" can be accurately applied and is not "pejorative". Emeraude (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Emeraude It is not fascist. While they're nationalist they don't support totalitarism nor revolution, and seem to defend democracy, as it is said in their statement of principles. Yes, nobody claims to be racist nor xenophobic, but when talking about "fascism", you are talking about a whole political philosophy that you should prove the party follows. The party by itself rejects fascism as they don't follow that philosophy, and they seem to sympathize with conservatism more than they do with fascism, as they have promoted  their members to join Conservative (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-far-right-extremists-join-conservatives-support-britain-first-a9252201.html).
 * If that's not sufficent to prove you they are not "fascist", let's check the three sources the article uses to claim that BF is "fascist":
 * [1] Sasha Abramsky's article: The arguments used by it are that BF derivates from BNP and EDL and that the killer of Jo Cox was "a supporter" of BF. While BNP could be fascist (debatible), EDL is not (the Wikipedia article doesn't describe it as one). Even if BF derivates from there that doesn't mean they still mantain the same ideology, and in fact, they have even rejected the "fascist" labeling. About the Jo Cox murderer, what he screamed was "Britain first!" as a slogan, not as the name of the party. The same article about Jo Cox in Wikipedia says that BF rejected any link with the nurderer and in his trial it was stated that his shout was mostly a slogan: "This is for Britain. Britain will always come first." Abramsky's arguments to claim that BF is fascist could be hardly be considered valid, also considering that he's a journalist that is not specialized in fascism.
 * [9] Al Jazeera's article: While the article doesn't claim that BF is fascist, it only reports some tweets claiming about fascism in BF. "The President of the United States is promoting a fascist, racist, extremist hate group whose leaders have been arrested and convicted. " by David Lammy and “Here in the UK, Britain First is (correctly) seen as a neo-Fascist hate group. They are beyond the fringe extremists. Their leaders have been arrested and convicted for inciting hatred, including the horrible racist woman that Trump re-tweeted multiple times.” by Brian Klass. While Klass's claim could be more valid since he's an specialist in politics, those tweets in particular have little to no evidence on those claims. Lammy's sole argument is that they are extremist while Klass says that they are not only extremist, but also convucted for inciting hatred. Extremism by itself is not "fascism" and plenty of ideologies from different parts from the spectrum are also extremist, such as anarchism or communism. Inciting hatred is not "fascism" neither.
 * [10] Another article by Brian Klass: Here, Klass's claims that "Britain First organizes “Christian patrols” and “invades” mosques trying to intimidate those who attend religious services". Fascism is not islamophobia. Mussolini, father of fascism, was pronounced as "Protector of Islam". The fascist party also had a branch called "Muslim Association of the Lictor" for fascist muslims loyal to Italy in Lybia. In theory, neither Mussolini nor Gentile advocated the rejection of Islam or religious liberty.
 * In conclusion, labeling Britain First as "fascist" in this article could be controversial not only because there are already people who oppose they being labeled as that, such as OpenDemocracy or Britain First themselves, but also there seems to be a lack of evidence to prove how is BF exactly fascist. Those claims could fit better in the "policies" section of the article rather than in the introduction or the infobox. Other ideologies such as ultranationalism would fit better in it since the actions of the party seem to be more like that and the movement by itself is more ambiguous. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This same question has come up multiple times as may be seen in Talk:Britain First/Archive 1 and Talk:Britain First/Archive 2. In every case, the yes-they-are-fascist evidence was superior. The cited sources saying "fascist" are still valid today, so I don't think you have traction here. Binksternet (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How are some tweets "valid" as an argument but the political plan is not? You just completely ignored my whole explanation and linked me to "Archives" that also got inconclusive. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are inexperienced and aren't expected to always understand our policies. One of the major ones is no original research. Editors cannot use there own analyses to edit an article, and what you are doing is looking at what you think fascism means (mainly by looking at fascism as in WW2 and before) and using that as an argument. And you are suggesting other ideologies without any sources. Doug Weller  talk 09:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Update or unlock
If you're going to lock this page down, you need to update the 2023 election results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.206.39 (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Which page is it that you think is locked down? It's semi-protected, which means any registered user can edit it. The fact that the 2023 local election result has not yet been updated is not of any significance: no one's got round to it yet or we've got better things to do. It's hardly an earth-shattering delay and as likely as not, the results are not even available yet in an accessible reliable source. Emeraude (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)