Talk:Liberty GB

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance on the grounds that it informs the public of present and historical details and affairs of a bona fide and currently operating political party. The fact that a political party exists and that the remit (in the sense of that party's mission, ideology or manifesto) of that party covers serious political issues relevant to the constituents addressed by that party is grounds enough for an article addressing this subject matter to not be deleted. 94.193.13.143 (talk) --94.193.13.143 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Far-Right Classification
I am not familiar in detail with this party's position, but I have read their web site, as well as the “Far Right British politics” page. The implication is that this party is anti-semitic, which I believe is unwarranted. If anything, they appear to be anti those who are anti-semitic. So either the description of this party as “far right” needs to change, or the page which describes, with broad brush strokes, the British “far right” as anti-semitic, needs to. It seems to me that in fact it is the “far left” which is anti-Semitic, certainly Stalin and Hitler were, and it is mostly the left today too which is hostile to Jews and Israel.

I would appreciate a debate of this issue. If I receive no responses, I propose to delete the classification of this party as “far right” and leave them unclassified, until such time as this issue is more comprehensively solved.

Tarian.liber (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The "implication" "that this party is anti-semitic" is entirely yours - the article does not state this or even suggest it. Indeed, it does not even mention it. But, in any event, "far right" does not equate with anti-semitic; though it is true to say that British far right groups have tended to be anti-semitic historically, it is by no means essential. If you have seriously read its website, I fail to see how you can not describe Liberty GB as far right; independent reliable sources describe it as far right or fascist. (Interesting, though, that you seem to describe Hitler as "far left" - that's a new one on me.) Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Emeraude

How do you define "far right"? I define "far right" as more or less being a new term for "fascist" or "Nazi"; a phrase that sprung up in, roughly, the last ten years or so (especially to class the EDL and UKip). I presume that it did so because it became a little bit embarrassing to call all new right-wing groups "fascist" or "Nazi" (as Trotskyist and communist groups did and still do). However, some people have said that "far right" and "fascist" aren't synonyms. Yet they've never explained why.

What do you mean, exactly, by "independent reliable sources"? And which sources are you referring to? Even "sources" I support politically I wouldn't class as "independent". So I'm curious as to what you mean by that.

As for Hitler being a socialist (National Socialist), Google it. You will find literally dozens of accounts as to why that might have been the case. I'm surprised you aren't aware of it. Unless "that's a new one on me" was mean rhetorically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't define it. The definition comes from reliable sources. This article refers to Liberty GB as "far right" because that's what the sources say. Ivanvector (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I wasn't asking for a definition of "reliable sources" (or Wiki's own definition), I was asking for Emeraud's definition. Not every contributer to Wiki will be a full-time contributor and therefore an expert on its terms. (Unless you're suggesting that every contributer should be an expert on Wiki usage.) So most people won't carry out Wiki's own definitions around in their heads.

In addition, no one uses terms unless they agree with them, regardless of "reliable sources" (unless they are criticising the term's usage). For example, "reliable sources" may say that "National Socialists aren't socialists" (to refer back to Emeraud) or that "UKip is far right"... Again, which reliable sources and what if some other reliable sources say that Liberty GB or UKip is not "far right"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector is right. We don't define it - we rely on reliable sources. But to take your last point: I very much doubt that any reliable source would describe the Nazis as socialists; several reliable sources do describe UKIP as far-right (see that article's talk page archive for an extended discussion); no reliable source has described Liberty GB as "not far right" (which would be a bit of a nonsensical thing to say anyway - either it's right wing or it's something else, but it can't be not something). Yes, I am aware that some have described Hitler as a socialist, just as some have said that the Nazis did not carry out a holocaust. So what? Google is not a reliable source. As it happens, I am aware of a great deal about far- and extreme-right politics.

As for my definition - that's none of your business, if I may so so, since I don't use my definitions! But I notice that you say that you define "far right" as more or less being a new term for "fascist" or "Nazi". That's your original research. Nazis would be extreme right. You also say the phrase "far right" sprung up in, roughly, the last ten years or so. Sorry, it was in general use when I was studying for a first degree in politics in the late 1960s, and was certainly much older! Emeraude (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Emeraude, The Nazis weren't only socialists - they were national socialists. Perhaps that is what's flummoxing you.

It would probably be best to stop using the term "reliable sources" all the time because it isn't very helpful. (Would you quote any reliable sources which you didn't agree with?)

Did I say that a definition of Liberty GB would include "not far right"? Yes, it's may be right wing - though not "far right".

"Google is not a reliable source"? What does that mean? Google also cites many articles which say that the Nazis weren't socialists. So I don't understand what you're point is.

I may not have expressed myself very well about the usage of the word "far right". I never meant to say that that phrase was never used before around ten years ago. I simply meant to say that it became common usage at that time - for example, in national and regional newspapers. I'm pretty sure some people would have used the phrase in the 1960s, though that was not my point.

I also suggest that we could do without the emotional and aggressive language because what usually happens is that other people start using it too. Isn't that a Wiki policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald sniff-peters (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum for you to discuss your political opinions or argue about literal word meanings with other editors. Any individual's definition or opinion of reliable is completely, totally irrelevant. The only "definition" that matters is here. One of Wikipedia's core policies is neutral point of view, which means that editors are expected to leave their personal bias out of their contributions to articles. We only include what is stated by the reliable sources, and we give due weight to differing viewpoints based on their prominence in those sources. In this case, the sources say far right, and you or any other reader can find that in the sources for yourself: they're listed under the "references" section in the article. If you disagree with that classification, you very well might be right, but you need to go find the reliable sources that contradict it. We're not going to do your homework for you, and all this back-and-forth about what is and isn't "far right" is not going to prove anything with regard to article content.
 * We don't expect all contributors to be experts on our policies and guidelines, but when informed of them, we do expect editors to abide by them, and generally to have an interest in building an encyclopedia. If you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, this isn't the site for you. Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Eloquently put. Just to clarify: Google is not a source, any more than a library index is a source. Both simply list available resources, but make no judgement on their reliability or otherwise. One can find countless references in Google to the earth being flat - and in a library - but that doesn't mean it is! Emeraude (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The "far right" tag is totally biased and without a shred of evidence. It makes Wikipedia look silly. Get it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.71.122 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * See above. This issue is closed. Emeraude (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

By-election
I added a section on the by-election entry, merely putting the facts. I don't know how much and what specifically to put out of Buckby's...different...speech. It is definitely encyclopedic to put to understand exactly what this party thinks, but I don't know if putting too much of his speech at this moment in time would count as an endorsement if it's not countered by Labour's position. Of course, after the election, what's done is done &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
I understand that there is an ongoing dispute over the "far right". Disputes like this should be handled through the articles talk page, or through Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. Disputes cannot be resolved through edit warring. That just results in the article being unstable as either sides of the dialogue can just revert the other's changes. I have protected the article for one day, but I will extend this if the edit warring recurs. Ground Zero &#124; t 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty GB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161021194612/http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/batley-spen-election-labours-tracy-12057279 to http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/batley-spen-election-labours-tracy-12057279

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Disbandment
Paul Weston has posted a video to YouTube, calling on Liberty GB members to join For Britain and apparently calling for the disbandment of the party he leads. I realise a YT video isn't a WP:RS but I thought it would be acceptable and of value here. Harfarhs (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty GB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503134607/http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/blogs/searchlight-blog/liberty-it-isn%E2%80%99t to http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/blogs/searchlight-blog/liberty-it-isn%E2%80%99t

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)