The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
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. donnellanDonnellan0007 (talk) 08:54, 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. — Czello12:25, 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]
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 Brian Klaas describing them "as a far-right, ultranationalist, neo-fascist hate group." I would put more weight on the Klaas one as he is an academic. The term 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]
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."
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]
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.
"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]
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."
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 @Czello. He doesn't even wants to reply you for a reason. Alejandro Basombrio (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. — Czello08:33, 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. Alejandro Basombrio (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]
This article contradicts Wikipedia's own article on fascism. Fascism is a form of government with an established definition in political science. Britain First has never advocated establishing a fascist government in the United Kingdom. For example, fascism is characterized by a government having a dictatorial leader, but Britain First has never advocated installing a dictator to rule the UK. On the contrary, the party strongly supports the United Kingdom's constitutional monarchy, and is loyal to the reigning monarch.
Someone calling a political party "fascist" as an epithet does not actually make that party fascist. This article is therefore inaccurate, biased, and not written from a neutral point of view, which violates Wikipedia guidelines. Martin.Glynn (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, we do not try to see whether a political group has checked all the fascism boxes before we say they are fascist. The many WP:SECONDARY sources define the topic; the media are the ones who we rely on to assess whether the group is fascist. But to your point, BF operate a paramilitary group with uniforms,[2] and they foment street violence, so these aspects are definitely present. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheologyAnswers is CU blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure on reading a lot of their stuff they are Fascist and as for uniformed paramilitary that’s not true and is illegal in the uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.95.101 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2024 (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]
Pride and nationalism does not equal racism. Not that I support the party, but claiming they are racists simply because they, as a british nationalist party, don't mention any other countries or ethnicities is quite unfair. 145.40.189.56 (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biased description of Britain First. Merely by reading the Wikipedia Definitions for right wing and fascist it is obvious that Britain First is neither.
Whoever wrote the introduction would seem to bne somebody who hates what BF stabds for, Freedom of Speech. PaulFWhite (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really edit Wikipedia twice in 2013, vanish for 11 years, and then come back just to spout nonsense at us? Anyway, you are advocating for original research based on your own interpretation of the topic and we can't do that. We have to write the article based on what reliable sources say and, if you check out the references on the article, you will see that the reliable sources support the description we use. DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
