This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Britain First article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
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. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it fair to call the party Fascist? Authoritarian, sure, but their official policies do claim that they are interested in extending freedom of expression and democracy. Now, of course, these are only their claims, and their actions may contradict this, but I don't think it's fair to label them as fascist. donnellan Donnellan0007 ( talk) 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"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)
TheologyAnswers is CU blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Unproductive thread riddled with trolling. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I agree. This group is not racist they are just patriotic and for the English people. 2.28.90.28 ( talk) 10:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
|
while certain news outlets & sources may call them fascist, they themselves do not claim to be fascists. Additionally, they are not a hate group, they merely wish to see illigal immigrants deported & stop the spread of Islam. While these aren't the best policies, calling them fascist & a hate group is misinformation & when it comes to politics it is key we do not allow misinformation in Wikipedia. RuleBritannia1879 ( talk) 15:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
What if the source/sources are wrong. There are also sources that claim the party aren't fascist yet the ones that do get the benefit of the doubt. The party doesn't meet enough of the ideological tenets of fascism (which most people use as a perjorative) and should be considered radical right-wing instead. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 09:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But it's crucial the sources understand the terms they use, how can you be sure they are applying them properly? What methadology do they use when they get to that conclusion? This is why a greater burden of proof should be based on the claims themself rather than instantly sticking a tag on something. Fascism is a very specific ideology that spans the political spectrum and being rather right-wing or outspoken on something doesn't mean they are fascist. I'd be surprised if they met half the tenets of actual fascism which I'm sure many people do not understand well. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 09:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Well that's the problem because there are countless sources that aren't credible and wikipedia can't determine this but always treat them as such by default. I'd rather use political scientists as sources who understand these issues well then anyone else on this subject. One of the sources used on this page is a progressive magazine which is obviously biased and shouldn't be used as an accurate source. It would be like Fox News calling someone on the center-left a communist. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But why aren't these articles just put on these lists automatically? I think only academic sources should be used on articles like this, because they accurately use these terms for actual ideological components and not perjorative reasons. Journalists using these terms which they most likely couldn't well define or understand past perjoarative use is not credible at all and makes wikipedia a biased website, whether the media leans left or right. Anyhow, enough venting. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But it is a leftist news outlet as I stated before, their bias can't be compatible with accurately diagnosing a political group on the right, as such is this case. I just said this with Fox News but you guys don't seem to realise the left can do the exact same thing if not more. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
They just shouldn't be used at all if they are biased to any degree, only academics. But I guess i'm much more conservative on sources because I see so many abused on this website. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Well I think reliability of a news outlet doesn't mean it's appropriate for them to understand said issue. Almost anyone can be a journalist (especially with the proliferation of the internet) but less people can be academics of history, politics or other fields which have extensive knowledge and understanding of these areas that the former profession does not. The only thing a journalist needs to do is relay information in a colloquial manner for the average person to understand. Anyhow, I'll leave it here becuase this thread is really getting on now. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no proof Britain first is a fascist or racist group 81.103.23.159 ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. —
Czello (
music)
16:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)This content is so out of date and appears mainly to reference the mainstream media narative. 80.229.143.111 ( talk) 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Your point being, presumably, that it is accurate but that BF hasn't done much lately?
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Britain First article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
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. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it fair to call the party Fascist? Authoritarian, sure, but their official policies do claim that they are interested in extending freedom of expression and democracy. Now, of course, these are only their claims, and their actions may contradict this, but I don't think it's fair to label them as fascist. donnellan Donnellan0007 ( talk) 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"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)
TheologyAnswers is CU blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Unproductive thread riddled with trolling. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I agree. This group is not racist they are just patriotic and for the English people. 2.28.90.28 ( talk) 10:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
|
while certain news outlets & sources may call them fascist, they themselves do not claim to be fascists. Additionally, they are not a hate group, they merely wish to see illigal immigrants deported & stop the spread of Islam. While these aren't the best policies, calling them fascist & a hate group is misinformation & when it comes to politics it is key we do not allow misinformation in Wikipedia. RuleBritannia1879 ( talk) 15:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
What if the source/sources are wrong. There are also sources that claim the party aren't fascist yet the ones that do get the benefit of the doubt. The party doesn't meet enough of the ideological tenets of fascism (which most people use as a perjorative) and should be considered radical right-wing instead. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 09:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But it's crucial the sources understand the terms they use, how can you be sure they are applying them properly? What methadology do they use when they get to that conclusion? This is why a greater burden of proof should be based on the claims themself rather than instantly sticking a tag on something. Fascism is a very specific ideology that spans the political spectrum and being rather right-wing or outspoken on something doesn't mean they are fascist. I'd be surprised if they met half the tenets of actual fascism which I'm sure many people do not understand well. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 09:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Well that's the problem because there are countless sources that aren't credible and wikipedia can't determine this but always treat them as such by default. I'd rather use political scientists as sources who understand these issues well then anyone else on this subject. One of the sources used on this page is a progressive magazine which is obviously biased and shouldn't be used as an accurate source. It would be like Fox News calling someone on the center-left a communist. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But why aren't these articles just put on these lists automatically? I think only academic sources should be used on articles like this, because they accurately use these terms for actual ideological components and not perjorative reasons. Journalists using these terms which they most likely couldn't well define or understand past perjoarative use is not credible at all and makes wikipedia a biased website, whether the media leans left or right. Anyhow, enough venting. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But it is a leftist news outlet as I stated before, their bias can't be compatible with accurately diagnosing a political group on the right, as such is this case. I just said this with Fox News but you guys don't seem to realise the left can do the exact same thing if not more. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
They just shouldn't be used at all if they are biased to any degree, only academics. But I guess i'm much more conservative on sources because I see so many abused on this website. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Well I think reliability of a news outlet doesn't mean it's appropriate for them to understand said issue. Almost anyone can be a journalist (especially with the proliferation of the internet) but less people can be academics of history, politics or other fields which have extensive knowledge and understanding of these areas that the former profession does not. The only thing a journalist needs to do is relay information in a colloquial manner for the average person to understand. Anyhow, I'll leave it here becuase this thread is really getting on now. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:FDFF:72F9:1918:5F50 ( talk) 10:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no proof Britain first is a fascist or racist group 81.103.23.159 ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. —
Czello (
music)
16:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)This content is so out of date and appears mainly to reference the mainstream media narative. 80.229.143.111 ( talk) 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Your point being, presumably, that it is accurate but that BF hasn't done much lately?