Talk:For Britain Movement

Far right?? I propose "Centrist Populism"

The archetypal features of a far right party are (according to Wikipedia) some combination of authoritarianism, anti-communism and nativism. I would add to this militarism, and loyalty to the State apparatus.
Wikipedia also continues with: "Right-wing populism, a political ideology that often combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism, is sometimes described as far-right." 3 out of 4 seem to be the case with For Britain.
For Britain seems to be only some of the above: specifically NOT ethnocentric, militaristic, or authoritarian. Those three are key ingredients for "far right". So I contend the designation is wrong for this party. It isn't even close to correct.
The party self-describes as "centrist". How about Centrist Populist?
See this economic manifesto document which describes a nationalist, democratic, small-government, low-tax party, with a focus on small business, manufacturing, a limited welfare state, deregulation, tariffs to protect British businesses, opposition to Islam and mass immigration, and to overseas military engagement not in immediate defence of British interests. Cheesusfreak (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice is to report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources, such as The Times report the party is "far-right". Do you have any sources for "centrist populism"? Regarding Wikipedia's definition of political ideologies per WP:CIRCULAR we can't use Wikipedia articles as sources. AusLondonder (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My source is the party's own Economic manifesto, as linked. Clearly, updating the page will have to wait for a sympathetic hack to get something published in a reliable newspaper. Excuse my cynicism.. Cheesusfreak (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cheesusfreak (cc AusLondonder), please review WP:primary and WP:RS. I do understand your frustration, however, changing the text at this time to "centrist populism" is most likely inappropriate. While primary sources may be used and are useful in some cases, when it comes to the description of political parties, it is preferable to have third-party reliable sourcing as primary sources do have the potential to be less objective than reliable, third party (secondary) sources. In short, it will most likely have to wait until reliable sources cover it (or coverage is unearthed if they already have). If (independent) reliable sources can be produced stating that the party is "centrist populism", then changing the text within the article would be appropriate. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How is "far right" fairly qualified? The opinion of two journalists, contrary both to the self-definition of the party and the actual definition of 'far right' according to its page here at wiki? Their policy is laid out clearly here, it's getting quite exhausting seeing every party with a 'stricter than open borders' policy towards immigration is labeled as far right or fascist just because one or two journalists have said so. Wiki should be objective and neutral, and when dealing with political articles we have to admit the reality of media smears. Even "described by some as far right" would not be unreasonable, but as it stands this is a fragrant betrayal of wikipedia's nominally objective stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.23.78 (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems very fishy to me. From my exchange with what I believe to be one of the wiki admin, it was made very clear that the media is permitted to make any claim they so wish and wiki is obliged to take this as factual information until there is other third party conflicting data that can than request an edit. This is no different than having the same perspective as a guilty until proven innocent, or victorious until proven to lose. So here we have a party who has yet to write a manifesto and who claims not to be far left or far right, with their only current statements being about upholding western democracy and rejecting Sharia Islam (which is right winged). Yet because of controversial stories that have arisen, the media have used the term "far-right" to describe them. I took it upon my self to edit this to be more accurate and state the following... "For Britian" is a new populist party, (or, new political party) of which various media outlets have described as "far-right" ". But this comment was removed and changed back to "a "far-right" party", despite not even having a manifesto and claiming to be neither far left or right. Seeing as these media outlets have no facts at all to prove that "For Britain" have "far-right" polices, it seems they are simply using mainstream media headlines as an analysis on the facts regarding this party. If this is their new method of collecting data then I think people should be made aware that when researching with wiki, one must be careful that you could simply be reading mainstream news bias and headlines. I suppose if anyone was to input that the party are yet to release any manifestos or official party policies, then I would imagine this fact may well be deleted also, assuring that the page is obviously not promoting factual data about this new party. Tunes666 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The sudden influx of IPs and new single purpose accounts seems very fishy to me. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This page is not meant to promote anything, factual or otherwise, see WP:TRUTH. We only put in articles what can be verified in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

I would like you to change:

<For Britain is a far-right[1][2] political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded in October 2017 by anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton.>

to: <For Britain is a new political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded in October 2017 by anti-sharia activist Anne Marie Waters after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton.> 148.252.128.244 (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello 148.252.128.244, do you have a reliable source for this requested change? Please also review the above thread, specifically this bit. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on here, my talk page, or at the Teahouse. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Brian Silvester

Hi AusLondoner — you removed the section on Brian Silvester with the edit summary 'parish councillors are not notable'. I think it's worth including Silvester, as whilst he's not notable, that only means that he doesn't warrant his own article (though not by much, as he received significant local coverage and some national coverage in his previous position as a disgraced borough councillor). It doesn't mean his existence doesn't warrant inclusion in this article, which is instead governed by due weight, and given that he's the only elected politician the party has, he is currently relevant. If the party ever gets principal authority or district council representation then mentioning parish councillors would be pointless. But for now it's worth including. Ralbegen (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have two problems with including. The first is that parish councillors are often elected in non-partisan contests or even unopposed. On Wikipedia we have a long history of ignoring parish councils and councillors. Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, Silvester's defection has not even been mentioned in any reliable secondary sources so it cannot be properly sourced. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Those make sense. Normally it'd be of no value to mention parish councillors, but seeing as the party's entire representation is one parish councillor, I think it's worth mention here. I don't think there'd be an issue with primary sourcing for it, by WP:ABOUTSELF. Ralbegen (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is though - if no reliable sources consider the defection worthy for even a one-line mention is it of sufficient importance for us to include? AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a matter of editorial discretion, and a matter for Talk page consensus. There's not a huge amount of coverage of the party, which makes sense given how new and fringe it is. Personally, I don't have an issue including uncontroversial verifiable facts where there's a clear encyclopaedic reason to do so. I'm interested to know what you, AusLondonder, and other editors think. Ralbegen (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Islam? Or Anti-Muslim?

I have issues with the descriptions this article uses to describe both the For Britain political party as well as its leader, Anne Marie Waters. For example, take this line from the lead:

It was founded in October 2017 by anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election by Henry Bolton.

The infobox also lists its ideology as "Anti-Islam." I don't think the label of "Anti-Islam" or more specifically "critical of Islam" is accurate here because criticizing a religion is not the same thing as advocating laws that affect or discriminate against a religious group. Calling for immigration bans of Muslims (regardless of whether you think they're necessary) affects a religious group. Calling for deportations of Muslims (regardless of whether you think they're necessary) affects a religious group. This goes well beyond basic "criticism of religion." As for WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources, POLITICO reported that Waters holds "anti-Muslim positions," The Times reported that Waters "ran a strongly anti-Muslim campaign," The Huffington Post reported that Waters "focus[ed] on anti-Muslim sentiment," PoliticsHome reported Waters was a "controversial anti-Muslim candidate," talkRADIO labeled Waters an "Islamophobe" in a headline, and The Guardian reported that Waters was "an anti-Muslim activist."

Wikipedia relies on what WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources say, so the fact that the leaders of the party say they're "critical of Islam" and not "Anti-Muslim" is not enough to prevent labeling the party as such. Hamas says they're not antisemitic but that doesn't stop us from labeling them as such on their Wikipedia article page. As a potential compromise, I'm fine with putting both "Anti-Islam" and "Anti-Muslim" in the description. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, reporters use the phrase "anti-Muslim" in place of "anti-Islam". Some of the instances cited are just reports of accusations, such as "accused of being anti-Muslim": a rolling, lazy, rumour mill. But the swap also reflects the identity politics idea that an aspect of personhood must be defining for the person: for instance the accusation she called for "deportations of Muslims" (which is not a quote from the linked article) assumes actions against a person who is criminal and Muslim would necessarily be done because the person is Muslim - in which case the "anti-Muslim" / "anti-Islam" distinction is gone. Therefore, stick with "anti-Islam" since it will satisfy more constituencies. Cheesusfreak (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kamalthebest here. Numerous reliable sources of all political persuasions are reporting this party and its leader are "anti-Muslim" and we should reflect that. It is original research to do otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cheesusfreak: Well, her comment was simply "A lot of people need to be deported" so it's completely ambiguous as to who needs to be deported. However, what's not ambiguous is that she and her party call for bringing Muslim immigration to the UK to near zero (or just outright zero). Regardless of whether or not you think that's justified, you can't say that doesn't affect Muslims "because the person is Muslim." There is no other standard that they would be judged for other than their religion (and I guess where they come from). Kamalthebest (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the use of 'anti-Islam' in the lede comes from the lede in Waters's own article. I added it there on 30 September after looking through as many reliable sources as I could find to see how they referred to Waters, and found that 'anti-Islam activist' was the most common way for reliable sources to refer to her as a primary description. Certainly the links you've given above show that it's reasonable to describe Waters as anti-Muslim, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to be her main description, and I'm not sure that there's enough that points to the party in particular warranting the label.

However, I'm not sure it's best practice to link to 'criticism of Islam' from 'anti-Islam'. Elsewhere on Wikipedia we have Pegida where 'anti-Islam' links to 'Islamophobia'. Amongst Category:Anti-Islam political parties in Europe, where the infobox includes 'anti-Islam' in the ideology there's a mixture of no link, links to 'criticism of Islam', and links to 'Islamophobia'. I would support a move to change the link in the lede to 'Islamophobia' from 'criticism of Islam' and the link in the infobox to 'Islamophobia' from the current disambiguation page. Ralbegen (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That certainly would be original research - that you can discriminate informed from uninformed opposition. Cheesusfreak (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Islam leads to a disambiguation page. It shouldn't be linked to. Ralbegen (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with Ralbegen's compromise of labeling her as an "Anti-Islam activist" but having it link to the Islamophobia article. Would Cheesusfreak and AusLondonder also be okay with this? Kamalthebest (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be. The meaning and use of Islamophobia is a mess - from the Runnymede definition and onwards: conflating feelings and facts, uninformed & informed criticism. I would like to keep the distinction. Cheesusfreak (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we certainly shouldn't link to a disambiguation page and this compromise seems to work best for now. AusLondonder (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be 3:1 in favor of linking to "Islamophobia" so I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the link to 'Islamophobia' on the grounds that it's over-precise. 'Criticism of Islam' (obviously) includes Islamophobia, but the opposite is not true. For more on how a link can point to something over-precise, see the discussion of 'Economic libertarianism' in Talk:UK Independence Party leadership election, 2017. Harfarhs (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Harfarhs: No, "Criticism of Islam" does not include "Islamophobia." Islamophobia is a fear or hatred of Muslims. That is not the same as criticizing a religion. Criticizing religion is also entirely rhetorical. Once you start implements laws that affect certain groups of people, you've moved beyond "criticism." Kamalthebest (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. "Criticism" can be of all types, including unreasonable and extreme. In order to use "islamophobic" to describe the whole party one would need more information than just the views of AMW, even if described in WP:RS. I am making a similar point as earlier made in this thread by User:Cheesusfreak and User:Ralbegen. Please see the discussion I cited. Harfarhs (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

..Assuming, Kamalthebest, that no sober, rational criticism of anything is possible, and action is always done in fear and hate. Cheesusfreak (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to clarify my views for Harfarhs and Cheesusfreak. Whether For Britain and Waters's comments about Islam are "unreasonable and extreme" or "sober, rational criticism" is somewhat irrelevant. The 2017 Oxford English Dictionary defines "criticism" as "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes." If I am instituting a law that affects Muslims as people, that is not criticism. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

..but you think it does have to be phobic????????????????????????????? Cheesusfreak (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Cheesusfreak, but you did not tag me so I had no idea that you had responded. Islamophobia is indeed a portmanteau of "Islam" and "phobia" but that does not mean that Islamophobia only refers to a fear of Islam. Homophobia is a generally accepted phrase but homophobic people are not scared of homosexuality. In the same way, Islamophobia can be used more broadly. Are For Britain's policies motivated by "phobia" or fear of Islam? Maybe? Maybe not? I cannot read their minds but the end result is still the same: they are instituting laws that affects Muslims as people. That's more relevant then their motivations. For Britain has clearly moved beyond "criticism of Islam" because Islam (a religion) and Muslims (a religious group) are not interchangeable. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Big Tent?

I have removed the reference to this being a 'big tent' party as it is likely to be misleading. This is clearly a minority party at present, with an extreme ideology which will only appeal to a narrow stratum of supporters; its founders may aspire to it becoming a 'big tent' but it evidently does not have the canvas required as yet. Given that there is not a single elected representative, and little in the way of a thought-through policy platform beyond anti-Islam activism, it would be fair to term this a single-issue campaign group - but I think minor party comes closer to the neutrality Wikipedia requires.GibbonsDecline&Fall (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)