Talk:Britain First

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Election box metadata[edit]

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

Islamophobia - Ideaology?[edit]

Can "Britain First's" Islamophobia, though undoubtedly existent, be described as ideological? As a point of reference the British National Party has not been given this label in their infobox. Can we not make reference to this tendency elsewhere in the article? Hayek79 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been used in that way in many other articles. Why it's not in the BNP article I don't know, but it's never a good idea to say "article X says..., so therefore article Y should..." - Wikipedia is not always consistent! Emeraude (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, when it can be proven by source it has been added to other articles. It's absence on the British National Party article is the mistake in this case --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, if we are using comparisons, the biggest article example of something like this would be Antisemitism on the Nazi Party article, the contemporary political trendsetter on racist rhetoric and an article that no doubt gets many thousands of hits --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
In any case, it was sourced from a bare-URL ITV story quoting a Labour MP. Due to the nascent nature of the party, we may have to wait a while to get academic papers supporting this as an ideology of the party. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, personally I think the link sustains, but I've been aware of the group for a while and know that they spend almost all of their time berating Islam. I think it is inaccurate to remove it altogether rather than add a citation needed. In fact, I think it is proven by the content of the article ("it campaigns primarily on what it perceives as the Islamification of the United Kingdom"/"Britain First... campaigns against Islam") and doesn't even necessary need a citation. Do you have a problem with it being there? Should we remove all mention of Islam from the article? Why should we improperly report on the group? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Did I say that? Did I remove every mention of Islam from the article? Don't be ridiculous. And why haven't you reported their self-proclaimef "invasions" of mosques if you are so accurate? '''tAD''' (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, I think that should also be added to the article. What I'm saying is, why did you feel the need to remove it outright when there is evidence in article that it is true, rather than just removing what you think is a bad reference? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It was an error, not my POV. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I apologise, in that case I'm going to retract some of my comments earlier. The section had been removed twice before then but I shouldn't have assumed bad faith --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014[edit]

The link to the "about us" page on the britain first website is broken (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed I have replaced the reference with an archived copy of the webpage from December 2013. Thank you for pointing that out! Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Dowson a "hardliner" who rejects non-white members[edit]

According to the two sources quoted on the page that someone just removed, Dowson groped a female activist which led to his expulsion from the BNP in 2010. In Dowson's own words the accusation was part of a "dirt-tricks campaign" to oust him as a party-hardliner who rejected non-white members: "There is a real power struggle between hardliners and people like Nick Griffin who want to open the party to Asians and other groups". However Dowson recently has been criticizing the BNP as neo-nazi and extreme, and trying to present Britain First as moderate in regards to race issues. I presume the person who removed the sourced quote about Dowson being a hardliner rejecting non-whites is someone from Britain First. Akkadish (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Populist photos[edit]

Is there any research into what appears to be a coordinated series of interlinked Facebook campaigns using populist photos and slogans ? It seems to be a new vector for publishing their material and I can't seem to find anything commenting on it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgb62uk (talkcontribs) 08:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the nearest thing I've read to it from a reasonable source: However, there's not really "substance" to what she is saying, and I don't think it would be encyclopedic to say "Jade Wright of the Liverpool Echo stated that Britain First used populist photos showing hanging and D-Day veterans to get likes on Facebook". '''tAD''' (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Full protection for a day[edit]

Please calm down, all! Fully protected for 24 hours. Please hash out your disputes here - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't about edit warring or content disputes, but Uncylopedia-style "satire" being inserted into the article by an IP constantly. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Now the fucking talk page is being vandalised '''tAD''' (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 %-D Policy says: "Talk pages are not usually protected, and are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism." - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
If consensus is to take it back to semi, I have no objection at all - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw the one about "Britian First is a joke", was there any other vandalism? AnarchoGhost (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

See history. An IP repeatedly inserted some sort of meme joke about Britain First being the same as Voldemort. As it was so frequently inserted over and over, this has been interpreted as an "edit war", which would be between two users with coherent content, rather than flagrant vandalism. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
He also vandalised my user space for having the audacity to remove his hackneyed "jokes" from the page


I removed "Paul Gallagher calls the group far-right" from the intro because he is one, non-notable figure in a very brief intro. However, I have no prejudice against inserting "various outlets have called Britain First far-right" and then a trail of citations from different titles afterwards. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Even the Daily Mail calls BF far right...... Good enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have a trail of different sources calling them far right. Please mail your comment back 10 months to when it may have been relevant. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In contrast to nationalist, far-right is subjective, undefined and should be remmoved if only for the fact that it's cited from news media. Here in Canada, for example, media from every political stripe will blanket-label anyone or any organization critical of immigration policies as far-right. Unless an organization defines itself as such, it's baseless, ungrounded weasel-wordism.

Numerous politicians and faith leaders in the UK have referred to Britain First as being on the "far right". Amber Rudd, Home Secretary in the UK, used that terminology in the House of Commons on 30 November as cited here; her comments will also have been summarised in Hansard, a record of parliamentary proceedings which exists equally well in Canada. Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia's own definition of far-right, which it defines as more extreme than nationalist and associates with Nazism. At a bare minimum, if you can make the case that Britain First is far-right, nationalist should be trashed.
Please sign your comments. WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this talk page is not a WP:FORUM. All the descriptions of Britain First in the article are sourced and uncontroversial. The group is far right, Islamophobic, White Nationalist, claims to have Christian values, etc, etc. As one of the recent articles in the Guardian indicates [1], the policies of the group are incoherent. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


Note that Paul Golding is actually the Party Leader, not the Chairman, as per Lcooperuk (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that Lee Cooper and Jim Dowson have both resigned from Britain First and neither occupy any official position. Lee Cooper is no longer the Chairman. (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The so-called "citations" for labelling the group as "fascists" link to opinion pieces by left-wingers - two in newspapers, one on a leftist website. They are no doubt "right of centre", relative to the mainstream media's definition of "centre", but the adjective "fascist" is blatant, over-the-top propaganda, given that opinion polls show that a large percentage of the public consider them to be reasonable. Allowing obvious propaganda with shabby "citations" contributes to wikipedia's increasing lack of credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Another mosque entry[edit]

[2]. All in the name of equality of course. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Added. However, as these become more common, each occurrence will be less notable. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Also added from a HuffPost article, a bit of a faux pas in the publicity department from this event. Article was also useful for analysis of their Facebook figures in a way which is not WP:OR '''tAD''' (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Let's reinstate the sources that say Britain First is fascist and let's use some honesty rather than blindly claiming that something is "biased" or "unreliable" just because you don't like what it says.

Adam Bienkov is a respected journalist, having reported for The Guardian, MSN News, New Statesman, BBC, LBC. His article about BF for is not biased, and neither is To quote from the site: " is the UK's leading political news website among MPs and members of the public. With over 150,000 visitors a month,'s team of journalists produce their stories from deep within the corridors of power in Westminster, where they were the first digital journalists to gain access to the lobby. is an impartial political website with no political affiliation, which prides itself on standing out as an independent voice in a landscape where the norm is to nail your colours to the mast." This source was first deleted becase "Only mention of Fascism is in the title, not developed further" which is totally misleading - the whole article is about the fascism of the party that was identified in the title. It's second deletion was because "Biased source -> Needs multiple more reliable sources". Well, it's not biased, as I've said, but what is meant by a "more reliable" source? Presumably, the source was reliable, but we need something that is more reliable. That is nonsense. Something is reliable or it's not. Besides, Wikipedia does not specify a minimum number of sources, so the "multiple" bit is redundant - one source can be sufficient, and with a minor group like this coverage is notoriously minimal. But, of course, you can only complain that there are not enough sources if the others have already been deleted anyway!

Why was UAF removed as a source? Because "UAF opposes BF so is not a reliable source". Odd reasoning that: Unite Against Fascism opposes fascists, strangely enough, but when it opposes someone, it's not reliable! Why on earth do you think UAF opposes BF????

In addition to this, just look at what they say and do and who they are. It was set up and is led by people with long histories in other fascist groups and specifically to exploit the coming collapse of the BNP (a fascist group!) in which they held leading positions. What has changed to stop them being fascist? Emeraude (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The so-called "citations" for labelling the group as "fascists" link to opinion pieces by left-wingers - two in newspapers, one on a leftist website. They are no doubt "right of centre", relative to the mainstream media's definition of "centre", but the adjective "fascist" is blatant, over-the-top propaganda, given that opinion polls show that a large percentage of the public consider them to be reasonable. Allowing obvious propaganda with shabby "citations" contributes to wikipedia's increasing lack of credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call UAF's view of BF reliable just as UKIP, Daily Mail or BF views of UAF are unlikely to be lucid and nuanced and rightfully are not in UAF's infobox. UAF have also called David Cameron and the Union Jack fascist, which is simply bizarre - Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and Kelly Holmes enveloping themselves in a flag of fascism? We open up a huge can of worms if descriptions by minor political organisations of other minor political organisations is now considered a RS '''tAD''' (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
...And as you told that other user that one source is plenty, I'm confused as to why you added the UAF source, especially as you've just told us how neutral and water-tight reliable the source is! Also, your "leopards don't change spots", however accurate, is WP:OR, and would indicate that UAF would be a communist or Islamist group, as the vandals consistently write. And I'm not a BF member before you ask. I doubt they really even have the notability for a Wikipedia article at all. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not twist my words to make a non-point. I did not say "that one source is plenty"; I said "one source can be sufficient". There's a world of difference and I'm sure you know that. It ill-behoves you to suggest I'm guilty of OR by using OR arguments yourself, but I take your point. Even though we do agree that these leopards haven't changed their spots! Emeraude (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
With due respect, Emeraude, I think tAD is quite right to have dismissed the labelling of any kind when it is based solely on the headline of an article. Even, as you've admitted elsewhere ("Another case of headline writers not reading the article I fear."), is not infallible in creating headlines which reflect the actual facts of a story.'s actual article re Britain First describes the organization as "links to far-right protestant extremism and Northern Irish terrorism", and quotes a source describing them as "the far-right version of al-Muhajiroun, the Islamist group led by Anjem Choudary": so violent religious extremists, rather than fascists, it could be argued. So I certainly back tAD in opposing this as a source for the "fascist" label. If a reliable source explicitly uses that label in the body of its article (rather than in the headline), then certainly there's a case for using that label. Alfietucker (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I take the due respect with a pinch of salt, but the key issue is this: the sloppy headline writing I described elsewhere is exactly that: sloppy. No, actually, it's total crap, as I explained - the headline was totally unsupported by the article that followed and, more importantly, by the academic research it was reporting on. In this case, there is no such contradiction and, indeed, the article supports the headline and vice versa more than adequately. However, it is disingenuous, as you do, to argue one line here and the opposite elsewhere - I risk getting confused (as I'm sure will uninvolved readers). My arguments in these two issues are separate and not contradictory. BF is undoubtedly fascist - no one has denied this, note - and adequately demonstrates this. Emeraude (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Emeraude, just to make this quite clear, my line is consistent (one that I have presented several times before, albeit not necessarily to you): *never* use a headline alone, ever, to support a label or a line of argument in WP. Headlines as a rule are never written by the author of the article, but by a sub, or by the web editor, whose job is first to catch readers' attention: therefore they are - if one is lucky - a partial reflection of what the article actually says. Quite often they are not even that. Alfietucker (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Alfietucker is absolutely correct. Headlines are a dreadful source and can misrepresent the actual article. It's always been the case even on the best publications. (I actually learned this when I was PS to the city editor of the Miami Herald decades ago). Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Everybody in the world, if they want to be honest with ourselves, can see that Britain First's Nationalism + Traditionalism + Confrontationalism is hard to define as anything except Fascism. I think Alfie's point is that sources are needed. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so now we're looking for someone to make a statement of the bleeding obvious. What chance of that? Emeraude (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
How about you look for a statement by the organization itself whether or not it is fascist. Would they not be the most reliable source for that kind of labeling? If someone who disagrees with them politically/ideologically labels them as fascist, can that not be simply interpreted as ad hominem or use of snarl words to discredit them? Lolligag9 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Update needed[edit]

Britain First founder quits,

--Pennine rambler (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. I'm surprised that the vandals haven't indicated it yet. They've been quiet recently. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Beneath heading 'Rotherham' replace "In August 2014, after a report which revealed that over 1,400 girls had been sexually abused in Rotherham" with "In August 2014, after a report which revealed that over 1,400 CHILDREN had been sexually abused in Rotherham". Linking article confirms that children of both genders were sexually abused in Rotherham.

Mikenv (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Replaced '''tAD''' (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversy update[edit]

There are a number of controversial claims aimed at Britain First right now, least not those put forward by This article does not cover any of them. I'm worried that this lack of objectivity may be a result of bias, and could therefore controvenene the neutral point of view policy. I would like to see this material covered, with citation of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

SIGH. Be bold and include them then! What's stopping you? The fact we mention links to militant loyalism, mosque invasions, insensitive slogans shows this is not an unbalanced page. Maybe it's just not biased in your direction methinks? Would help if you would even mention the specifications of such controversies '''tAD''' (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what could be used as a source. But the groups official Facebook page frequently posts content which is untrue. For example there will be an image of a muslim person and a caption saying something to enrage their audience. However the captions and posts they make are very often completely untrue and entirely fiction. The people in the photos completely irrelevant to what they are saying which is rather bad considering that they are posting images of random citizens and claming they have done some number of awful things.
In other words they make use of propaganda to try and anger readers into hating Muslims (or whomever their target is) and to gain support. I think this should be pointed out in this section so that people are aware that just because a group is technically a political party that they are not incapable of misleading people or rather outright lying. --Nikolai508 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's so important, prove it with a reliable source '''tAD''' (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Can it ever be said that a political is "incapable of misleading people or rather outright lying"? That's what they do. Emeraude (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
"Not technically a political party". Did you start writing that post in 2013? '''tAD''' (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sikh members[edit]

@NicklasBaran: added the following

The party now has Hindu and Sikh members and supporters too, and has praised Sikh gurus and historic Hindu warriors like Maharana Pratap.

Neither of the two references support this claim. The first is a 2010 article about the British National Party not Britain First and written before BF was even formed. The second is a general article about Sikhs in the UK and does not mention either party. Whilst the statement may be true is is not supported by the references.--Salix alba (talk): 01:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

POPPY / RBL merchandise[edit]

No mention here of the sale of poppy merchandise on its site, its stalls and its social media sites. There has been on ongoing trademark issue with Royal British Legion. --Pennine rambler (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. If you have reliable information, add it to the article. Emeraude (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail and Mirror[edit]

Why are using tabloids with poor reputations for fact checking and a tendency toward sensationalism for content about BLPs? --NeilN talk to me 19:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

They meet rs standards, although the broadsheets are preferable. TFD (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
And, strictly speaking, this is not a BLP. Emeraude (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
But here's The Independent backing the Mirror. Emeraude (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
BLP applies to all material about living people, regardless of the article subject. As for BLPs and the Daily Mail - [3]. Generally speaking when it comes to BLPs we try to use other sources rather than solely relying on the Daily Mail. --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I know that, but that doesn't make them unreliable and it gives you no right to order their removal. Emeraude (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Guardian Article[edit]

There a relatively detailed Guardian article on the group which goes into its history. It might be worth adding as a reference --Salix alba (talk): 23:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015[edit]

Adding the following to the Nigel Farage section:

A member of Britain First was arrested on suspicion of assault after leader Paul Golding led a group of eight to ten members to invade a meeting held by activists who staged a "Cabaret of Diversity" in Nigel Farage's local pub a week earlier. (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Another editor has written about this incident. Alakzi (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015[edit]

Can I please, please edit this page?

Dcowan2000 (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


I see a lot of people reverting the word "Fascist" and related terms in and out of the article. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate this group has upset a great deal of people (including myself), but looking at the sources involved, I'm not sure is reliable, the Telegraph piece describes them as "pound shop fascists", which sounds tongue in cheek, and The Independent puts "facist" in inverted commas. I suspect this is because the press doesn't take the group particularly seriously, but I think we need a better source for that to make the "fascist" claim in the infobox stick. "Far right wing" might be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At least three reliable sources decribe them as fascist. That's good enough; we rely on sources. Within the article, there is sufficient background detail to make this appropriate. No source of which I am aware describes them as "far right wing", which in any case is so vague as to be almost useless. It's also worth noting that the removal of "fascist" has been done 7 times in less than two days by one editor whose edit summaries exhibit a clear POV issue and who is now blocked. Emeraude (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I know, I blocked them; starting the thread here is not a co-incidence. There is a local news piece that quotes an independent councillor as saying "I saw they were from Britain First which is basically a fascist organisation" while this piece describes them as "far right group Britain First". My take is that the broadsheets are hesitant to talk about Britain First, let alone directly describe them as outright fascists because of fear of giving the group the oxygen of publicity and legitimacy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the term "far right" because that is the term used to describe them in academic writing. "Fascist" normally refers to historic Fascism in Italy and Germany. The term far right is vague because there is not necessarily a shared ideology, history or international connection, yet there is sufficient similarity to identify a political family or group of families. The term far right refers to their perceived position on the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The lack of references probably demonstrates their fringe nature rather than a fear of publicity :-) Pound Shop its is a brilliant description. How about remove it from the info box per TFD, but add in the lede that 'The Daily Telegraph has described them as "Pound Shop fascists"' ----Snowded TALK 06:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The term "far right" is altogether too vague, covering variously everything to the right of the Tories, including fascism. And "Fascist" does not normally refer to historic Fascism in Italy and Germany. I would agree that with a capital F, the term should be restricted to parties that used it in their name, so not Hitler!, and not just Mussolini. What about the British Union of Fascists, Imperial Fascist League, British Fascists, National Fascisti, Scottish Democratic Fascist Party? And that's just in Britain! Mussolini recognised that there were numerous fascist parties outside Europe (and the Italian Foreign Ministry produced a report on them in the 1930s which details several dozen, not all with "Fascist" in their name). In lower case, "fascism" has a quite clear meaning which encompases all of the parties just mentioned and includes such more modern British groupings such as Jordan's National Socialist Movement and Tyndall's various foundations, including Greater Britain Movement, National Front and British National Party, as well as those that have a direct linear connection with them such as Britain First. Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
It may be too vague to you, but it is the generally used term. It is necessarily vague, because unlike center or left-wing groups there is no history that ties them all together. It is like the pornography: "I know it when I see it."
And far right does not mean to the right of the Tories, but as far right as possible. In The Longue Durée of the Far-Right: An International Historical Sociology. the editors say, "the politics of the far-right extends beyond the fascist experience with respect to two other currents: those movements and ideological currents that co-existed with fascism during the inter-war era and that shared its illiberalism, anti-cosmopolitanism, extreme nationalism and visceral hostility to communism, and those social and political movements that pre-dated fascism in the late nineteenth century and were also distinguished by their 'anti-capitalist' populism, hostilty to the growth of a politicized working class and demands for an authoritarian model of politics embodied in an all-powerful, charismatic figurehead." ("What is the far right", p. 3.) And it cites the literature on the far right. I would mention too that the Ku Klux Klan, which has similarities to fascism and has over-lapping membership with neo-fascist and other right-wing groups, has its origins in American, not European, politics.
There are countless books written about the far right, e.g., Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain's Far Right, The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, The Far Right in Europe: An Encyclopedia, and The far right in western and eastern Europe, to name a few.
TFD (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
"It may be too vague to you, but it is the generally used term. It is necessarily vague...." Precisely. It's vague. We can be precise, and should be. And I have never suggested that fascism is the stop point on the right - quite the reverse: I said, "covering variously everything to the right of the Tories, including fascism". (Ku Klux Klan? What's that been dragged up for?) Emeraude (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I oppose removing "fascism" from the infobox. The infobox of the British National Party has fascism listed - and arguably Britain First is more openly and aggressively fascist. It isn't true to suggest fascism is a purely historical Italian/German concept. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────True or not, we cannot state disputed descriptions as factual. Also, it would be helpful if you could provide a source that both says Britain First (or the BNP) is fascist and explains what they mean by that. Then we can assess how that view is seen. TFD (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Disputed by.....? If true, there's no disputing? If false, that contradicts the sources. This issue has been more tha adequately covered in discussions on other fascist groups in the UK, including BNP, and what applies there is equally valid here. Emeraude (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we've actually got a well-respected source saying flat-out that "Britain First are fascists". They have come close, that Portsmouth CC source above speculates they are de-facto fascists, but nobody is prepared to stake their reputation on putting the two things together. And if councils and newspapers pause on it, we probably should too. Perhaps I'm playing a bit too much Devil's advocate, but "I hate your religion; convert to mine immediately" (which seems to be the group's main operating method) is not quite the same as "I hate your religion; you must die" as genuine fascist organisations have done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
What? German Nazis massacred Jews, but since when has "I hate your religion; you must die" been a prerequisite for being a "genuine" fascist? Emeraude (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that if some genuine effort were made to define fascism as applied to this group, it might be more appropriate otherwise, it's simply confusing to the reader. For one thing, fascism implies socialism since every historical fascist nation has used socialism as it's foundation. Contrary to simplistic, common thought, fascism is not a rightist political ideology. Because socialism is the foundation of both communism and fascism and this group is opposed to socialism, the fascist test of this organization fails. Also, anti-Semitism is another hallmark of fascism particularly the Nazi variety. This group is neither pro-socialist or anti-Semitic so on those grounds the description of the group as fascist fails. What is it about this organization that makes it fascist? Nationalism? No, because that argument can be made in favor of most nations who have never toyed with fascism. Again, this group's fascist test fails. I would favor removal of fascism as a definition of this group until someone can make an argument supporting it's inclusion. Jtpaladin (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The socialism=fascism theory is fringe. TFD (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hear, hear. And one might add that every fascist/neo-Nazi group in the UK since the '60s has described itself as "nationalist". Emeraude (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Socialism is not fascism. @Jtpaladin: Find me a credible, reliable source stating that Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour Party are fascist. You suggest Jtpaladin that "contrary to simplistic common thought" fascism is not an ideology of the far-right. In saying that you are rejecting sources and rejecting facts. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary describes fascism as "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organisation" and "(In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices" AusLondonder (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that you're not aware of the fact that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany (National Socialism, I mean, it's right in their title) had socialistic economies? Collectivist or managed economies are entirely socialistic and are residents of the Left in the political spectrum. Perhaps you should consider the Wikipedia article on Nazism as a source to best address your concern. "Hitler, when asked whether he supported the 'bourgeois right-wing', claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved 'pure' elements from both 'camps', stating: 'From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism'." Hitler himself identified the Nazi Party as socialistic although taking the idea of nationalism from the Right. The Wikipedia article on Fascism says essentially the same thing. So, according to Wikipedia, Nazism and Fascism are both based on a Left-Wing economic structure. As for the Labour Party, just because you subscribe to socialism does not automatically make you a fascist. But if you're fascist in the traditional sense of the word, you are a socialist. And, if you're a socialist, you're Left of Center on the political spectrum. I hope that addressed your concerns. Jtpaladin (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
It addresses no one's concerns. It's total nonsense and without foundation. You need to explain, among other things, why your socialist Hitler annihilated Communists, Social Democrats and trade unionists, failed to nationalise banks (or any other industries), did not control industry in the war effort (as Churchill did) and attacked Russia. Sure, he made May Day a national holiday, but then he abolished the unions. Now how is that socialist? (And let's remember that he didn't name the party, it had been named before he even joined it.)Emeraude (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Jtpaladin, we have all read the theory that you support. The problem is that no reliable sources support it. Ludwig von Mises was the chief economic adviser to the Austrian fascist government. Do you think he was a socialist? Emeraude, rational arguments are ineffective in rebutting irrational views. When Hitler continued popular conservative make work projects that is evidence of his socialism, when he privatized government-owned corporations that is also evidence of socialism. He signed a treaty with the USSR because they were both socialist and broke it because they were rival socialists. TFD (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

""Collectivist or managed economies are entirely socialistic ..."

But not all socialist countries have managed economies or collectivisation. What you are describing is Communism, and though you might say that all Communists are Socialists, the reverse does not apply with Communism often being deplored by Socialists. (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ideology section - lengthy quotes[edit]

It would improve the Ideology section to present the group's views in sourced summary form rather than relying on lengthy quotations from group literature and websites as is done at present. Direct quotation has the advantage of representing the group's expressed views exactly, but it does rely upon individual statements made by the group at specific times, which may or may not represent the group's ideology at later times. With changes in leadership and so on, it is possible the group's views change. Summarising third party analyses of the groups's ideology may present a better overall view. MPS1992 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Jo Cox[edit]

The article has back going back and forwards as to whether the death of Jo Cox should be mentioned. It might help to try and reach some consensus on the talk page.

My view is that it should be included at the moment. Article traffic stats have shot up from about 650/day to 50,000. [yesterday.] The fact that "Britain First" was shouted is being reported by all news organisations. --Salix alba (talk): 07:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not much of a back-and-forth: User:The Almightey Drill cut a sourced overview arguing that "we don't include every man who shouted for ISIS on the ISIS article", and a couple of IPs added their own inappropriately-written, unsourced takes ("Britain first have been linked with the murder of British labour MP" and "this xenophobic group have alleged the claims for the saying, they're totally wrong") to fill the gap within the next hour, which were immediately reverted.
A sourced version was written again the next morning. The fact that Britain First have responded to the attack seems sufficient to include a mention here; if a man "shouted for ISIS" while doing something much worse than anything ISIS had ever done, and ISIS made a press statement about it, we would presumably include that in the ISIS article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all, not that I have been accused, but I will say that I in no way sympathise for this group who in my personal opinion are clowns, morons. However, Wikipedia has no deadline. The suspect was caught alive and will be tried by due process. We will know his entire life story soon and if he is a member it is perhaps the most important thing to mention in this article. At the moment, these are initial reports, and as the "current" template says "Initial reports may not be reliable". There is also sub iudice concerns of what to mention and how, in order to not prejudice jurors. It might look it at the moment with all that is going on, but the world will not end tomorrow, and in time we will know exactly what to put about Britain First and this case '''tAD''' (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The quote is an issue because people don't speak in upper or lower case. We don't know whether the witnesses, some of whom have been identified, want to be quoted as saying "Britain First" or "Britain first". BBC say "Britian first or put Britain first". Telegraph have "Britain first". Independent have "Britain First". HuffPost "Britain first". Bloomberg "Britain First". Do we put "a man shouting 'Britain First', 'Britain First' or 'put Britain first'"? '''tAD''' (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we pay heed to the sub-judice issue. As I write, no charges have actually been brought, but as soon as they are this section will need to be withdrawn until the matter has been reported in open court. What is the point of mentioning this now, when it will have to be removed imminently? (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to think the alleged killer was shouting the name of this group or that he had any association with it. So I would leave it out until and unless we receive new information. TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, but my point is not whether he said it or not, but that any reference to this will have to be removed once a suspect is charged and until such times as the matter is reported in open court because it will become sub-judice. (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

However hated the party is, I don't think it is fair to link it based on the fact that he allegedly said something close to it. Unless he actually is found out as or announces himself as a member or that he is part of the party, then to keep this website non-gossiping, remove the link. In my opinion, the only reason I see that would allow a link would be if he said he learnt something from the party to commit the offence or was taught she was bad or something around the line. I think they link, but think is not definite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJBay123 (talkcontribs) 18:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is not necessary to remove the section due to British sub-judice laws because this is an American based wiki, so those laws do not apply. Varith (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you are being a bit cavalier with comments about this being an "American based wiki". Take a look at the top of the page where "American based wiki" expresses concerns for caution because of British sub-judice laws". It may well be American based but it is used universally and I believe the ethos is reasonable respect for national laws. Do you really think that Wiki would or should say, "We can ignore British law because we are American based"? That is clearly disrespectful, and not something that Wiki is noted for. (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Anon, I am not being cavalier. Wikipedia (the physical hardware) is based in Florida and is thus subject to Florida and US law. Sub judice laws have been found unconstitutional in the US and in fact there are federal laws that specifically prohibit other countries judgements being enforced where it conflicts with the First Amendment. That law was aimed squarely at English libel laws, so US citizens and corporations are on pretty safe ground there. Of course if you live in Britain and post something that runs afoul of their laws (especially if you leave your IP hanging to the wind) then you may have some legal trouble. Not saying that the section should be left in; whether it is will be left to Wikipedia editors and not British courts.Varith (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's there for precisely that reason. Do we want these keyboard warriors and IP vandals to end up in jail because they've made brazen comments attrubuting guilt to people? Quite frankly no. It's merely an extension of the BLP policy. Lies are one thing, but some lies can get you arrested. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
And my comment is also there for a reason. I just want people to know that British courts do not have jurisdiction on an American website. We settled that back in 1776. Varith (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Sub-judice rules are a lot wider than attributing guilt. Commenting on the case other than reporting what has been said in court can get you charged with contempt. Notwithstanding that, I find it difficult to believe that there are people who think that Wiki should ignore the sub-judice merely because they can. That is disrespectful to the people who see the good sense in abiding by those laws. (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

But a much larger portion of the English speaking world has decided that sub-judice is a terrible idea. So why should this wiki disrespect them:Varith (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I should have said, Commenting on the case other than reporting what has been said in court WHILE THE CASE IS PENDING can get you charged with contempt. (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Only if you are within British jurisdiction. From anywhere else in the world you can say whatever you like (within the laws of your own country) Varith (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the sub-judice warning. I am not sure why that box should even exist on wikipedia. It is not there for any other country's laws.Varith (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The warning - as it clearly states - is there for UK-based editors, who are legally bound by sub judice. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The warning - as it *very* clearly states, tries to apply to all editors. Rewrite it and I will stop removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varith (talkcontribs) 05:00, 22 June 2016‎
"All editors should exercise caution in editing or commenting on the topic of this article. Editors in the UK jurisdictions may also wish to consider any personal legal implications." Seems clear enough to me. Grayfell (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2016[edit]

Sazzonn2002 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) NOt is a far rigth not facist and not eurochetpc

People dispute what "far-right" means so I can let you off even if you are in the minority who think they are not so, but if you think they are not eurosceptic you're on another planet '''tAD''' (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Britain First. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverts[edit]

My edits are repeatedly being reverted by different users. I have corrected the party leadership status (it originally said that Paul Golding quit the party and Jayda Fransen became the leader, which is incorrect - Golding took 6 months leave from the party). I cited a source from the party's own website about this, and Philip Cross bizarrely reverted all my edits saying just "The Britain First website is not necessarily the best source for Britain First". Surely it would be when talking about the party's leadership! I had removed the claim that Britain First saying they were Christian has been condemned by every major denomination of Christianity as the Huffington Post source it came from was ridiculous - only one person from each denomination said something against the organization. I also gave an example on how Britain First take "direct action" outside alleged Islamic Extremists' homes by giving an example - Anjem Choudhary with a brief description on him. I also removed an uncited piece of information about Britain First apparently being inspired by Ulster loyalists and slightly changed the wording in the last sentence of paragraph to to contribute to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. What have I done wrong? Snowded and HelgaStick have also reverted all my edits without stating a single reason why. 97RGr (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC) The party's leadership status is now incorrect again after reverts. 97RGr (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The objection "only one person from each denomination said something against the organization" does not hold water as far as I'm concerned. Exactly how many people from each denomination would the source have to ask?
I don't see the reasoning behind not accepting the organization's own website as a source for who its current leader is. Perhaps someone could explain this. MPS1992 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to using the website per se, but for all intents and purposes, Jayda Fransen has taken over the leadership role during Golding's 6 months' leave from the party. That is mentioned in a number of reliable sources and by BF themselves; Fransen is described by BF as its "Acting Leader".
I wouldn't have anything against removing the Christian claims, and the Anjem Choudhary information was too much for the lead but by all accounts mention it further down in the article. The Ulster loyalism claim is mentioned in the source cited as reference. HelgaStick (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You just said it yourself - Paul Golding has not left the party, he is taking six months off. The Ulster loyalism claim is not mentioned in your link, and it was not cited anyway. You have not explained anything that is wrong with my edits, and, in fact proved my point. Therefore I will be reverting the article back to my edits. 97RGr (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, you said yourself that there was nothing wrong with removing the Christian claims. The Anjem Choudary part was just to give a quick description on an example of who they target with 'direct action'. The problem with the denomination part was that one person does not neccessarily represent the views of the entire denomination. 97RGr (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the link again. It is mentioned, and not just in passing either:
... At one of the flag protests in December, Dowson appeared alongside Billy Hutchinson, the leader of the Progressive Unionist Party, the political wing of the Ulster Volunteer Force, and the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) boss Jackie McDonald.
Dowson has acted as a spokesperson for the Ulster People’s Forum, established in late 2012, and appeared last month in Belfast at the launch of the Protestant Coalition, called “a new hardline political party”. Their website is an almost carbon copy of Britain First’s with a lion’s head replacing the red hand of Ulster in their respective logos, while BF’s is registered at an office block in central Belfast.
However, I've already removed the other Christian claims, and added the stuff on A.C. back into the article. I totally agree with you on those points. HelgaStick (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks HelgaStick - by the way your link isn't a strong enough source, I don't think, to say that the party was inspired by the Ulster loyalists. Also, like you said, I've expanded on Anjem Choudary further down the page just now. Cheers, 97RGr (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. Just because their website and logo may be similar doesn't necessarily mean they were inspired by them. 97RGr (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Details on Choudary's Islamist background belongs in Choudary's biography, not Britain First's, beyond the specific allegation they made about radicalising Rigby's killers. Wikipedia doesn't source things to the Sun or the Mail. (I looked for a more reliable source on police protection linked to the Britain First video but the Telegraph and Independent both had police spokespeople evading the question and the Mail had run stories about police protection for Choudary before Britain First even existed) Whether or not the group can be regarded as "inspired" by loyalism, it is accurate to describe Jim Dowson as [heavily] linked with the loyalist movement. Dtellett (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the botched cut and past with the link; I'll go back and make the change I originally intended Dtellett (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you v much Dtellett. I was going to say a similar thing in response :) HelgaStick (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is going on??? You have reverted my edits again and the article has been left in a complete mess with double citations, sentences that don't fit together (i.e. "The party was led by Paul Golding for most of its existance" as if he has permanently left the party, and then the fact that Paul Golding has taken six months leave) and the unsourced piece of information stating that Dowson has links with Ulster loyalist militants. There is no problem with a brief description on Anjem Choudary - it is just to show an example of the sort of people Britain First target. The Daily Mail citation was not my edit either. I sourced the information from BBC, AOL and the Guardian. I don't understand what the problem is here! 97RGr (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Also HelgaStick said that he added the description of Anjem Choudary back into it, and now it seems like he is on Dtellett's side removing it. What is actually happening? 97RGr (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence was misleading: I've edited it in the lead slightly. Again, the information on Loyalist groups has been cited by the Independent source referenced in the article, stop claiming it is unsourced. And I was in favour of including a brief description of Choudary, but looking at the sources you have cited it seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH violation: Wikipedia does not allow synthesis between sources, even if the sources cited are reliable. That is what appears to be the case here - apologies for any confusion. HelgaStick (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Britain First. 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:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


Why are they labelled "ultranationalist"? Why not just nationalist? What are the qualifiers for respective labels? -- (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The term "nationalist" has been overused, so it has lost its power. It just doesn't sound bad enough anymore.

Christian fundamentalism in Infobox[edit]

I think 'Christian fundamentalism' should be removed from the description. It seems like BF's appeals to Christianity are mostly cultural rather than based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the faith. Dowson himself is a Christian fundamentalist, but he has little to no involvement in the current organisation. The source used states the following: "Although usually described as a splinter group of the far-right British National Party, its roots go deeper into the hardline Christian fundamentalist, anti-abortion movement." As a result, it does not state that BF itself is actually a Christian fundamentalist organisation. There seems to be much less emphasis placed on Biblical teachings by BF versus movements with much greater Christian fundamentalist influence such as the Dutch SGP, the DUP and TUV, and the 'religious right' faction of the Republican Party. --Jay942942 (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is the group described as "fascist"?[edit]

Why is the group listed as a British Fascist party? What does the group do that specifically endorses fascism? The three sources cited that make the claim the party is fascist are simply different authors' opinions of the group, is this really in toe with Wikipedia's NPOV policy? So far it appears that describing the party as fascist is original research.-- (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's just the latest fad. Everything right of center is called fascist these days.
It's called fascist because, to put it simply, it's fascist. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources and the three given (among many that could be used) are quite clear. Everything right of centre is NOT called fascist these days (Tories? Trump? UKIP?). In fact, the term is not even used in many cases when it could be. Emeraude (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The article does not call them fascist. TFD (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The infobox lists British Fascism among its ideologies and the article is connected to the fascism portal. Perhaps the article should call it fascist. Emeraude (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
But that is not the same as calling them fascist. I think it is important to distinguish between historical fascism and its successors (and forerunners). TFD (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That's rather like distinguishing between historical Tories (etc) and their successors and forerunners, though admittedly the timescale is different. It's a mistake to think that fascist parties today are somehow inherently different from those of 50 or 60 years ago; of course they have adapted to events and the march of history (as have the Tories or Labour etc), but essentially there is a direct line of descent and any differences are only due to the passage of time. Billig put it rather well in a critique of Martin Walker's book on the National Front: "Walker's avoidance of describing the National Front as 'fascist' may be based on an insufficient understanding of the continuities within the fascist tradition abd upon the assumption that all instances of a political movement or ideology will be precisely the same." (Billig, M: "Fascists: a social psychological view of the National Front" in European Monographs in Social Psychology, p 5, 1978) Emeraude (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is it fascist? Explain. I see nothing in what the party propagates to have anything remotely similar to fascism. The three sources cited are different authors' opinions and are not "facts". By all means have them included into the article but with "Joe Bloggs states" rather than just simply claim one of the party's ideologies is promoting British Fascism and using the three sources as evidence for that assertion. There is a distinction between facts and opinions. The accusation by some authors that the party holds fascist views could be added into the "Policies" section but according to WP:V simply using three different articles from newspapers does not verify that the party holds British Fascism beliefs as a fact. According to WP:PUS with regards to the sources currently used as reliable sources for the claim the party is fascist: "In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution." In order for the idea that the party is fascist and is a British Fascist party and even going to the extent of having the fascist portal included into the article I think some better sources should be used. So far the it's just simply original research and undue weight.-- (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In fact we do distinguish between Jacobites, Tories and Conservatives. In the case of fascism, there are terms such as ur-fascism and neo-fascism. Obviously their defeat in the War had a major impact on fascist parties, they lost aristocratic and big business support, and no longer had major writers and other celebrities backing them. More recently they have tried to distance themselves from their history. TFD (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone actually bothered to look at the sources given to support the view the party is fascist? It's interesting to note that the three sources are the exact same as the RationalWiki article about the group. It appears they have just been copied and pasted to the Wikipedia article. The first source mentions nothing about how the party is fascist but uses 'fascist' in the title of the article and mentions some comments about the group by anti-fascists. The second source describes the party members of the group as "pound-shop fascists" - I think it goes without saying that this source should be removed as it's not a neutral point of view. The third source simply again uses 'fascist' in the title and just mentions that The Sun ran a headline describing them as fascists who hijacked a photo to gain attention. How do any of these sources qualify as reliable sources? If someone or something is going to be described as something then the burden of proof is on the believer and it's quite ostensibly clear that the sources given do not support the idea that the party holds fascist beliefs. It's no good to come out with things like "It's called fascist because, to put it simply, it's fascist" (User:Emeraude comment further up), there needs to be actual proof supported by reliable sources. Better sources should be provided or the text that states the party is fascist and is a British Fascist party should be removed from the article.-- (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The three sources are the exact same as the RationalWiki article about the group. It appears they have just been copied and pasted to the Wikipedia article. Er, the Wikipedia article with those sources is actually older than the RationalWiki article! Emeraude (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
OK. That's a moot point really though because it doesn't address the points I have made about the sources currently being used in the article. Simply citing articles that describe the party as 'fascist' are not considered reliable sources. A simple look at WP:RS and WP:QS confirms that. It's alarming that in your response you haven't refuted any of my points I have made about the sources currently being used to support the assertion the party is fascist, the allegation so far is completely unfounded and has no evidence to support it. A more balanced approach to the matter would be to remove the 'British Fascism' from one of their policies and the Fascist portal and under the 'Policies' section state what various different authors describe the group as. An author's opinion is not a "fact" and is almost certainly always going to be classified as undue weight if it's the only thing being used to support an allegation or statement.-- (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


We are now at the Three revert rule and further reverts could lead to a block.

As to the deregistration. In my view all it means is that the party is currently not registered and will not be able to put candidates up for election until it registers again. It does not mean the part has ceased to exist, they can still hold meeting, publish newsletter and run facebook groups. The fact that BF has failed to register might be worth a mention in the article, however that would require a WP:RS, preferably a newspaper article which mentions it. Just using the electoral commision website is a bit close to WP:OR in my book. --Salix alba (talk): 11:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What is OR is to claim that a group is a political party, despite failing the one criterion of being a political party in the UK, that of being registered with the Electoral Commission. Now of course the article could still read "BF is a bunch of racists with a facebook page", but that's not the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
As for "UK law is not relevant to Wikipedia", then I'll leave that particular bit of nonsense to speak for itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not the first time a far right party has been statutorily deregistered as a political party[4], and subsequently reregistered. Either way given that there is no evidence whatsoever that Britain First has ceased to exist, I don't think we need to preempt their demise - however much that may be desired - using a solitary primary source as evidence. Whether they're still a "party" is a bit more ambiguous but rather than waste time debating whether political party de facto and being a "registered political party" de jure in (post 2000) British law are the same thing (even the Electoral Commission's own guidelines state "if you are thinking about setting up a political party you may need to register with us") I've revised the text to say "organization" Dtellett (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Have you got a problem buddy? You've posted that diff in about three different places to attack me behind my back. The British legal definition of party may not match our definition of a party. Just one example is New Democracy Party of China - we say "is a political party" - despite it not being a legally registered political party in China. Reliable sources have described Britain First as a party and you've got one single primary source to the contrary? Hello? As above, your arrogance is even contradicted by the Electoral Commmission's own guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't flatter yourself, but keep posting stupid comments like that and I'm going to keep ridiculing them. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Saying something is stupid does not make it so. You need some evidence to back up your arguments rather than childish ad hominem attacks. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, which is rather frightening given how long you've been here. AusLondonder (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no legal requirement for a party to register. A party may be deregistered because it has not filed its returns in time, or may request deregistration if it folds. An unregistered party may not contest elections (or referenda) but is perfectly legal and still exists. Emeraude (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The relevant legislation is Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 s22 (1) Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no existential legal requirement, but an unregistered party is unable to carry out the core business of a party, that of contesting elections.
As such, deregistration is highly relevant (lead-worthy) to an article on such an organisation. We are also short of words to describe "unregistered organisations unable to contest elections" and I do not see the word "party" as any longer appropriate for such, as it loses the distinction from those which can contest them. It is key to our article here to distinguish groups such as UKIP and Britain First (as was), and Britain First (unregistered today) and the BNP, or even the proscribed groups such as National Action.
We should stop using the word "party" to apply to groups that cease to be registered, thus no longer able to contest elections. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. No legal basis for that at all. Emeraude (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with you Emeraude. Andy Dingley has no legal or policy basis to stand on and has to resort to insults and attacks to make his argument. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Further, his argument suggets that parties only contest elections. What about recruiting, propagandising, publishing, researching, meeting.......? Emeraude (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. But only registered parties contest elections. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Non Political Party Status[edit]

Therefore it is a activist organisation and all political references to do with UK Politics should be removed, Information on Previous Elections of course is permitted as it was a political party at that time. MaccaSys (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No. It is STILL a political party. It just ain't registered, and nor is it required to be. Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Fascist organization[edit]

Shouldn't British fascism be in the lead instead of the vague "ultranationalism"? It's kind of notable.

It was removed and it feels whitewashed. Can someone restore it in the first sentance?

"Britain First is a British fascist and ultranationalist British political organisation formed in 2011 by former members of the British National Party (BNP)

Trump retweet[edit]

Source for a retweet by Trump with comments from British pm. Likely to have lasting effects/coverage

Edaham (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere the reckless followup tweet misdirect to May should be included, demonstrating the reckless, sloppiness of the Commander in Chief.--Wikipietime (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Britain First, the subject of this article. The main place for content on the retweets is in Donald Trump on social media#Britain First videos, where remarks like that could be added if properly sourced and considered sufficiently relevant. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Far right"???[edit]

How does wanting to control immigration make this party "far right"? ( (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC))

It doesn't and the article does not say it does. In fact all parties support control of immigration which is why even when Labour was in power they had immigration officers at points of entry. TFD (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Labour had a deliberately uncontrolled mass immigration policy, which is why support for the party plummeted at the 2001 General Election when they lost three million votes. ( (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC))
Looks like a forum topic guys. Edaham (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Not really. The original post was clearly answered by TFD. The response to that is a POV pushing rant that advances things no further. Emeraude (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Britain First is not "far right" by any definition. In fact most of its policies are left-wing. ( (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC))
Britain First is defined as a far right party by all reliable sources. Wikipedia goes by the sources, not the contrarian opinions of anonymous racists Dtellett (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
If you look at Britain First's list of policies they are mostly left-of-centre. And how does wanting to control immigration make one "racist"? ( (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

recent edits[edit]

Re [5] - provide the quotation from source please. And by that I don't mean a claim from the organization itself. Volunteer Marek  05:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing [6], [7], [8], and [9] for the statement you are trying to change to alleged. We even have a article for it Newcastle sex abuse ring. Also [10] is another source for the group going there. PackMecEng (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but the first four sources don't mention the subject of this article. The last one does, but it, again, only says that Britain First makes this claim. Volunteer Marek  17:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a RS is saying they made the claim. The edit you made, changed it to a question if those attacks happened or if they said it. Which they definitive did on both counts, according to the sources, so it is rather unclear why you wish to change it to "perceived" and my favorite "about supposed actions of alleged". PackMecEng (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Regarding the revert you did here. It has been covered by multiple RS, as linked above. Is there another objection you have? PackMecEng (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That is classic WP:SYNTH. You cannot use two sources which say two different things and combine them into a novel conclusion. The source cited for Britain First does not reach the conclusion that all of the places where Britain First protested had any "grooming gangs." Synthesizing that conclusion is impermissible.
To state it in another way, the source says Britain First protested in a number of communities, accusing community elders of not taking action against these supposed gangs. The sources available do not support the conclusion that in all of those communities, these gangs even existed. Ergo, the presence of those gangs is at best alleged. If you want to find a less conclusive wording or rewrite to focus on the communities where their existence has been proven, we could use other language. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof:(Sorry I used the wrong ping before) How about this? "Claiming to carry out a "Christian crusade" they filmed themselves entering Mosques handing out leaflets and about 100 Bibles to Muslim worshipers. After which they went to the campaign office of Nazam Azam, a Muslim Labour councillor in Bradford, and demanded action on "Muslim grooming gangs".[11] PackMecEng (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, That seems supported by the sources available and would be fine with me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Cool beans, I have added it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
No, this is not what the source (from the Guardian) says. The source does not say that BF filmed themselves entering mosques; and the complaints were in Bradford and Glasgow, so linking to Newcastle sex abuse ring is inappropriate WP:SYNTH. It is certainly possible to summarise the Guardian article more carefully. Another example of a problem here is that PackMecEng linked "Muslim grooming gangs" to Newcastle sex abuse ring. That WP article does not discuss the religion of those convicted. (That was raised very recently during discussions of police investigation methods—embedding a police mole within the ring.) Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mathsci:From the Guardian article "We videoed it all so you can see for yourself. We just went into the mosques, gave out a few Bibles and leaflets, talked to some elders and left". We can delink the Newcastle article, I just found it an example of a grooming gang, but leave the direct quote from Nazam. On second look though, that Newcastle article needs some work though. PackMecEng (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
" I just found it an example of a grooming gang" <--- that right there is pretty much a straight up admission that you're trying to do a WP:SYNTH in the article to push a particular point. Volunteer Marek  14:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Well no, that is an example of trying to find a wikilink to a event. But as mentioned right above, I am more than fine having no link at all. Is that good by you as well? PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mathsci: & @Volunteer Marek: Would the above text be acceptable without the link to Newcastle incident? PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really. "Muslim grooming gang" is a loaded term that Britain First use and expresses their particular POV: it is not used in WP:RS. Reliable sources do state that "BF entered mosques, distributing British army bibles and militating about grooming gangs; they also posted videos of some of these activities." Prose roughly like that—without any further precision—seems adequate for the article. Grooming gangs could be linked to the article Child grooming#Localised grooming, which discusses child grooming gangs in the UK. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I do like that link better, more general. I would be okay removing the quote from them. But I think having that they did goto Nazam Azam's office and Bradford's lord mayor, Khadim Hussain is interesting. Though might be going off subject for the section, they did that during their Mosque events but are not the same. Should we just cut that whole second sentence? PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


By what definition is the party "ultranationalist"? ( (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC))