Talk:British Freedom Party

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force.

How is it that the BNP page can have links to their youtube and facebook pages, yet when I copy the self same format for this page I am told that it's not permissible? Can somebody please explain?Greenpenwriter (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no newspaper article, or any other credible source claiming that British Freedom Party is a far-right party. The party's chairman, Paul Weston, claims that BFP is a centrist party. Its political platform indicates that it is centrist party. Its criticism of racism also indicates that it is a centrist party. Some of its members came from the racist BNP, but they rejected the BNP's racist politics. (Lee John Barnes is a BFP member and has anti-Semitic views, but, to the best of my knowledge, other BFP members are not anti-Semitic.)Quinacrine (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent appears to be a much more credible source than a cherry-picked interview on YouTube. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 03:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Incidentally, "to the best of my knowledge, other BFP members are not anti-Semitic" is Original Research, so invalid. Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The label "far right" is nothing but a smear anyway - nothing, that is, except a form of well poisoning that allows the user to deny "notability" to anyone they apply it to. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a classification, similar to the terms "conservative", "socialist" and "liberal" used to describe the main UK parties. Can you provide a more generally accepted term used to describe the BNP and BFP? TFD (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist would of course be considerably more accurate, but somehow I don't suspect that's the direction in which Quinacrine is leaning. 99.248.211.6 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a second. It seems that many contibs on this talk page are using their personal opinions and emotions to categorise the "British Freedom" Party. I have just read both Far Right and Far Left entries for wikipedia and I can clearly see from those definitions that far right refers to the support for a social heirarchy that advocates superiority and inferiority as social statuses. IE inequality. As far as I can see the British Freedom party could hardly be far right as they are aiming at winning votes from those who would consider themselves working class as well as maybe those who would consider themselves lower middle class. And to state that a "credible source" should classify a political party is ludicrous as bias would be involved. Wikipedia deals with facts not opinions and as the BFP has a manifesto and policies, then the information you find there should be enough to dictate their classification. And if you class them as fascist because they criticise Islam then you're wrong on that point too. For an organisation to criticise a 7th century ideology for their barbaric practices and attitudes is a breath of fresh air compared to the lies disseminated by the other parties and their PC police. It's just the exercise of free speech. And to deny free speech would indeed be fascist. So get a grip and remove all references to far right and replace it with centrist as the party describes themselves. If you want to put far right then you have to prove your accusation according to the definition of far right already accepted on wikipedia or you are just using political bias to libel an organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Englishman (talk • contribs) 12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatley for your argument, Wikipedia is not a reliable source! So using one Wikipedia article as evidence in another is totally inappropriate, especially as the article on Far Right is itself contentious. The standard for Wikipedia is what reliable sources say, and in the case of BFP they say what the article says. The least reliable source would be the party itself, since it is clearly biased in what it says about itself. Secondly, one cannot judge a party's political position by who it aims to get votes from. It takes the briefest of reflection to realise that any party that wants to be elected has to solicit votes from the whole of the social spectrum, or it will never be elected. Remember that Hitler and Mussolini both aimed at the working class and lower middle classes for votes - if they hadn't they would have excluded the vast majority of the population! Emeraude (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraudel, you said a whole lot but really said nothing at all. If the Wikipedia article on Far Right is not accepted as a reliable article then why don't you contest it?

Surely if an uncontested Wikipedia article is classed as an unreliable source; an openly editable source that can be contested by anyone; then how can an uneditable source like say the BBC (who most definitely have a bias) or the Guardian which again is incredibly biased be classed as a reliable source?

I use these examples because you haven't actually mentioned who you regard as a reliable source. So in a way I guess logic dictates that by the fact Wikipedia is openly contest-able it might just be the most reliable source. This article by the fact it is being contested is plausible proof that Wikipedia is reasonably reliable. You can't just say its an unreliable source because it contains an uncontested article on the term Right Wing that you don't agree with.

I suggest either explaining in the article why the British Freedom party is far right stating facts backed up by reliable reference from a truly reliable source stating why they are reliable and quoting their reliable credentials and political affiliation for comparison purposes or removing the description far right from the article. The author labelling the British Freedom Party far right is clearly only their opinion and has no basis in fact if it can't be backed up by a reliable source. You can't get away with using Far Right to slur an organisation because you don't agree with their views. That would be ridiculous as from this you are implying that your opinion is in some way factual, which only has the function of swaying opinion which is not encyclopedic.

Further more you cannot imply that a political party is far right just because it openly criticises a supremacist ideology. Could a political party be considered far right if it openly criticised National Socialism or Fascism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Englishman (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left you links to Wikipedia policy on your talk page. All articles are supposed to adhere to these policies and if you disagree with them then you should ask for changes. The sources that they are far-right include The Independent and the Toronto Sun. The political viewpoint of these papers is irrelevant, although the Sun happens to be right-wing. TFD (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free Englishman does not seem to understand what is meant by a reliable source in Wikipedia. A clear guide is avaialble at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The reason that Wikipedia should not be used as a source is here. The main issue though, is that Free Englishmen's opinions of BFP's political position are not worth a damn - and neither are mine. The sources are what we go by and The Four Deuces has helpfully itemised them. Emeraude (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have read the reliable source information in Wikipedia and it states the following "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Well they are clearly not demonstrable to me and to others here so I say again. Please clearly demonstrate how a number of biased journalists could be classed as reliable sources. Are they authoritative on the term far right and are they authoritative on the BFP and their policies? And for that matter can the author of this Wikipedia article claim they are scholastically qualified in politics and political definitions and did they do any research to qualify the claims the Toronto Sun and The Independent made? Remember, the sources stated are newspapers. That doesn't mean the opinions of their journalists are in any way credible or factual. Journalists throughout the ages have used their power to sway public opinion by stretching the truth or re-writing history.

So back to this article. To state that a political party is Far Right the way it is stated in this Wikipedia article is to imply it is a fact rather than an opinion. That may negatively sway the reader's opinion and deny the BFP an open-minded forum. If for example someone who would agree with the BFP's policies found this article here first and decided not to support the BFP due to reading here that the BFP are far right it may sway their opinion and as a consequence do that individual a disservice. To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall from her biography on Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". So the way the far right statement is made in this article needs to be addressed and made clearer to the reader that it is based on opinions and does not necessarily reflect the policies of the BFP. Encyclopaedias deal with actual proven facts and should never express the opinion of someone who has no authority on the subject as if it was a fact which is what unfortunately has been done here by openly accepting the opinions of a few journalists who are obviously trying to sensationalise their articles to sway public opinion. If we for example managed to get a journalist to say the BFP is far left would you change the article to state they are far left? I would accept the term Far right if you could demonstrate it by citing policies of the BFP that overly conform to Encyclopaedia Britannica's description of Right wing Encyclopaedia Britannica - Right. Now that's a pretty credible source to define Far Right. I have an article here on the abuse of the term Far Right. Far Right Fallacy again it is just a blog post but it makes some interesting points and might help to re-calibrate the author's FarRight-O-Meter. Either way in this article Far Right is based on an opinion by the sources with no evidence to back it up so it should be written to reflect that and not in the sensationalist way it is written at the moment. Sorry to go on. And I mean no offence to the authors. I just want to see actual facts not opinion pieces. That's all any of us want in Wikipedia isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Englishman (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources, other than the BFF itself, that describe it differently? In time, academic articles and books will be available and we can use them. However, considering that the party is a splinter of a far right party and lead by a former member of that party, it probably belongs to the same party family. TFD (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this several times. The articles you refer to are offering an opinion of the BFP as Far Right but the way it reads in this article is as if it's a fact. This Needs to be changed to clearly show that it is an opinion not a proven fact. Also you are incorrect. Just because it has a few BNP ex members doesn't mean it's policies or general stance is identical or even similar to the BNP. And it's leader is ex UKIP and not ex BNP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Englishman (talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Barnes left the party some considerable time ago and vanished into obscurity. He was a good speaker but the wrong man in the wrong place. It appears that he is a difficult man to get along with. There are no anti Semitic members in the party that I am aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpenwriter (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Greenpenwriter (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a bit of saying things that are not n the soources, but are infernaces drawn by edds here from those sources. Can we actualy have some sources that actualy back uop the text?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source says the EDL are far right, its does not say this about the BFP. Lets see a source (RS) that refers to them as far right.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK we have one source for this now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite right. I'd "speed read" the Independent article and I had taken it as the BFP being far right, which is not what it actually says, though it is a fair inference to make. Well done on finding the alternative source. Emeraude (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source claims the party is "far right" while the party self-identifies as centrist. Who is given priority here? The party themselves (my choice) or a politically correct mainstream newspaper which has a vested interest in presenting the party as "far right" and thereby ensuring that everyone will infer that the party is racist and therefore beyond the pale. The Wiki article as it stands does not address this matter and therefore can only be seen as biased. Please note, I will not make any changes to the actual page. I'll just post my comment hear and hope it provokes a discussion and possible changes by those more qualified to make the changes than I. Posted 11:06 GMT 22 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.125.39.3 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia always goes with what can be verified from reliable sources, not what is said by the subjects. They clearly have vested interests! So, for example, if the jury, the judge and every newspaper reports that someone is a murderer, he is a murderer, however much he may plead not guilty. In this case, we have reliable sources that state that the BFP is far right. But a moment's thought will easily confirm this: do we seriously believe that a splinter group from the fascist and racist BNP is going to be centrist?? Emeraude (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British Freedom party is indeed centre right. (I, as an early party member, should know!) The party has never had a racist or fascist agenda. The leadership was seen as tainted by association with the BNP, and has since stood down in favour of others untainted by past associations.Greenpenwriter (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes as much sense as saying the BNP is not fascist because its founding leadership was tainted by their past history running around with guns in Nazi uniforms; they did and they deny it makes a difference. Let's see some RS on the BFP being centrist, but I won't hold my breath. Emeraude (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, association with the BNP doesn't make a party "far-right" or indeed right at all. The BNP has hard left wing policies about big government and nationalisation, and is either isolationist or pacifist wrt to war on terror/Afghanistan, simply adding racism to the mix doesn't make them right wing. Fundamentally, it's a party for disillusioned working class Labour supporters who resent immigrants taking their unskilled jobs/social housing: right wing conservatives wouldn't touch the BNP with a barge pole! Even if the BNP were "far right" (which I have already stated is not the case) then any breakaway party needs to be considered in its own right (through a reputable source's analysis of their policies: not former associations). For example, the Liberal Democrats are associated with the former SDP, which broke away from the Labour Party: does this mean that the Lib Dems should forever be branded socialists rather than centrist? 78.150.111.109 (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a party "far right" is that that is how it has been categorized by reliable secondary sources. We cannot weigh the evidence and form our own conclusion. TFD (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed the reference to the sources that define British Freedom as far right and why they are classed as reliable. Which well respected centrist professor of politics described them as far right? Because I for one would not call a semi-socialist BBC journalist or Guardian hack a reliable source of political definition. Now instead of placing the term Far Right in there as fact you could maybe get away with providing your source like this. "The Guardian (or whomever) have described them as Far Right however they describe themselves as Centrist". That would show facts and have bias balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Englishman (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which far-right party has ever described themselves as such? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the term Far Right be removed from this article as should the references to other far right organisations used here to somehow show alegiance until someone comes up with an approved traditional unbiased definition of Far Right from a professor of politics together with some evidence to prove the BFP's policies or 20 point plan match with that approved definition of far right. Upon doing the research I think you will find that the correct term here should be Center Right. If the only reference to Far Right you can find is the opinion of a bunch of left wing biased journalists then that is clearly an opinion with no basis in fact. It's presented here as fact rather than opinion and clearly used in this case to slander this organisation. So do the honest thing and clean up this article so it only contains facts and not opinions presented as facts. Just because someone has diametrically opposed ideas to you that you can't prove wrong doesn't give you the right to use slurs to sabotage opinions of them. Far right describes organised genocidal maniacs like the nazis and not the BFP. That's just dishonest and typically left. Hamas could be described as far right and it's groups like Hamas that the BFP are trying to stop getting a foothold in Britain. That makes them more British NeoCon rather than Far Right. And Far left is just as destructive as Far Right. Tianamen Square anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Englishman (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"opinion of a bunch of left wing biased journalists" followed by "Just because someone has diametrically opposed ideas to you that you can't prove wrong doesn't give you the right to use slurs to sabotage opinions of them", my irony detector just exploded. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't understand your irony point. It's common knowledge that The Independant has a left wing bias. Nothing wrong with that as left wing just implies they are a little bit socialist. Far Right on the other hand is usually used as a slur. Especially when grouping it with a truly socially exclusive party like the BNP. There is no racist or exclusive connotone to the BFP policies. Unlike the definitely Far Right BNP who's leadership (not necessarily all of their members) are on the whole pretty racist and Nick Griffin is a holocaust denier. From reading the BFP's policies I would say they would make a lot of sense to the majority of us Brits who are fed up to the back teeth of the failed socialist experiment we have had to endure since New Labour had their lengthy stint in power. The only slightly controversial policy is to halt immigration for 5 years. Well we are a tiny island state who struggle to support it's pensioners and unemployed already. Asylum seekers are supposed to settle in the first state they reach which is not Britain so I don't see the problem here. If you think the BFP are far right then I guess you would have to classify me and probably 90% of Brits (of all shades and religions) Far right too. I suggest you remove Far Right and put in more about the policies themselves. Let people make up their own mind about what classification to give them. From my studies I believe that The left/right divide is subjective anyway. We all consider ourselves centrist. So anyone who's ideals are a little lefter than ours or righter than ours would be far left or far right to any one of us. The BFP are far left compared to the BNP for example and the BNP are far left compared to the National Socialist Workers Party of WW2 Germany so the term Far Right really has no descriptive merit which ever way you look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.103.109 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source for th efreedom democrats breakaway is a blog. I am not sure its RS and thus at this time its an iffy inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The Electoral Commission ref shows it exists and who's involved. The blog is good enough as far as it goes and so long as it's marked with the "unreliable source?" tag its iffiness as a reliable source is duly noted. A better source is needed, you're right, but for now I think this will suffice so long as there's no expansion. Emeraude (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_web_forums_and_blog_talkbacks_reliable_sources.3F --88.104.30.20 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

submission of party accounts are early and not due until the end of the financial year which happens to be on April 30th. Quote from party treasurer: 45 Delivery of statements of accounts etc. to Commission. (1)The treasurer of a registered party shall, if the party’s accounts for a financial year are not required to be audited by virtue of section 43(1) or (2), within [F14 months] of the end of that financial year deliver to the Commission— Year end 31st December plus 4 months = 30th April.Greenpenwriter (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Another word or two from the party treasurer: His words, not mine. "Just spoke with the electoral commission. They have CONFIRMED that they HAVE received our 2011 Accounts. The reason they are not showing on their website is because the deadline for ALL party's to submit their accounts is 30th APRIL. Therefore no party in the UK will have its accounts published until AFTER the deadline of 30th April. Therefore the wiki page is wholly inaccurate and a barefaced lie."Greenpenwriter (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be checked?Slatersteven (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you contact the electoral commission!Greenpenwriter (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I shall re-phrase this, can we have some RS for that?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check with the electoral commission some time after the deadline of 30th April, you will find your answer. I have personally seen the submitted accounts but you will just have to take my word for that. although my word is original research.Greenpenwriter (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exaclty its OPR, so is inadmisable under oour rules.Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you will have to wait until after April 30th to find your answer.Greenpenwriter (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Therefore no party in the UK will have its accounts published until AFTER the deadline of 30th April." This is untrue. The Electoral Commission's Statement of Accounts includes several parties which have filed accounts and which the EC has aleady published. Most parties are not yet published, it's true, but is not right to say that none will be published until after 30 April. Emeraude (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the place of a wikipedia editor to DEMAND any organisation produce accounts or anything else or at a specific time or make any other demands, to much POV already associated with this article not least some unreliable blogs. Note the accounts will be Original research until published by a reliable Secondary source.--88.104.30.20 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the IP editor reads this talk page. "Far right" is not "unreliable sourced material" nor "pov article from an unreliable source". It is sourced by the Toronto Sun and the Independent, both of which are reliable sources. Bizarrely, the IPs preferred term of "right wing" isn't sourced at all! In addition I see no reason for the highly POV terminology of the 20 point plan to be quoted verbatim, when a neutral paraphrase conveys their intent just as well. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source I have added is also reliable so there is a conflict, right-wing political party ^[1] Far-right^[2][3]
--88.104.26.6 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://britishfreedom.org/a-different-kind-of-political-party/ doesn't even contain the words "right wing", and I can't see any use of "right" to source the claim being made. The uses are "The English Defence League plans to field candidates for the first time in local elections after an alliance is finalised between the far-right group and the British Freedom Party, which was set up by disgruntled members of the British National Party" (which is quoting the Independent), "So, [our plan would be] good for us, and good for people who genuinely want to come here for the right reasons", "If you abolish religion, and you adopt cultural relativism where there’s no right or wrong". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources describe it as far right. TFD (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the first sentence in these articles shows the most important information about the article. The author seems to believe that this is that the party is of the "far-right", I looked for some other articles of small political particles to compare their first lines. I found the following: "Plaid Cymru is a political party in Wales." "The Scottish National Party is a social democratic[5][6] political party in Scotland which campaigns for Scottish independence from the United Kingdom." "The Republican Left of Catalonia is a left wing Catalan independentist political party in Spain." "The Basque National Party is the largest and oldest Basque nationalist party." "The UK Independence Party is a Eurosceptic[5][6] and right-wing populist[7][6] political party in the United Kingdom." "Respect is a socialist political party in England and Wales founded in 2004." "The Green Party of England and Wales is a political party in England and Wales which follows the traditions of Green politics and maintains a strong commitment to social progressivism." "Front national (French pronunciation: [fʁɔ̃.na.sjɔ'nal]) is an economically protectionist, socially right-wing, nationalist party." The first lines for the Scottish National Party and UKIP are given similar classification as what is suggested for this article and have been provided with references. The SNP's references are their own manifesto (!), and this website: http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/unitedkingdom.html . For UKIP they also use the same "parties and elections" website and a parliamentary affairs journal. (Note: The Republican Left of Catalonia definition also references an unlinked journal.) This article's sources are less reliable and I cannot find another political party defined by newspaper articles in such a way. Unfortunately the British Freedom Party have not been included in this parties and elections website, as of yet, to provide us with a satisfactory arbiter for this discussion, nor have I been able to find a journal comparable to that of the parliamentary affairs journal. I suggest that until such reliable sources be found this "far-right" reference in the first line be removed, just leaving "The British Freedom Party (BFP) is a political party in the United Kingdom" akin to the entry in the Plaid Cymru article. When reliable sources are found this can then be addressed. It would also seem more intellectually honest to also modify the "far-right" classification in the profile box on the right hand side to "far-right (contested)", "right (contested)" or "right/far right (contested)" with an optional section, addressing the contested nature of the British Freedom Party's political alignment or to the comments in this talk page. It does seem to me very important to accurately describe these organisations and their aims and with the classifications here I am not sure this is being done. If there is of yet not sufficient information then it is better to acknowledge this rather than imply that non-expert classification is the equivalent to expert classification. I await your comments on these two proposed amendments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draytoner1 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Far right" is the ideological classification of the party and is therefore important enough to include in the lead. What happens in other articles is not relevant, although they seem to also include ideology in the first line of the lead, unless it is obvious from the name. The sources appear to be adequate and it is reasonable that a party formed as a breakaway from a far right party and having an alliance withthe far right EDL would be a far right party. Of course once academic writing becomes available we should source the ideology to that. TFD (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that the ideological classification of the party is what we are debating here and that we don't have enough evidence to classify it in this manner. I made the comparison to other articles so that we can have some kind of an idea of a standard and format to adhere to. It does seem contradictory that you dismiss these articles as being "not relevant" while at the same time using them to support your standpoint. You do make a very important point regarding links to the BNP and the EDL, though an important factor is your reference to them being a breakaway (from the BNP), it is perfectly possible that a political party which breaks away from another political party will then have a different political alignment from the party it broke away from, this may only be a slight difference in alignment, but a difference none the less. It is also possible that they will have the same political alignment, my point is that a breakaway group may or may not have the same political alignment as the group that it broke away from. Their alliance with the EDL is also an important point, an alliance does not however imply identical ideological classification, their are examples of parties with different ideologies forming alliances to further certain common aims, or for convenience, for perhaps an extreme example the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the Coalition. Again this is not to imply that the BFP and the EDL do necessarily have different ideologies, rather it is an attempt to highlight that your assertion that breakaways and allegiances imply identical ideologies is incorrect, as there are cases when they do not. It may be demonstrable that through common membership the BFP is so closely intwined with the EDL that one can say they have identical ideologies, however neither you or I are in the position to make such an assertion either way. There could also be an argument that the BFP have a closer political ideology to the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, who are classified as a right-wing party in the first line of their article, whilst in the profile box on the right hand side are classified as right-wing to radical right with their ideology referenced as Anti-Islam, Conservative liberalism, Right-wing populism and Euroscepticism, my point is that neither you nor I are in a position to classify them based on our individual judgements linking them to other parties. I therefore contend that the classification of the party hinges on the strength of the two sources that we have, and whether this is adequate to justify the important classification in the first line, the added stigma of the term far-right makes this all the more important. You have previously dismissed what happens in other articles, how then do you suggest we can establish a level of required adequacy for such an important classification? I would acknowledge this as acceptable if evidence could be shown that this were the standard case for articles for other fledgling political parties which as of yet lack expert classification. Without this evidence or other suitable justification I would contend that we do not have sources for a required level of adequacy and in such case the stigmatic "far-right" in the first line should be removed until we do have a required level of adequacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draytoner1 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To use the phrase "the added stigma of the term far-right" says more about your own views than anything else. Why do you assume that being described as "far right" is a stigma? Poitical scientists know exactly what far right, right, centre right, far left, extreme left etc all mean or imply. They are descriptors, not badges of stigma. In UK politics, the Conservative Party covers the centre right/right ground. Anything to the right of that will be far right, and the BFP is certainly to the right of the right wing Tories. But let's look at some soucres. The BFP has been described as "the political wing of the EDL" and EDL's leader, Tommy Robinson is deputy leader of the BFP. A Guardian article on the launch of BFP is headlined "Britain's far right to focus on anti-Islamic policy" and observes that Nick Lowles of Hope not Hate has called it "the new face of the far right". Also in the Guardian, an article "The far right is fragmenting" shows how internal rivalry within the BNP "also reflects a broader process of fragmentation within the far right" and goes on to list the far right groupings which have emerged from it, including BFP. Then we have the Independent ("It's not rhetoric to draw parallels with Nazism") which says "Like far-right groups across Europe – including the English Defence League and the new British Freedom Party......" Even UKIP, a right wing party, lumps the BFP with all the other extreme/far right groups when it says "Membership is not available to anyone who is or has previously been a member of the British National Party, National Front, British Freedom Party, British People's Party, English Defence League, Britain First or the UK First Party." (See, UKIP "Join or renew now!") Academic researchers haven't got round to publishing on the BFP yet, if they ever will, but the party's policies, history, background, antecedents, leadership, membership etc etc all testify to it being far right at least, and most likely extreme right. Otherwise, a hell of a lot of leopards have changed a helll of a lot of spots, when they could all have stayed with the far right groups they were already in. Quite frankly, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Emeraude (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article reads: "Its founders were members of the BNP who were expelled when they disagreed with the BNP's whites only policy"

I thought that the BNP were forced to, or chose to, admit non-whites in order to abide by some ruling, and those who didn't agree with the BNP admitting non-whites left to form the British Freedom Party. Is this so? If it is, the article suggests the opposite. The article suggests that the British Freedom Party did NOT want a whites-only policy; I thought it was the opposite, that they DID want a whites-only policy. Maybe somebody with greater knowledge can check and if necessary amend this. Boleslaw (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)db[reply]

Not according to the sources (Is it RS?). Do you have any sources contesting this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, maybe it is another political group I am thinking of that broke from the BNP on this issue. I don't know of any sources, I just thought that I had read it somewhere. Please could you tell me what RS means? Thanks. Boleslaw (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)db Oh maybe RS means "reliable source", right? Well, at the moment, no, I just thought I'd read somewhere that there was a group that split from the BNP when the BNP were forced to, or chose to, admit non-whites, and I thought this was maybe the British Freedom Party, I wasn't sure so I thought I'd see if anyone knew here. Boleslaw (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)db[reply]

The Freedom Party and BPP have a names similar to the BFF. RS means "reliable sources". TFD (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timing is key here. I think that the BFP broke off when the BNP had a whites only policy that they didn't want to change. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British Freedom Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://britishfreedom.org/about/mission-statement/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://britishfreedom.org/tag/stephen-tweed/

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

Y 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Freedom Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106090431/http://britishfreedom.org:80/kev-carroll-becomes-british-freedom-chairman/ to http://britishfreedom.org/kev-carroll-becomes-british-freedom-chairman/

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

Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• British Freedom Party Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]