Talk:English Democrats

Ben Quinn article

The Ben Quinn article from The Guardian does not claim that the ED are "far right". It talks about the "potential" for ED to "exploit the supposedly significant gap in the electoral market for an anti-immigration, radical right party". To claim it describes them as "far right" (words which do not even appear in the article) is WP:SYN. Keri (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I bothered to read the Quinn article was after Katherine Tonkiss contacted OTRS to "explicitly" refute that her book described the ED as "far right". It raises question marks about the referencing and verification of the whole article, which up until today I had no reason to doubt. Keri (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Emeraude:Edit warring as you did here is not helpful. Please explain where in the article Quinn calls the ED a "far right party". Keri (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not edit warring. It's a justified response to being told "the article does not say what you think it does". If you want to set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what an article says you are displaying arrogance of an extreme sort. If you think your interpretation differs from other editors then it's right to set up a discussion, which you have now done, but that is belatedly after the event. Emeraude (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The article simply does not say that which you claim it does. That isn't "setting myself up as the sole arbiter" - that's just being able to read English. When an editor - in this instance, you - has to "interpret" a text to produce a "fact" not otherwise explicit in the text, then that is WP:SYN. Also, repeatedly removing a maintenance tag placed by an editor to flag concerns - note, I did not remove the actual reference, or alter the desciption of the party as "far right" - is edit warring. Keri (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the descriptor "far right" from the article and replacing it with "right wing". Reliable sources (even those selected by editors specifically trying to prove that ED's are far right) do not agree about where on the right wing spectrum EDs sit; ergo Wikipedia should not take a position on such a contentious issue. Especially not when the lede already contains the word "far right" twice to record well-substantiated facts showing the ED's are more willing to work with people on the far right than most. Reliable non primary sources are pretty consistent in suggesting they belong somewhere on the right wing, so we go back to the article as it stood at the 2015 GE.

This discussion has been going on for a long time now and agreement between all editors is unlikely to ever be reached. But continuing to maintain a controversial position based on two sources - neither of them the most detailed discussions of the ED's - having being advised that several others purporting to support that position suggest otherwise, is unambiguously a POV stance. Dtellett (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the party being described as "far right" - that's backed up by the Caramani reference, for example, which immediately preceded the Quinn reference. Following Katherine Tonkiss's complaint that she was being misrepresented, I merely flagged the Quinn reference to show that it doesn't at any point describe the ED as "far right". Keri (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've changed my opinion about this, having now looked at the article history, the associated talk page history, and the sources used - and how they are being used. Keri (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

To date, I think my only dog in this fight has been reverting socks of blocked users who regularly return here, I'm not otherwise engaged with the article and have no real interest in the ED. But I know synthesis when I see it. Keri (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Caramani is not a bad source per se but it's hardly incontrovertible evidence whether there's a dispute. Trouble is that whilst you've got two reliable sources that describes the ED's as "far right" you've got two equally reliable sources that agreed to publish a correction stating that the ED's are not a far right party, and more detailed reliable sources that stick with calling them "right wing". Previously this dispute was resolved by editors proposing the "far right" classification introducing a whole host of additional sources like Quinn and Tonkiss to suggest the balance of evidence was in their favour. Which closer examination of them proved was actually not the case.

I'm suggesting that reverting to "right wing" is the only way we resolve this that is consistent with all the reliable sources. Dtellett (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've stopped following this article's struggles for a while, but I hope you aren't claiming that sources conflict merely because the BBC source calls it "right wing" without specifying "far-right", since, surely, "far-right" is a type of "right wing", and I don't see the BBC article explicitly denying they are "far-right" (while other sources explicitly state that). LjL (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources need to be checked. It would appear that POV warriors from both sides of the political spectrum have been playing fast and loose with references here. Little sirens should start going off when an author who is being used as a reference complains via OTRS that their work is being misrepresented. Having now read page 12 of Tonkiss's book, I can confirm that the words "far right" and "English Democrats" do not appear anywhere on it. Keri (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@LjL Not really, I'm claiming there's a conflict of sources because the Economist [1] opted to "correct" an earlier statement it made classifying the party as "far right", in addition to the objection of the author of the cited work Keri mentioned. Other well-sourced statements in the article body note that some prominent members left English Democrats because they objected to far right activists joining the party, which is also clearly inconsistent with the party being unambiguously far right. Political classification is always a matter of multiple opinions (there are articles in generally reliable publications explicitly stating that Labour platforms have been variously "hard left" and "right wing" or that UKIP are "far right") so we'd really want reliable sources to show consistency before applying a label the party itself vigorously contests. As you point out, "far right" is a subset of "right wing" anyway so there's no conflict in using the latter term instead. Dtellett (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dtellett: from, among other things, previous interactions with English Democrats members, we know pretty well that The Economist didn't "opt" to "correct" their previous statement, but simply covered their ass because they were being sued. I really believe a source stops being reliable for a given fact when their version of that fact changes due to legal threats. WP:Legal threats were also made to Wikipedia editors, but we don't react to them by "opting" to "correct" the article: we react by blocking the ones threatening, and still striving to report facts from sources that aren't coerced into eating their own words. LjL (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We can speculate as to whether the Economist responded to a polite request or an unconvincing legal threat all we like (and whether they or the Sunday Times would have agreed to publish the same "correction" if the BNP, for example, had objected to being described as "far right" or "extreme"). But I don't think we've got enough sources to make an authoritative judgement on whether it's a right wing populist party with a far right faction or a party characterised by far right ideology. Even the NS article which calls them far right in the subhead describes a more nuanced picture in the article body. Bearing in mind the words "far right" appear twice in other contexts in the opening paragraph, I don't think the article misses anything for erring on the side of the less contentious classifier. Dtellett (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You might be right, I have no strong opinion; what I do have a strong opinion about is that a source like The Economist can no longer be considered reliable for our purposes after an incident like that. We should, as you say, err on the side of caution, so it's not a matter of "speculation", but a matter of having valid indications that the source may be tainted. Other sources exist, so please let's just discount sources that probably received and heeded legal threats entirely, and use what's left, instead. LjL (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Economist is always going to be considered a reliable source and if you would like to run the fools errand of saying it isn't reliable, take it to the RS board and have them review your request. Lipsquid (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I need to point out that the above editor has never edited this talk page or article before, and has recently been reported by me for WP:HOUNDING my contributions in likely retaliation for reverts I made (despite the report becoming stale while other "fans" of mine piled on it). Please take this into consideration when evaluating the situation. LjL (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I was only speaking to the reliability of The Economist. I am glad you took this to the reliable sources board. It would seem I actually had something substantive to add to the discussion since you heeded my advice. Lipsquid (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a good rule of thumb that if you have to go around telling everybody that you are not far-right, you're probably far-right. A bit like UKIP having to tell the world they are not bigots after each successive story of someone in UKIP exhibiting bigotry. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Economist retraction

Both the article and the correction were published before the Defamation Act 2013 became law. In the climate of the time, it was easier and vastly less expensive to issue a retraction than to defend a defamation case, because the law was notoriously favourable to plaintiffs and because the legal costs were likely to be enormous. As such, coerced retractions cannot be taken as an indication of anything - and that is pretty much why the law was changed. If the original story had been published after Jan 1 2014, then this might mean something, but it wasn't, so it doesn't. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates

The cite check template is there because at least one of the references used on this page failed verification, while another was so blatantly misrepresented that the cited author asked for it to be removed! Snowded removed the tag today without, it would appear, fixing the issue. I'm sorry to say this, but Snowded and Emeraude both seem to be exhibiting ownership behaviour on this article and need to step back a little. They're not helping, just hindering. Keri (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are to the arbitrator as has been pointed out above, Until you have consensus on the talk page to make those changes please leave the stable text alone. Also try and focus on content issues rather than making ill advised comments on other editors ----Snowded ^TALK 23:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense. It isn't "my opinion" that has raised red flags about the veracity of the references here: it is the "fact" that one of the references being used was effectively made up - page 12 of Tonkiss's book does not mention "far-right" or "English Democrats". You have been quite happy to keep that reference there, however. If Tonkiss hadn't complained, you'd have left it there. I'm sure that if someone had flagged it, you'd have undone the tag and spouted this nonsensical "arbitrator" line. My politics are to the left of Corbyn; I have no affection for the ED. But that doesn't mean I can turn a blind eye to POV editing. The history of the article has plenty of examples. As for consensus to make those changes, I've made no changes to the text of the article. But there is a discussion ongoing here which you are riding roughshod over - in your typical ownership fashion. Keri (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A version of the text which has been reverted dozens of times over the past year by editors wishing to support their particular point of view of the English Democrats' policy line is not by any stretch of the imagination "stable". If there is no consensus, we go back to not describing the English Democrats political position at all, which was stable. if uninformative. I'd say it would be more better to have consensus around right wing, which @Snowded and @Emeraude were quite happy with a few months back [2] [3] Dtellett (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been reverted many times by many SPAs created for that purpose, none of them gained consensus for the change and (Keri) I see you continue to speculate about the motivations of other editors as well as thinking it relevant to tell us about your own views. I've got a long flight today so I don't have more time to look at this but neither of you seem to understand that consensus is not two editors agreeing to change while others disagree. However we can source far right fringe party and the move of BNP activists into the English Democrats is covered in other articles that address the Far Right and their role----Snowded ^TALK 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm disregarding the SPA edits entirely. There was no consensus to change "right wing", which you previously approved, to "far right". This was first made in October with four purported sources, two of which subsequently turned out to be false. It was then reverted (not by a SPA, but by me) to the stable version which described them as right wing. "Far right" was added again in January and was again promptly contested on the basis of its sourcing. I believe the influx of BNP activists is entirely appropriate to be discussed in the article (and actually added wording to that effect to the lede!) but doesn't in itself, make it sufficiently clear English Democrats a party with a far right policy stance as opposed to a right wing populist party willing to embrace a far right faction. Dtellett (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The most recent "stable" version of the article used "right wing" until a sock puppet of blocked user Lu3ke altered it to "far right" on 11 May 2015. (Following Lu3ke's socks may be how this article ended up on my watchlist in the first place.) There was no consensus for this alteration, but Emeraude edited the page the same day and accepted it without discussion. For the previous 11 years the article had not used "far right". Lu3ke was using references added by Emeraude on 27 April 2015 to support his alteration, but of those references neither Searchlight, The Guardian, The Jewish Chronicle, HuffPost or Buzzfeed explicitly describe ED as a "far right" party. New Statesman does - but only in the subheading, written by a sub-editor, not in the text of the article... On 16 May 2015 "far right" was removed. Emeraude reverted an hour later and claimed the mystery "consensus" - but the history of the talk page demonstrates that this had not been discussed and was not being discussed at the time. In fact, there was no discussion on the talk page between 20 April-4 July 2015. So where did this "consensus" suddenly spring from? Dtellett also queried where the magic consensus had been formed, and pointed out that only 1 of the 6 references could be vaguely used to support "far right". From that point on, Emeraude and Snowded have been acting as self-appointed gatekeepers of the article, referring to an earlier "consensus" that was never established, a supposed "stable version" that has not existed since May 2015, and making imaginative use of sources (and in one case, a blatantly misrepresented source) to support their position. Despite 11 years of not using "far right", in October 2015 Snowded even has the gall to suggest "So that means three of us in favour of the long standing 'far right' label?" (my emph) - despite the label only appearing in May that year and being edit warred over for the entire 5 months it had been used! There is some very disingenuous editing going on here; this is clearly going to need to go to RfC. Keri (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but be concerned about the "motivations of other editors" when I see that Tonkiss's book was flagged up 5 months ago, then altered to refer to another page (120), which again simply did not support the statement to which it was appended. As such, it was removed and then - surprise surprise - stubbornly reinserted by Emeraude. Googling this morning, I came across this on Robin Tilbrook's blog: "Dear Robin, I can confirm that I do not refer to the English Democrats as ‘far right’ in my book. I have noticed this morning that on the Wikipedia entry for the English Democrats, my book is listed as a source to support the classification of the party as ‘far right’. I cannot, as you know, control how my work is reported on Wikipedia, but I will be contacting the website today to request that the reference is removed given that this is not something that I state in my book. With best wishes, Dr. Katherine Tonkiss" So, we have blatant POV editing going on, with people plucking "facts" out of the ether and deliberately misrepresenting sources to create an illusion of verifiability; people completely ignoring legitimate concerns raised on the talk page about sources; and people POV-pushing to reinsert these "manufactured" references into the article... You stated on 19 October 2015: "Its all down to references and as you can see there are multiple ones..." It transpires that there were not. Keri (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Keri, you might be better off letting Dtellett make the case. your penchant for personal attacks (I see you have one block for that) and templating really isn't helping. Dtellett the influx of BNP members is significant and if we said "far right BNP members" in the lede that might be a reasonable compromise. The New Statesman reference I gave says 'Fringe far right' so we are not depending on the Tonkiss book. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I literally spat coffee through laughter while reading that blatant ad hom attack :D This smacks of sophistry to evade scrutiny of the article's history of manipulation of references and claims of consensus and "stable" versions that never existed. The New Statesman article is not sufficient: it is a subheading written by a sub-editor, not reflected in the actual text of the article. Trilling does not use the words "far right" at any point in his article, and in his book Bloody Nasty People: The rise of Britain's far right, he describes (page 195) the ED as "a right-wing, anti-immigration party". Also, for a party to be considered "far right", one of the usual conventions applied is that "there are no other parties to the right of them." An influx of ex-BNP members is not sufficient to describe the party as "far right": a party is not described in terms of what its members think and believe, or we'd be describing UKIP and other mainstream parties very differently to how we currently do so - and you know that. Keri (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not the best way to treat coffee, When you are prepared to work with other experiences editors in a civilised way please let the rest of us know. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Snowded The lede contains the phrase "The English Democrats Party has welcomed defectors from the far-right British National Party into leadership roles and former members of the party have also criticised informal links with other far right organisations", which I inserted last time somebody suggested that the article might be erring on the side of downplaying their links with the far right. It's the beginning of the third sentence. That claim is incontrovertible, well documented by a wide range of mainstream media sources and, as you said, seems to be a reasonable compromise which is what I was aiming for. Dtellett (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look later. There is a general problem with this and other articles, in that we get multiple SPAs simply landing on them to try and present a more reasonable face. So it should not be a surprise that those of us who monitor them get fairly battle hardened and cynical :-) The fringe nature from the New Statesman (a heading is a valid source) is relevant and right wing includes far right, the issue is that it also includes mainstream right wing parties. So some form of distinction needs to be made. As I say I need to set off for a meeting but I will see if I can come up with a compromise that reflects that when I get back this evening (on the West Coast of Canada at the moment) ----Snowded ^TALK 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Been away, missed the fun and personal attacks. Let's get back to the issue: Is the EDP far right? No one denies they're on the right (do they??) but that covers such a wide field as to be practically meaningless. It's like saying Cambridge, Oxford, the Royal Navy and the sky are all blue, as is turquoise. Absolutely correct; perfectly useless. The EDP receives little coverage in the mass media and even less in academic journals, and tends to be only loosely described for this very reason, so anyone who has written simply that is right wing is correct but lacks precision. But any source that does not say "EDP is far right" is is not saying that EDP is not far right, even when the author states specifically that they did not use the first quote. They are not saying the opposite. However, if you want sources for the EDP being far right, try these:

• James Jupp, "Immigration and Race in the British General Election", Australian Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 2 (April-June 2010), pp. 32-37 discusses the English Democrats under the subheading "The Extreme Fringes", along with BNP, NF, UKIP and English First.

• "UK election candidates: who's standing in 2015?", Daily Telegraph, 7 May 2015 (Quote: "There has been a significant fall in the number of Far-right candidates standing in the election for the British National Party and the English Democrats.")

• "Leading article: An unwelcome Seventies revival", Independent, 22 April 2012. (Quote: "...the peculiarly fissiparous nature of far-right politics in Britain, as a result of which a fairly small number of voters is spread over a whole range of parties, from Ukip and the BNP to the English Democrats and now the NF as well.")

(The Jupp article, as far as I can ascertain, is the only academic article to specifically mention the EDP.) Emeraude (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out how people have used synthesis, manipulation and misrepresentation of sources, then edit warred, claimed a non-existent consensus and reverted-on-sight to maintain their preferred version, is not a personal attack. Keri (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

These sources kind of make my point for me. Two out of three put them in the same bracket as UKIP, which is unambiguously not a far right party on Wikipedia. Where claims are difficult to reliably and consistently source, we err on the side of the broader description (which, on the available evidence would seem reasonable - a party willing to both accept known racists and field a black candidate for Mayor of London is pretty broad-spectrum for such a small insignificant group). And as has been pointed out before, two very reliable sources chose to retract the claim that English Democrats were far right when asked to do so, so contrary to your assertion we do have reliable sources that explicitly state EDs is not far right (which is actually usually quite a difficult thing to source for a fringe party. I'd struggle to find a recent source that says Labour isn't "far left" or "hard left"). Other reliable sources - including the now infamous Hopkiss book - state that English Democrats position themselves as civic rather than ethnic nationalists, which amounts to the same thing. Dtellett (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really, large parts of UKIP are on the far right of the right wing and it is a marginal call how to designate them. It isn't marginal for a fringe party like the EDs. A book saying that the EDs position themselves as X is not the same thing as that booking saying that the EDs are X. It's a key distinction. One reports what ED says about itself, the second would be a third party evaluation. We have those for far right ----Snowded ^TALK 18:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"We have those for far right" ... If you have these reliable sources, that don't need synthesis or POV interpretation, why haven't they been used? Keri (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave you one, Emeraude gave you three ----Snowded ^TALK 22:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As Dtellett pointed out, the Independent article lumps together ED and UKIP; would you consider that a strong enough reference to change the UKIP article to say UKIP is a far-right party..? James Jupp doesn't call ED far-right; he also lumps them in with UKIP. I'm not convinced that the Telegraph article is strong enough on its own, it's scraping the barrel a bit, but at least it calls ED far-right. The Daniel Trilling article in NS is definitely not robust enough: a sub-editor's sub-heading, not repeated anywhere in the text, is not a reference. Trilling calls them instead "a right-wing, anti-immigration party" - in both his book, Bloody Nasty People and his other articles. Ray Taras, in his Challenging Multiculturalism: European Models of Diversity, also doesn't put them at the far-right of the spectrum, writing of "the rise of popular English nationalisms in the form of either relatively benign, though ultra-conservative forms (for example, the English Democrats) or, more menacingly, far-right articulations (such as the English Defence League)..." Janice Turner might be a suitable source alongside Emeraude's Independent quote; she calls ED "far-right populists" in a 2014 article for The Times. There's also UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics by Matthew Goodwin and Caitlin Milazzo, which explicitly calls ED far-right on page 178. Keri (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The English Democrats (ED), although not itself a far right party, has absorbed large numbers of former BNP members in recent years without requiring any of them to publicly renounce their views. https://cst.org.uk/data/file/9/f/Elections-Report-2012.1425054803.pdf TenchuPS1 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Far right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There appear to be three possible versions of the characterisation of this party:

1. Right-wing
2. Far-right
3. Right-wing, often characterised as far-right

All are defensible based on sources, so we need to establish the consensus as to which, exactly, should be used, and put this dispute to bed. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Opinions

• far-right (first preference); right-wing, often characterised as far-right (second preference). Right-wing does not adequately reflect the extremist nature of this party, from my perspective. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Far-right or, failing that, "often characterized", because we have sources saying they are far-right and some more generically just calling them right-wing (which includes the far right), but I don't see any source (except for an unreliable, potentially extorted retraction) directly claiming they are not far-right. LjL (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Right wing. This is stated or implied by all reliable sources, and is also consistent with WP:DUCK (the party's manifesto is very close to UKIP's and they picked an ethnic minority to stand for Mayor; like UKIP and unlike the unambiguously far right parties they also object to being labelled "far right"). We have a couple of reliable sources (and a few more not-reliable-for WP) for "far right" (not nearly as many as for UKIP!) but we also have a couple of reliable sources that opted to "correct" the claim that it was a "far right" or "extreme right" party. Contrary to LjL's assertion, they were not "possibly extorted" but simply referred to a toothless body that could have asked them to publish a retraction had the editors not volunteered to do so. I would suggest that a political party complaining about a description and an editor of a reliable source agreeing to uphold their complaint is actually unusually strong evidence a particular claim is not certain enough to assert as true in Wikipedia's voice. "Right wing, often characterised as far right" would be my second preference, though since a more tangible and sourced statement of why the party is often considered far right is already present in the lede it might be redundant. Dtellett (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Far Right, we have sources that say that and they are a classic fringe far right party. To call them right wing without qualification is to lump them with the Conservative Party and others. The fact that one source changed to a broader description does not invalidate the other sources and their own preference is nothing to do with us. Dtellett's argument gets too close to original research in the conclusions he/she draws ----Snowded ^TALK 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Conservative Party is classed as centre right by Wikipedia. Calling the English Democrats right wing lumps them with UKIP, which is pretty consistent with sources (including sources Emeraude has just noted that appear to label both parties as "far right"). I would argue the fact one source chose to "correct" an earlier claim is highly relevant to the debate; as a general rule Wikipedia should not be asserting things which a reliable source chooses to "correct" as fact without unusually strong sourcing. Dtellett (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, Right Wing includes Centre Right and Far Right, so we need to be clear here. The fact that one source withdraws a word is not especially significant, you are choosing to make it so. We work from what sources say and Far Right is sourced. Right Wing could include the left of the Conservative party ----Snowded ^TALK 22:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that one reliable source withdraws the precise wording that you are advocating (and a second withdrew a synonym) is highly significant. It's quite insulting to the intelligence of Wikipedia editors to suggest otherwise. Dtellett (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Right wing unless and until reliable 3rd party sources are identified which explicitly verify that the ED are a "far-right" party. Having members whose personal beliefs could be labelled "far-right" does not make the party far-right. Dtellett's argument is not original research - it is based on the sources. JzG's statement "Right-wing does not adequately reflect the extremist nature of this party, from my perspective" (my emph) indicates blatant POV/OR. Similarly, LjL's statement "we have sources saying they are far-right and some more generically just calling them right-wing (which includes the far right)" (my emph) is again an interpretation of sources that isn't explicit in the text. If the source says "right wing", that's what we write. If they really are a far-right party then there should be no difficulty finding multiple, reliable 3rd party sources that say so. I was previously happy with the description "far right" until a closer look revealed just how weak the sourcing for this actually is. Keri (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is a very good idea to draw clear distinctions between opinion and fact. It is a fact that we have reliable sources saying both right and far-right. It is my opinion that right, alone, is insufficient. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You simply don't have those multiple, reliable 3rd party sources. See walls of text above ^ Keri (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The walls of text above include clear sourced references to Far Right ----Snowded ^TALK 22:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that they're robust enough. Keri (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And I partially agree with your sentiment in the original reply you wrote but then deleted: if those sources are identified during this Rfc then I will cheerfully support "far right" Keri (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Far-right Having had to go find better sources, I'm happier with Goodwin, Matthew; Milazzo, Caitlin: UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics (2015) Oxford: OUP p.178 "It is likely that UKIP benefited from the collapse of the far-right BNP and English Democrats". Also Janice Turner's article in The Times here ("far-right populists the English Democrats"). The Independent Telegraph article mentioned by Emeraude above is also explicit in describing ED as far-right. I could probably find a couple more but those 3 appear pretty robust. Keri (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I would agree that Goodwin is a high quality source, and the Times article is more recent than their retracted comment the year before. Dtellett (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodwin also in The Guardian ("The far right is fragmenting", 19 August 2012): "But the rivalry also reflects a broader process of fragmentation within the far right. The most striking aspect of this year's elections was the number of far right parties competing alongside the BNP... This owes much to a series of personality clashes and ideological splits that have spawned an increasing number of groups, including Britain First, British Freedom, British People's party, England First, National Front, English Democrats, Democratic Nationalists and the Britannica party." Keri (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Far right: All sources say right wing. That's not in dispute. But it is not at all precise and covers everything, in the UK, from the Conservatives to beyond the National Socialist Movement. That is unhelpful. The issue, then, is whether it is possible to say how far right - ultra, extreme, far, centre? I have provided sources, as have others, from the quality press and academic journals and books that specify "far right". Remember this is a small group: there is not going to be the same coverage as would be expected for Tories, Labour, UKIP or even BNP, but there is more than sufficient. And remember that a source that describes a party as right wing is NOT saying it is NOT far right. By analogy, if I say that Cambridge rowers wear blue I am correct, but I am not saying that they do not wear light blue! Emeraude (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Right wing as being by far the most common descriptor used in non-opinion reliable sources. When in doubt, using the most common term is wise. Collect (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Often characterised as or 2nd choice Right wing there is sufficient doubt to avoid 'Far Right', sufficient reason to say 'often characterised'. btw ... I disagree about 'right' encompassing all right-of-centre, since we have 'moderating adjectives' to describe both the moderate left and the moderate right. 'Right wing' unmoderated is usually reserved for those well away from the centre. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Far right is the term universally used in reliable sources to describe the class of political parties and groups to which the party belongs. It is useful because it classifies them along with the BNP, EDL, NF and similar parties world-wide. It is no more in dispute than calling the Liberal Democrats a liberal party, and just as descriptive and precise. However I would eliminate the field "political position" in the info-box. TFD (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

comments

[4] provided in a discussion below, specifically says the group is "not far right" in the first place, but "English nationalist." When a reliable source makes such a strong statement of fact, we ought not dismiss it lightly. Calling any group "far right" because it has some members who "have not renounced their views" is silly. Collect (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

note however that this source is 2012, does that have any bearing?Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on English Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615070753/http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/EnglishDemocrats_23009-17188__E__N__S__W__.PDF to http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/EnglishDemocrats_23009-17188__E__N__S__W__.PDF
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090524212541/http://politics.guardian.co.uk:80/hoc/constituency/0,,-984,00/html to http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0,,-984,00/html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111220021832/http://ukpolitics.telegraph.co.uk:80/Feltham+&+Heston to http://ukpolitics.telegraph.co.uk/Feltham+%26+Heston

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 09:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Political spectrum

It is neither right wing or left wing and hard to categorize it contains a mixture of right wing immigration policies and left-wing economic policies. Below is the only available academic coverage of the English Democrats political spectrum:

"Sur ce point, contrairement aux partis nationalistes écossais ou gallois ayant adopté depuis les années 70 une idéologie de gauche (centre gauche aujourd’hui pour le S.N.P), il est très difficile de donner une couleur politique à l’English Democrats Party. Eurosceptique, strict face à l’immigration et protectionniste, il pourrait être qualifié de droite. Cependant, d’autres mesures comme la gratuité des services publics, l’éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie, la nationalisation de nombreux secteurs comme les transports ou la prise de position en faveur d’une économie mixte sont autant de mesures de « gauche »26. Le parti aura même été un temps en faveur de la légalisation du cannabis."

Translation:

"On this point, unlike the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties which have adopted since the 70s a leftist ideology (center left today for SNP), it is very difficult to give a political category to the English Democrats Party; Eurosceptism, strict immigration and protectionism could be called "right". However, other measures such as free public services , education and training throughout life, the nationalization of many sectors such as transport or the stance in favor of a mixed economy are measures "left". The party has even been a time in favor of the legalization of cannabis."

- Barbanti, Claude. (2011). "The English Democrats Party ou l’émergence d’une nouvelle mouvance: le nationalisme autonomiste anglais." E-rea. Revue électronique d’études sur le monde anglophone 8.2 86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The above study also clarifies the English Democrats are not far-right. It points out Robin Tilbrook choose to replace the original English Nationalist Party with English Democrats as a name (removing the nationalist title) because he did not want to attract extremists/far right.86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@86.14.2.77: if you want to re-add your French source, do it, but it's one source out of many, and it does not give you authority to generally remove the "right-wing" or "far-right" label from the article. It doesn't even claim it's not right wing, just that some aspects can be considered left and that it's "difficult" to label them. Other sources found it less "difficult" and just call them (far) right. There is also an RfC just above this section (which I'm sure is hard to miss) which clearly favors "far-right", so if you want to trump that WP:CONSENSUS, you're going to need to have a discussion, not just boldly edit the article. LjL (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Some people claim that Hitler was left-wing because his party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It's an interesting view, and shines a light on the motivated reasoning of left-haters, but it doesnt change consensus. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Other sources found it less "difficult" and just call them (far) right." Yes, but these sources appear to be dubious. BBC isn't a reliable source. I was trying to replace those two BBC links with the academic journal reference I found - which is more trustworthy.86.14.2.77 (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

BBC isn't a reliable source for WP purposes? Link to discussion please. Bromley86 (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removing the field. Notice that the argument we are having is not what type of party it is, but where that type of party belongs in the political spectrum. There is no reason to have the field in the info-box. TFD (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The "far right" to the political box was added, when the BBC source (which itself isn't reliable) doesn't even say this, but right-wing. There is nothing "far right" about the English Democrats. Even the academic source I linked to - says the ED's are not an extremist party. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, respect the consensus above, actually read the sources, and don't accuse legitimate editors of vandalism. Enough. LjL (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

LjL I apologize... I won't be editing this article anymore. Take care. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Note some sources in the nature of "opinion columns" and "quotes from third parties" are being used to make a statement of fact that the group is "far right." It is more notable that the sources originally used for the claim alas did not even make the claim at all- so it is likely that "Google mining" for the term has been used. This is improper. Collect (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Searching for sources is improper? That's funny. No, I think I can reliably say that searching for sources (including on Google) is perfectly proper. On the other hand, defying apparently consensus from an RfC might not necessarily be. LjL (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I will add that sources calling them "extreme right" or "far right" or similar have been around in the article as far back as I remember, before party representatives started messing with the article and making threats and so on. This really should be put at rest already, with an RfC confirming the view. Doing otherwise at this point seems disruptive. LjL (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the current sources may have problems, but I think the claim is sound. The Goodwin and Milazzo reference looks fine for instance. At minimum it should be "right wing to far-right" as per National Front (France) etc. (While I always emphasize that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be making the judgements on these issues itself, I would note for the record as someone who specializes in this field that the protestations about it being "hard to categorize [because] it contains a mixture of right wing immigration policies and left-wing economic policies" are classic third positionism, which academics consider quintessentially far-right.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Google-mining for a specific term when the prior sources cited did not use the term is improper. We are supposed to use the most common term applied to the party - and that appears to be simply "right wing". Quotes of people who are expressing clear opinions are ... opinions. Which must be sourced and ascribed as such. Start an RfC - being sure to note the examples which do not say "far right" or "extreme right", vide the two which had been used for the infobox. The Express "right-wing", and dozens of others sticking to the simple "right wing" term. ED is not "centre" for sure, but once we start adding adjectives, it is possible we are giving higher value to those using the stronger terms when the simpler term is actually more common. Might you try counting - and eliminating clearly the "strong opinion journals" which might call Cameron "extreme right" <g>. Collect (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A source saying "right wing" doesn't rule out the party being "far-right", because "far-right" is a type of "right wing", and we have sources stating "far-right", and they are widely accepted as okay sources by the RfC, and the RfC endorses the idea that sources stating "right wing" don't deny "far right".

Just stop telling us how we should find our sources, really, that is none of your business.

We are not automatically supposed to use "the most common term"; if you are referring to WP:COMMONNAME, that is about article titles and names of things, not qualifications or descriptions. Those are handled differently.

It's not a tally count of sources, either. LjL (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What an interesting point of view. No - we do not use the most extreme adjectives found on the basis that they do not conflict with the less extreme adjectives found. A source saying "right wing" does not support a claim that the source says "far right" at all. Since we are required to edit carefully all articles naming living persons, the rule is clear - since more sources just say "right wing" we pretty much have to stick with the less extreme adjective rather than the more extreme adjective. Collect (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I won't try to edit the main page like I said because of 'edit war'. However, I think it should be acknowledged the English Democrats are nothing like the other "far-right" political parties in UK and the French journal source I posted makes this distinction - so "far right" doesn't seem an appropriate label at all.

Robin Tillbrook, un notaire et militant conservateur, décida de s’affranchir des inconvénients inhérents à un groupe de pression — à savoir être tributaires du bon vouloir des partis de gouvernement — en créant son propre parti politique. Déçu par le manque de succès des campagnes du C.E.P, il entreprit dès 2001 la création de l’English National Party24. Il s’agissait surtout, avec la création de ce petit parti aux buts initialement assez flous, de démarrer un processus permettant de s’affranchir des obstacles que rencontrait le C.E.P, c’est-à-dire devoir convaincre les partis déjà existants d’adopter une solution vivement critiquée par les politologues et à laquelle les sondages d’opinion n’étaient pas favorables. Ici, avec un parti à part entière, il n’y aurait plus d’intermédiaire entre les partisans d’un Parlement anglais et le peuple. Cependant, ceci impliquait d’établir un parti politique, c’est-à-dire d’élaborer un véritable programme électoral et surtout de se présenter à des élections. Durant un an sous le couvert de l’English National Party, Robin Tillbrook rapprocha, sous un même toit, divers groupes et individus partageant les mêmes préoccupations et objectifs, puis, en août 2002, lançait officiellement à l’Imperial College de Londres l’English Democrats Party25. Il était prohibé d’être membre d’autres organisations politiques et un programme électoral, qui serait soumis à validation annuelle par vote des militants, fut adopté. Notons que, dès le départ, furent exclus les membres « racistes » qui avaient tenté d’approcher le mouvement du temps de l’English National Party. D’ailleurs, le changement de nom pour English Democrats Party fut choisi pour lever toute suspicion d’appartenir à la mouvance d’extrême droite, dont les noms de partis mettent toujours l’accent sur l’adjectif « national ».

Translation

Robin Tillbrook, a noted strong conservative activist, decided to overcome the drawbacks inherent in a pressure group - namely to be dependent on the goodwill of the government parties - creating his own political party. Disappointed by the lack of success of campaigns C.E.P he undertook in 2001 the creation of the English National Party. This was especially with the creation of this little party with the goals initially rather vague, to start a process to overcome the obstacles faced by the PRC, that is to say have to convince existing parties' adopt a solution strongly criticized by political scientists to which opinion polls were unfavorable. Here, with a full party, there would be an intermediary between the supporters of an English Parliament and the people. However, this meant establishing a political party, that is to say, developing a real electoral program. For one year under the cover of the English National Party , Robin Tillbrook closer, under one roof , various groups and individuals sharing the same concerns and objectives , and in August 2002 formally launched at Imperial College London 's English Democrats Party. Note that, from the outset, excluded were the "racist" members who had tried to approach the movement of time of the English National Party . Besides, the name change for English Democrats Party was chosen to remove any suspicion of belonging to the extreme right movement , the party names always emphasize the word "national."

See especially bold.86.14.2.77 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Coming here due to comments at ANI, I haven't read most of the above discussion but the current refs [5] don't seem to be the best (except for the first one I can't evaluate). The third one doesn't seem to say far right or anything similar (only right wing). The second and fouth one say far right. However the second one although apparently in the Life section rather than Opinion section definitely seems to be presented as an opinion piece Janice Turner who doesn't seem to be a subject matter expert. The fourth one, is a bit complicated. I'm not totally sure but the way the author is presented at the bottom seems to suggest it's an opinion piece. Shiraz Maher seems a bit better but I'm not quite sure he's a subject matter expert on political party classification. And significantly, far right is only use in the summary or whatever you call it at the top which may not have been written by the author (which although that means it's the magazine editorial is not necessarily a better thing since it may not get much more attention than the title). Hard right is mentioned twice but the first at least seems to be in reference to the mayor not the party. The second seems to be at least partly in reference to the party. It also mentions radical right but only when quoting, and although this seem to imply the author felt these quotes including the radical right bit probably applied to the party it's complicated. I haven't checked the first source and I won't be removing it in any case but it def doesn't seem the best sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The English Democrats (ED), although not itself a far right party, has absorbed large numbers of former BNP members in recent years without requiring any of them to publicly renounce their views.https://cst.org.uk/data/file/9/f/Elections-Report-2012.1425054803.pdf TenchuPS1 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

IOW - if a person who had been "far right" is not required to specifically "renounce his views" any party he joins thus instantly becomes "far right" because of the classic "guilt by association"? I fear this seems a bit afield from how most people look at such matters - I suppose that if a church accepts a fundamentalist as a member, the church becomes a "fundamentalist church"? That former fascists joined the "Christian Democrats" in Germany after the war made that party a "Fascist Party"? Sorry - and apologies to Godwin - "guilt by association" is one of the single most pernicious modes of view known to modern man. By the way, the cite you just gave states : The ED is not a far right organisation, rather but an English nationalist one." In short - the cite you give specifically says "not far right". Collect (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's what is going on here: it's more that this is a party that attracts far-right people because if its racist agenda. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Our task is to use what reliable sources state as fact. Google News find the overwhelming majority of news sources simply use "right wing". Which is how we are supposed to operate, whether editors "know" the party is full of hateful racists or homophobes or whatever. BTW, "English Democrats" and "racist" is rare on Google News for actual hits (under 20). Mainly "PinkNews", "Green Left Weekly" and "The Voice Online" in fact. And absolutely not the "general opinion stated in reliable sources." And to say "it has some far right supporters therefore it is "far right" is exactly the type of "guilt by association" argument made far too often. Collect (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

lol @ attracts far-right. You mean like Winston McKenzie? He is the ED's mayoral candidate in May.EnglishAxeman (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Collect, these pages unfortunately attract politically motivated far-leftists. This issue is well known. These sort of editors are only here to slander anyone who isn't far left, as "far right". Its rather sad, but has been going on for years on this site. EnglishAxeman (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"BBC isn't a reliable source for WP purposes? Link to discussion please." Yes, just google BBC left wing bias. This is the same vile BBC who has tried to cover up Savile's child sexual abuse. see: Greer, C. & McLaughlin, E. (2012). A paedophile scandal foretold: Sir Jimmy Savile, child sexual abuse and the BBC. British Society of Criminology Newsletter, 71(Winter),[6] And people consider the BBC reliable? EnglishAxeman (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

English democrats are centrist, or center right. There is no evidence whatsoever they are right wing, let alone "far right". Anyway If English Democrats really are "far-right" (which they aren't) then why aren't UKIP categorized as this? The English Democrats immigration policy is more mild than UKIP's. EnglishAxeman (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• For the record: while the RfC now closed in favor of "far-right", which I favored, I'm personally content enough with the current state, where the infobox briefly states "far right" but the lede characterizes it as "considered right-wing to far-right". I think if we can stop messing with this, then the long row of citations can be removed from the infobox mention since they're already elsewhere, but not if that's an excuse to change it again in spite of the RfC. LjL (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I fear I suggest we get an actual admin to close rather than a 4 month editor here. I suggest further that the policy requirements are not noted by the non-admin closer, and that this close is disputed. Collect (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Many if not most RfCs are closed by non-administrators. For now, you're the only one disputing the close. If you want, you can challenge the closure according to the proper procedure (but note it mentions that the closer not being an admin is not a strong reason to challenge). LjL (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And how many are closed by new users with under 800 total edits in their entire 4 months here? Policy and sourcing issues count here, and I find your defence of a new user closing a contested RfC to be nice. The reason for the contest is that this is not a simple "vote" but policy and sourcing issues are raised, which the closer did not note at all. Collect (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)