Template talk:UK far right

Why is UKIP on here? If anything, they're just mildly conservative. May I remove it from this list please? Harris Morgan 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

Some might describe "mildly" conservative as a euphemism, but "far right" hardly conforms to WP:NPOV either. If there's any controversy about how, objectively, to describe a political organisation and its positions, we neutrally record both sides in the article. If the way we pigeonhole an article favours one controversial interpretation against another, it would be better to leave it uncategorised. I would go right ahead; you might be reverted, but be bold.

In fact, I'd like to know what Patrick Harrington is doing on this list. It's been roughly two decades since he was a member of the British National Front, and he has publicly renounced his former views. His party, the National Liberal Party, isn't on this template (as it positions itself in the "Radical Centre"), and the template doesn't even appear on Harrington's page. Some people don't believe him, that's their prerogative but it shouldn't be reflected here. I'm certainly going to remove his name from the list. Gnostrat (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should definitely have him on the list: we've got Ray Hill on there, who's very definitely renounced his former views (given that he's now an anti-fascist activist), but given that, like Harrington, he was a key figure in the far right post-1945, and he's still involved with the far right, if only in the sense of opposition to it (as Ray Hill is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedisillusionedyouth (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Anglo-German Fellowship should be on here. Though some far-right activists were members, I don't think this was a far-right organisation. I'll try and find a source if I remember. Opera hat (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Anglo-German Fellowship was important for Nazi sympathisers in Britain in co-ordinating with Germany and so belongs in the template. By the same token I take your point that explicitly it was just a group of people seeking to build closer relationships between the two countries rather than a far right organisation and that some members had nobler international relations aims in mind. For these reasons I feel it should be left in but, in keeping with your concerns, be moved to the related articles in order to inidicate that, whilst it was a part of British far right development it was not in itself a specifically far right movement. Indeed, taking advantage of the be bold spirit that is part of this talk page I will make the changes now.Keresaspa (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on the page 'Fourteen Words'

This template is to do with British Far Right, the Fourteen Words were coined by an American and are of international significance to the Far Right, not just Britain. Remove please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.214.12 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Joshua Bonehill

Should the self-appointed blogger Joshua Bonehill, with no discernible political affiliations to others, be added to {{UK far right}}?

Please see the discussion at Talk:Joshua Bonehill#Addition of Bonehill to the navbox Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Conservative and Unionist Party

Should the Conservative and Unionist Party be included in this list, similar to English Democrats and United Kingdom Independence Party with the same caveat of "(some members)"? I would argue that in recent years some party members and party policies have become unmistakeably far right. Take for example, the Rwanda asylum plan which has been described by some outlets as "far right" ([1], [2]). Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 08:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be BOLD and make the change, since there's been no responses. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing "right" or "left" about that plan. Much like there was nothing "right" or "left" about keeping people in Guantánamo in violation of several Geneva Conventions. Rather, the plan is a questionable practice that may (or may not) violate human rights. However, human rights violations are committed equally by so-called left-wing and so-caled right-wing governments.

The consensus at Talk:UKIP is that the party is not far right. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I already reverted this consensus of one. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I was being BOLD, as noted above. If no one responds to a discussion are contributors expected just to never do anything? Of course not. If UKIP aren't far-right at all, why are they already included in this template? It is undeniable that some Tories have crossed the line from centre-right to far-right. I included two links to articles using "far-right" to describe the party's policies and/or members. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 15:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right re. discussion, and indeed it's usually ok to be bold; we even have an essay for that.

Re. right-wing, it's not about individual members but about the official party policy. It's a tricky subject anyway, because most mainstream parties embrace a mix of both the traditionally left- and right-wing approaches to individual political issues. Where a party is consistently left/right, it is, surprisingly, frequently termed as extreme left/right.

Neither UKIP nor the Conservatives have a consistently right-wing position on all issues, and are certainly much more in the centre than, say, Golden Dawn or British National Party. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Then please justify why it's okay to have English Democrats and UKIP in this template with the caveat "some members", but not the Tories? I am not and would not argue that the Conservative party is a far-right or extremist entity or that every Tory is some far-right fascist, but then neither do I think we should ignore the elements which are far-right. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 16:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the Tory article talk page numerous times and there is no consensus for that label. — Czello 16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There is also no consensus for the far-right label given to UKIP (see the thread at the top of the page, albeit from 15 years ago). Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 16:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The far-right label at leasts exists on the UKIP page, which was added since the above thread. I'm not sure about the consensus Kashmiri mentions. Either way that doesnt justify inclusion of the Tories — Czello 16:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'll bother contributing to Wikipedia anymore. One of the appeals of Wikipedia over other encyclopaedias such as Britannica, is that it's able to adapt and evolve as times change. Seems like editors are more interested in maintaining the established status-quo than documenting the shifting political landscape. Some Tories are far-right, I honestly don't know how anyone can look at the preponderance of evidence available in 2023 and deny that. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 17:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Some Nazis were vegetarians. Do you intend to add the NSDAP to List of vegetarians?
2. Wikipedia adapts as things change, but Wikipedia also is not a collection of yesterday's press clippings.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 22:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Labelling the Conservative party far-right based on (very questionable) claims that some members are far-right is not how any reputable encyclopedia should conduct itself — Czello 22:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"(some members)" is not a great reason to include something in a template of far-right groups in any case, surely? Notable far right party members could be listed amongst the individuals. Whether or not to include the English Democrats and UKIP should be based on those articles; where the description should be down to an assessment of reliable sources, especially academic sources. There's a case either way for those two. The Conservative Party is not an active far-right group. Ralbegen (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)