485:"(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.
310:, 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.
135:
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
326:
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,
40:
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.
271:
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
134:
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
419:
I don't think I'll bother contributing to
Knowledge anymore. One of the appeals of Knowledge 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
86:
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).
363:
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.
66:"), 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.
405:
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 —
159:
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.
238:
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
464:
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 —
170:
420:
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.
154:
119:
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.
107:
174:
334:
Neither UKIP nor the
Conservatives have a consistently right-wing position on all issues, and are certainly much more in the centre than, say,
75:
148:
103:
396:
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).
252:
266:
314:
205:
320:
216:
494:
459:
368:
350:
287:
166:
472:
424:
414:
400:
391:
301:
221:
243:
235:
246:
383:
This has been discussed on the Tory article talk page numerous times and there is no consensus for that label. —
227:
99:
432:
25:
16:
Why is UKIP on here? If anything, they're just mildly conservative. May I remove it from this list please?
446:
Knowledge adapts as things change, but Knowledge also is not a collection of yesterday's press clippings.
128:
95:
63:
180:
116:
21:
339:
212:
55:
297:
195:
335:
162:
91:
8:
440:
144:
124:
490:
457:
421:
397:
365:
348:
311:
285:
263:
249:
239:
71:
51:
18:
356:
231:
208:
293:
54:
is doing on this list. It's been roughly two decades since he was a member of the
319:
You're right re. discussion, and indeed it's usually ok to be bold; we even have
188:
181:
307:
259:
140:
136:
120:
59:
42:
37:
486:
452:
343:
280:
272:
committed equally by so-called left-wing and so-caled right-wing governments.
67:
466:
408:
385:
436:
276:
191:, with no discernible political affiliations to others, be added to
83:
139:
spirit that is part of this talk page I will make the changes now.
36:" conservative as a euphemism, but "far right" hardly conforms to
58:, and he has publicly renounced his former views. His party, the
82:
I think we should definitely have him on the list: we've got
360:
242:
which has been described by some outlets as "far right" (
62:, isn't on this template (as it positions itself in the "
206:
Talk:Joshua Bonehill#Addition of Bonehill to the navbox
262:
and make the change, since there's been no responses.
41:I would go right ahead; you might be reverted, but
355:Then please justify why it's okay to have
292:I already reverted this consensus of one.
155:Why is this on the page 'Fourteen Words'
279:is that the party is not far right. —
230:be included in this list, similar to
327:surprisingly, frequently termed as
13:
187:Should the self-appointed blogger
14:
506:
236:United Kingdom Independence Party
228:Conservative and Unionist Party
222:Conservative and Unionist Party
50:In fact, I'd like to know what
1:
204:Please see the discussion at
217:11:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
175:17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
7:
435:. Do you intend to add the
10:
511:
495:18:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
473:22:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
460:22:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
425:17:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
415:16:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
401:16:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
392:16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
369:16:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
351:16:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
315:15:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
302:15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
288:15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
267:14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
253:08:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
108:13:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
76:02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
26:21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
149:15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
129:22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
117:Anglo-German Fellowship
340:British National Party
60:National Liberal Party
56:British National Front
96:Thedisillusionedyouth
32:Some might describe "
441:List of vegetarians
329:extreme left/right
240:Rwanda asylum plan
52:Patrick Harrington
357:English Democrats
321:an essay for that
275:The consensus at
232:English Democrats
165:comment added by
115:I'm not sure the
111:
94:comment added by
502:
455:
433:were vegetarians
346:
283:
258:I'm going to be
200:
194:
177:
110:
88:
24:
510:
509:
505:
504:
503:
501:
500:
499:
453:
344:
281:
224:
198:
192:
189:Joshua Bonehill
185:
182:Joshua Bonehill
160:
157:
89:
17:
12:
11:
5:
508:
498:
497:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
462:
449:
448:
447:
444:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
332:
324:
273:
223:
220:
184:
179:
167:147.251.214.12
156:
153:
152:
151:
113:
112:
79:
78:
64:Radical Centre
47:
46:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
507:
496:
492:
488:
484:
474:
471:
470:
469:
463:
461:
458:
456:
450:
445:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
423:
418:
417:
416:
413:
412:
411:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
394:
393:
390:
389:
388:
382:
370:
367:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
349:
347:
341:
337:
333:
330:
325:
322:
318:
317:
316:
313:
309:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
286:
284:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
247:
244:
241:
237:
233:
229:
219:
218:
214:
210:
207:
202:
197:
190:
183:
178:
176:
172:
168:
164:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
132:
131:
130:
126:
122:
118:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
85:
81:
80:
77:
73:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
48:
44:
39:
35:
31:
30:
29:
27:
23:
20:
467:
465:
409:
407:
386:
384:
328:
306:I was being
225:
209:Andy Dingley
203:
196:UK far right
186:
161:— Preceding
158:
114:
90:— Preceding
33:
15:
431:Some Nazis
336:Golden Dawn
294:Philafrenzy
226:Should the
422:Adam Black
398:Adam Black
366:Adam Black
312:Adam Black
264:Adam Black
250:Adam Black
277:Talk:UKIP
141:Keresaspa
121:Opera hat
487:Ralbegen
454:kashmīrī
345:kashmīrī
282:kashmīrī
163:unsigned
104:contribs
92:unsigned
84:Ray Hill
68:Gnostrat
137:be bold
43:be bold
38:WP:NPOV
468:Czello
410:Czello
387:Czello
34:mildly
22:Morgan
19:Harris
437:NSDAP
491:talk
361:UKIP
359:and
342:. —
308:BOLD
298:talk
260:BOLD
234:and
213:talk
171:talk
145:talk
125:talk
100:talk
72:talk
439:to
338:or
248:).
493:)
451:—
300:)
245:,
215:)
201:?
199:}}
193:{{
173:)
147:)
127:)
106:)
102:•
74:)
28:.
489:(
443:?
331:.
323:.
296:(
211:(
169:(
143:(
123:(
98:(
70:(
45:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.