Jump to content

Talk:National Liberal Party (UK, 1999)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge with 'Third Way (United Kingdom)' page

[edit]

This article should be merged with the article for Third Way (United Kingdom), as they are the same party. Renren8123 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More citations and more NPOV needed

[edit]

Nothing in this article actually supports the assertion that the party is "far right", only that the party's founders are former members of parties that are far-right. The "2014 European election" section is barely about the election at all. Renren8123 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When I examine the actual cites carefully, the only ones that make any statement at all about the party's political position on the conventional left-right spectrum identifies this party as being in the "patriotic centre". Indeed, given that the NF is name-dropped more often than the subject matter itself, I can't help feeling this entire article is a hatchet-job that needs to be re-written from the ground up. Rhialto (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, one cited source, Heritage and Destiny, is both far-right (self-identifies as "racial nationalist") and openly critical of this party (for, among other things, its praise of liberal and Jewish politicians). While it is not unknown for in-fighting to occur among groups ostensibly on the same side, it does seem we have one cite claiming a centrist position, and one cite denying that the party is far-right, versus none that say the party in its present form is far-right. (Claiming the party today reflects the views of the founders from 25 years ago is like claiming the Labour Party of Tony Blair was the same as the Labour party of Nye Bevan; Labour actually went through a significant shift to the right in the last few decades). Rhialto (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citable interview article for integration into the main page: Romford Recorder Rhialto (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be sure I understand this. A bunch of people with a continuous history of leading positions in fascist organisations over many years, follow to the letter the theories of the Third Way but they aren't on the right because one of them describes himself as "patriotic centre". So they swim, they have bills, they waddle, they quack, but they're not a flock of ducks! Emeraude (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm doesn't suit a serious discussion. Everything cited so far either references the distant past or demonstrates a change of political views. Let's just have the facts, in the article, not your personal inferences. Please also consider that it is possible for both centrist and leftist ideologies too to support self-determination movements abroad. A more useful test would be if and when the party presents a broader spectrum of policies. Rhialto (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point, isn't it? The pasts of these people are well-known and there is no evidence given anywhere that they have changed them. And neither are they, as you say, "the distant past". Fact is, these ugly ducklings have not morphed into beautiful swans and none of the sources makes any suggestion that they have or are about to. Emeraude (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that they are far-right,fact of being split,doesn't exactly mean following this kind of ideas. Look at Social Democratic Party which is centre-left,that broke from left-wing Labour . I don't think that it cannot be a case in this party,and there are no really sources to back up this ridicolous claim ,not even Huffington Post and anti-hate group. There is a cases of centre-right supporting far-right (literally Germany in 1933) so its support for Third Way network is unrelated to ideology. Also ideology shouldn't be really made on basis of that guy that share membership in this party with BNP,but more valuable sources. Until this is checked i decided to remove reference to supposed far-rightism of party,also it is much obvious that they are nationalist,and civic nationalist,they didn't seem to subscribe to racial version of nationalism,there is no real source on this issue.

[edit]

General

  • http://www.channel4.com/news/graham-williamson-front-national-liberal-party-bnp-election Describes Graham Williamson as a "far-right veteran" and NLP having links to BNP and NF
    • I would normally regard C4 to be a reputable source. However, although it claims Harrington is a founder, I have never found any verifiable source to say this (and yes, I've looked). The only such source I have found is wikipedia. Given the date when the article was written and the lack of any other potential source, it is entirely probable that the C4 journalist used wikipedia as a source for at least some of the information presented. I would be cautious of using anything in this article that is not corroborated by another reliable source.
  • http://www.markpack.org.uk/49721/some-interesting-parties-standing-in-the-2014-london-euro-elections/ (less notable source) Says nothing
    • it does say something --- "wants Britain to be more like Switzerland (referendums, federalism, armed neutrality and the like)"
So how does that help with right-left issue? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how does that help with right-left issue? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Cheetham

So how does that help with right-left issue?Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how does that help with right-left issue? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Jones

So how does that help with right-left issue? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upgar Singh

Jagdeesh Singh

So how does that help with right-left issue? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how does that help with right-left issue? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yussuf Anwar

Glen Maney

So how does that help with right-left issue? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how does that help with right-left issue? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Harrington

  • http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/blogs/searchlight-blog/new-career-beckons-for-patrick-harrington (31-5-2012 confirmed as a former member who had left by 1-2006; no founding influence noted) Article is about BNP and mentions NLP in passing, but does not say Harrington had "no founding influence".
    • I searched for Patrick Harrington specifically because I could find no independent source that confirms your claim that he was a founder of the party. The only independent source I have found identifies him as nothing more than a member. The C4 source, as I noted earlier, has cited no sources on that part of its report, and so it seems reasonable to believe that it used wikipedia's uncited claim in that case.

My intent in gathering this list was to find any references to the National Liberal Party, and any references to people who are said to have an association with the party. I excluded anything that was clearly copy produced by the NLP, which obviously includes anything from their website itself. Note that independent editorial content is not in itself a requirement for wikipedia. It is enough that an independent source shows that they really said something.

Also, note that self-published sources can be used as reliable sources about themselves. This includes NLP press releases about themselves and even their own website, which I excluded from the above links. Rhialto (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, how does any of this help with right-left issue? The question is not about having sources for which individuals are in the party, but where it stands ideologically. None of these sources even approach this question. Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be focusing excessively on the "right-left issue". While that is certainly one part of the problem with the article, another part is that the article fails to discuss at all the activities of the party, either recent or in its early days. These links are primarily intended to provide material to create such a section. Please examine them in that context, instead of looking for s single issue and dismissing them if they fail to address that single issue.
Additionally, on the Harrington issue, you seem to want a citable source that says that Harrington was NOT a founder. That is not how reputable sources work. Reputable sources habitually only state what is,; they don't go out of their way to emphasise that something is not true (for example, you won't find any reputable sources saying that Winston Churchill did not found the Labour Party). Unless you can show a source that says he did actually found (singly or jointly) the party, that line should be removed. Rhialto (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that once a meaningful amount of content regarding the party's actual activities is included, the left-right question would become more apparent, because the party's activities themselves could be analysed rather than the pre-party activities of a founding member and an alleged founding former member. Rhialto (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who referred to these links in the discussion below specifically on the right-left question!! As I have repeated, they have no bearing on that issue. As to the activities of the party, those sources give very little of any note about the party per se, only what some of its members have managed to get into obscure media outlets about what they as individuals have done with a mention that they are in the party, i.e. nothing about the party at all. As for Harrington, that he was a founder of the NLP has been in the article since it was started, sourced to "Exposed: far-right veteran seeking London multicultural vote" (Searchlight, 3 May 2014, from Channel 4 News). That source includes a NLP document showing Harrington as the NLP's Nominating Officer. The original is with the Electoral Commission here. Emeraude (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said I found nothing in these links which supports a blanket claim that it is a far-right organisation. So far, everything you have said agrees with me in that regard. Neither of us are likely to find anything denying that it is a far-right organisation for the same reason that we won't find any serious source denying that Churchill was the founder of the Labour party. Reputable sources are not in the habit of routinely denying things that are not true.

I maintain that the best approach is to examine the party's actual activities since its founding, as well as the activities of those people the party has raised to a position of authority within its structure (with a focus on their activities after being given that position). An examination of these factors should be the basis for determining where it stands on the left-right continuum, not your judgement based on the the pre-foundation activities of two members (one of which is no longer a member).

Note that I do not dispute whether Harrington was a member, or even a member who at one time was nominating officer. However, I do think the claim that he was a founder needs a cite that does not loop back to this article for its source.

Regarding that article in Searchlight Magazine, it cites Channel 4 as its source (it is in fact a word for word copy of the C4 article I linked to above), which I have already noted is problematic, as Channel 4 has no citable source and there is good reason to suppose that it used this Wikipedia article as its source for that piece of information. Rhialto (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source is a reliable source. A reliable source does not have to cite a reliable source! Emeraude (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does when there is good reason to believe that usually-reliable source has been using an unreliable source. Note that this article had that information present even before the C4 article (that is supposedly the source of the data) even existed! Rhialto (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What good reason other than your own prejudice? And you're totally wrong: the C4 news item was published on 3 May 2014 and repeated by Searchlight the same day. This article was started on 13 May 2014, ten days after! I should know - I wrote it! Emeraude (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on that point; when I first came across the article, there was no such reference. An interim editor must have removed the cite before I first saw this article. Rhialto (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)10:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)~~== "Far Right" designation ==

In my opinion, in order to designate this political party as "Far Right", we need a reliable source that devotes significant coverage to the party's ideology, and concludes that it is a far right party. The fact that some party founders had far right backgrounds before starting this party is insufficient, in my view. To use that fact to characterize the ideology of the party is synthesis and original research, which is not proper. Any description of their ideology must take into account the diversity of their list of candidates. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My observation of the party's campaigning and policy documents refutes the claim. I also don't find anything that makes such an analysis of the party's activities since its formation in any of the links above. Rhialto (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "observation of the party's campaigning and policy documents" is original research and of no value in Wikipedia. You started a discussion in the Teahouse and I suggest you go back there and explain yourself. Emeraude (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Any "far-anything" designation is contentious in itself and needs proper NPOV sources. Zezen (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I missed the reversion that happened a few days ago. As I am about to be travelling for a few days, I don't have time right now to enagge fully, but will do so shortly after I return.
I would like it noted that my "observation of the party's campaigning and policy documents" is not original research, but examination of 3rd party sources, links to which I pasted above.
In the meanwhile, in order to keep all discussions in one place, would you prefer to have the entire discussion here, or on that other page? Rhialto (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. You wrote, "My observation of the party's campaigning and policy documents refutes the claim." That's your observation of the party's documents, not 3rd party sources, and that is original research. Even if it was your observation of what 3rd party sources say, it would still be your OR. And I doubt that any of those links are anywhere near sufficient, given that they are either by party members or simply quoting party members. Emeraude (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further, to show how useless those links for this purpose are I have gone through them and annotated initalics. Emeraude (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Monarchism" "Elitism" Where are the sources for these? Nothing in their own materials shows much concern for the monarchy, nor is there any obvious sign they want some elite to rule the country. Ditto "anti Russian sentiment" and "anti communism". Based on personal opinion or personal research rather than real evidence it seems. If based on published evidence, then the sources should be referenced. Perhaps "third positionism" would be more apt, as there are sources which refer to them as such. I won't be changing it as there seems to be a petty edit war going on, but I feel it is currently inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.200.37 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about Monarchism, Anti-Russian sentiment and Elitism. They were added by an IP editor 180.242.130.169 on 2 October 2015, remained for some time, and then got mixed up in the right/left issue, but have no connection to it. I have now removed them from the article, but it is still possible that they could be referenced and reinserted. Emeraude (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NLP isn't what I would call far-right. Not only odes it have minority candidates, but it policies in general don't seem to be indicative of this. It is Civic nationalist, but is in no way "Extreme", it has pledged to uphold the 2010 Equality act. So I don't think it could be called far-right, despite the background's of it's members. True, but there are many labour supporters who were members of Communist groups in their youth, that doesn't make labour Communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmithsmith (talk • contribs) 09:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you would call it (or what I would call it). Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors. And are you seriously suggesting that members of minorities cannot be far-right? Emeraude (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am still getting to grips with Wikipedia, and didn't realise that talk opinions had to be verified. I don't disagree that minorities' can't be far-right, as it is a broad term, but from what I have seen from there policies, they seem a kind of civic Nationalist party than far-right. But I am probably wrong, so will leave you to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.206.248 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that your details appear. Two things: the talk page is specifically for discussing how to improve the article and not to air one's own opinions on the article's subject. If you think the article is wrong, find reliable sources that support that and bring them to the discussion. Reliable sources are crucial; as I said above , what you or I think is of no value. Emeraude (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The source is given for describing the NLP as far-right (the Huffington Post article) does not discuss either the policies or ideology of the NLP. It is base on a 'State of Hate' report from the campaigning group Hope Not Hate. Going back to the original I found that this doesn't discuss policy or ideology and only mentions the NLP in passing. How does this provide a basis for such a sweeping assertion about a political party? Thoughtcrime64 (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you've just removed [1] were Channel 4 as well as the Huffington Post. Per WP:RS we would see both of these as reliable sources of themselves, whether they reveal their own sources or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, what I said regarding the Huffington Post article regarding a lack of justification in relation to ideology and policy in describing the NLP as far-right applies also to Channel 4. My point is not that the references don't reveal their sources it is that they don't attempt to justify the description 'far-right'. Are you able to provide any references which state that the NLP should be classified in this way in relation to policy and ideology? We are not talking here about whether the people who originally formed it had 'far-right' backgrounds historically. You are categorizing a political party which includes many other people. Don't you think that you should be fair to all of those in the NLP who don't have far-right backgrounds by considering what the organisation is actually about now? Don't you feel even a little uncomfortable in telling Sikhs, Muslims and others that they are members of a 'far-right' party even though that party has a Sikh leader and advocates policies which are very different from 'far-right' positions? I want to discuss this with you and seek to persuade you that you are being unfair and should question your assumptions more. I think the article discusses the backgrounds of some of the NLP leadership elsewhere but I think your blanket description is, to be kind to you, lacking in detailed understanding.Thoughtcrime64 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given references. You simply keep removing them, because you see them as unflattering. It's also curious how you can see any party founded by Graham Williamson as having had him turn away from the far-right, after having spent a lifetime advocating it. Now that's a really extraordinary claim to be making, for which you're going to need a remarkable source. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it seriously being suggested that Sikhs and Muslims cannot be right wing? Emeraude (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To characterize any party as "far right" or "far left" on the basis of the distant past of one or two of its members is as valid as describing the British Labour party as "communist" owing to some of their members having being involved with the Communist Party in their youth. I don't think that the NLP's policies seriously stand comparison to those that you would generally consider "far right". Brookton Preston (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, what you think is of no relevance. Nor what I think. The discussion above is quite clear that Wikipedia uses reliable sources and these all support the NLP as described. Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Liberal Party (UK, 1999). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY 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) 23:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are they far right?

[edit]

on reading on them they don't sound like your average far right party.

They aren't, source listed also didn't classify them as such, removed it. --JonahF (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Distributism

[edit]

The economic policy they lay out on their website seems similar to that of distributism or atleast what i've heard of distributism. The idea that private property should be as widely owned as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapperWapper (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Liberal_Party_(UK,_1999)&oldid=1204205189"