Talk:Protestant Coalition

Far right?

I've started a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Political_parties#Protestant_Coalition:_far_right.3F. Input here, of course, also welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any actual designation of the term "far-right" to this group. If we are to provide an accurate and effective encyclopedia, we must first find a legitimate source that defines them as "far-right", and also provides a supporting case for such designation. Kezzer16 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We have citations that clearly support the party's links to Britain First as a known far-right group. (We also have citations noting that two key members of the Protestant Coalition are significant figures in the British National Party, another known far-right group.) The article already recognises that the party's ideology is one of British nationalism. I don't personally think it's WP:SYNTH to summarise all that in the infobox with the label "far right". Bondegezou (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes two people that lean that way make an organisation itself far-right. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kezzer16, you say no consensus has been reached, but you appear to be the only editor objecting to this. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, you're in the minority here, not I. Kezzer16 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain your reasoning there, Kezzer16? As far as I can see, you are the only editor to have objected to the label. Mabuska above appears to support my position. The label was recently re-added by 109.246.228.41. That's 3:1 for the label. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Mabuska's statement is quite clearly sarcasm. In regards "109.246.228.41" we don't use non-confirmed users as part of consensus. As well as this you are still yet to provide an academic source that identifies them as "far-right" and provides the reasoning for it. So in summary you have no consensus, no academic support and justifiable reason therefore no reason to claim that they are "far-right". Kezzer16 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed my comment was sarcasm. Sarcasm to highlight how ridiculous the proposal is in its attempts to portray something as being something due to the affiliations of one or two people. Though just to clearly make my position clear - I object to Bondegezous proposal. I had thought the sarcasm would make it obvious. Just because some members of a group have links to other groups of a certain leaning, no matter how weak or strong, does not mean that the group itself leans that way. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding Mabuska's sarcasm. I withdraw my comments, although I'm not aware of any policy that says "we don't use non-confirmed users as part of consensus." Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now Bondegezou, please make the case for the labelling of this organisation/movement/party as a "far-right" group, in line with the required parameters. Kezzer16 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty apparent that a party whose website and logo were taken from Britain First and which was co-founded by the likes of Jim Dowson &c. is clearly far right. However, I accept that I am, at present, in a minority on that issue and I won't push the issue without more explicit reliable source citations. In the mean time, I think the article content needs to be brought up to date, particularly with respect to the impending local elections. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I and others may not necessarily accept that Britain First are "far-right", but that's a slightly different topic. You're creating a very poor arguement for your position that is not based in any semblance of rationality. 'Guilt by association' must never be used as the center-point of your arguement, rather it should be a supplementary point to a wider arguement (the perameters of which I have mentioned already). Kezzer16 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There are 2 reliable source citations describing Britain First as "far-right". Case closed, as far as I can see. If you question that description, I really don't understand where you are coming from viz-a-viz Wikipedia policy. I don't have anything more to say on this article, but will look for further reliable citations. Bondegezou (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Britain First and trying to imply that the Protestant Coalition must be "far-right" because of one man and an alleged similarity in logos with what may or may not be a far-right group does not make it itself far-right. All you are presenting Bondegezou is original research. This is Wikipedia and we work with verifiable and credible sources not the 1 plus 1 equals whatever that its users desire. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

2015 discussion

The Coalition calls for the criminalisation of Islam in the UK. If this isn't far right, what would they have to do? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been dead since 2 May 2014, however now that you have decided to restart it I have to say I'm surprised the "Far-right" tag is still in the infobox without any evidence to corroborate it. As such I added a citation needed tag and unless evidence is provided will remove it as speculation and OR. Your point on it seeking to criminalise Islam does not make it far-right, it makes it sectarian and ignorant. Sectarianism and ignorance are things that know no right or left wing boundaries. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Demonising Islam is a common trait of European far right parties. [1] Gob Lofa (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is still OR and synthesis without a source that explicitly states that they are a far-right party. Wikipedia works (excluding the odd exception) with verifiable facts, not speculation. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You know it's neither of those things to describe racist jingoist Islamophobe militarists as far right, so stop trying to bait me by feigning ignorance. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We have articles like this, this, this and this that describe Dowson as far right and Dowson as central to the Protestant Coalition, but neither of those explicitly describes the Protestant Coalition as far right. This one also talks about Golding's role and makes the same sort of link. This article connects the Protestant Coalition to Britain First and calls Britain First "far right", but again does not explicitly describe the Protestant Coalition as far right.

Others, like here and here use the phrase "hardline" to describe the Protestant Coalition's unionism. Bondegezou (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, just because a person is affiliated with the far-right doesn't make this group itself far-right and we can't state it as such without evidence. At best all we can do is detail in the article the fact Dowson has those far-right links, which the article already does meaning the reader can make up their own mind without being mislead. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Protestant Coalition. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://protestantcoalition.org/policies/

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} 09:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Source for Far-Right

While I do not dispute the far-right nature of this party, I do take issue with the current source which is being used to bolster it - namely an article from the "Workers Solidarity Movement". This is hardly a reliable, secondary source. It is a very partisan source. I've been unable to find an alternative source for "far-right", if anyone could please provide one it would be most appreciated. Until then, I am removing the WSM source, but not the description itself per WP:SKYISBLUE. Irishpolitical (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)