Talk:British National Party/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about British National Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Patricia Richardson

Why doesn't the section on race mention that they have one Jewish councillor Patricia Richardson (politician)?93.96.148.42 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

she is mentioned in the section on Anti-Semitism, seems to be the right place for her.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not mention in the "Race and immigration section? Would seem appropriate.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have thoguht that the section on anti-semitsm was ther best place for her membership to be mentioned. I also do not beleive that she needs to be metioned twice (especialy as she is not an imigrant, and preumabeley is connsiderd white by the BNP, after all she is a meber).Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

She should be mentioned in the "Race and immigration" section, as are the members of other ethnic minorities. Her father was an immigrant, and she meets the BNP's definition of immigrants. Given the history of anti-semitism within the party, it is particularily relevant. Where do you get the idea that the bnp are concerned with skin colour? They talk of "folk groups", and "Indigenous Caucasian", not skin colour.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And what is the BNP current definition of Imigrant? I take it then that the BNP is not an all white party? As that is why I sugested that race was not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the all white staus is currently under legal review as the Equalities Commission are in correspondence with them on this issue, but I refer you once again to statements made by Lee Barnes the BNP "legal officer" (& would-be epic poet)in theb case of Redfearn v Serco that to discriminate against an employee on th ebasis of BNP membership was effectively racial discrimination, precisely because they ARE exclusively white. If they are not then Bagel Barnes was fibbing to the tribunal. I am not saying he was because that might be libellous.--Streona (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bagel Barnes? By the way can we have a source please. So far all I have found is that Mr Redfearn states that "membership of the BNP was limited to whites..." http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/659.html sadly there is no mention of Mr Barnes. As far as I am aware Mr Redfearn is not the offical spokesman of the BNP. Moreover the BNP consitution used in this case is the 8th edition published in 2004 (which was in force at the time of Mr Redfearsn dismisal) http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/UKEAT0153052772005.doc. The legal team was MR BRIAN LANGSTAFF QC and MR CHRIS QUINN (caps not my own) not Mr Barnes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

from the constitution- (a) The British National Party is a party of British Nationalism, committed to the

principle of national sovereignty in all British affairs. It is pledged to the restoration of the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It believes that the indigenous peoples of the entire British Isles, and their descendants overseas, form a single brotherhood of peoples, and is pledged therefore to adapt or create political, cultural, economic and military institutions with the aim of fostering the closest possible partnership between these peoples. (b) The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference Slatersteven, particularly the following exerpt from the judgement

Lord Justice Mummery:

Introduction

A claim for race discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended (the 1976 Act) was brought in the employment tribunal by a member of the British National Party (BNP) against his former employer. According to its constitution the membership of the BNP is confined to white people... (my emphasis. Bagel Barnes (as I believe he is known to friends & enemies alike) represented him at the original tribunal. my point is that the BNP is a whites-only organisation according to Barnes and Lord justice Mummery.--Streona (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you found the source useful, I found the following particularly interesting “The constitution of the BNP Eight Edition published November 2004 sets out in Section 1 its Political Objectives.”

It is quite clear that this is an older version of the constitution, not the current one (9th edition dated November 2005). So whilst this can be used to show that at one time the BNP were all white it cannot be used to show that this is currently the case.

http://www.creideasach.co.uk/Case_Reviews/Redfearn.htm states that “by dismissing him, on the ground of the Asian race and ethnic origin of the people [being] transported”. Not that he was white (that was the case for appeal) also see http://www.conferencebarristers.com/files/Conference_Chambers_January_Newsletter.pdf.

Good point, Steven. The full text of the appeal case is available online, and you are right that redfearn's counsel agued as you have said, but LJ Mummery also says that the grounds had changed from the line put forward at the original tribunal by "a different representative" i.e. Lee Barnes, the BNPs amateur brief, who is no more legally qualified than I am, that the grounds were that the BNP were an all-white organisation. I refer to paragraph 16 of LJ Mummery's judgement

The employment tribunal dealt with both direct and indirect discrimination. Unfortunately, there was no prior case management conference to identify the issues for the hearing and no amendment was ever made to the originating application formulating the basis of the indirect discrimination claim. The case was, however, argued at the hearing on behalf of Mr Redfearn (who then had different representation than he has now) along the lines that "since the BNP is a whites only party the dismissal is indirect racial discrimination." Serco was challenged to show that such discrimination was justified. In Mr Redfearn's skeleton argument in the employment tribunal reliance was also placed on section 1(1)(b) of the 1976 Act. The submission was that it followed from the fact that

"membership of the BNP was limited to whites.. that [Serco] in deciding that membership of the BNP was incompatible with the Applicant's continued employment [Serco ] was imposing a requirement such that the proportion of persons of his racial group was 'considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group'. This applies a fortiori in this case because the number of non-white persons who would not be able to satisfy the requirement (of not belonging to the BNP) is not only 'considerably smaller' than the proportion of whites but infinitely less ie none at all."

www.emplaw.co.uk/free/4frame/data/2005irlr744.htm -

Interestingly the case is listed as 2006 although the dismissal took place in June 2005 so whether the 8th or 9th edition of the BNP Constitution was being cited requires further inquiry.--Streona (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actulay the dismisal (according to the source you provided) was on 30th June 2004. On 12 August 2004 Mr Redfearn presented to the employment tribunal a complaint of race discrimination. The 2006 case is the appeal, not the origional complaint. Moreover the document I supplied does states it was the 2004 constitution, the one you quote the judges claim from in your post of 10th July.

His initial claim was "by dismissing him, on the ground of the Asian race and ethnic origin of the people the Applicant transported." No mention was made of a claim for indirect race discrimination. Moreover the claim that the BNP is a whites only party was made by Mr Redfearn there is no mention of Mr Barnes, all it states is that "(who then had different representation than he has now)".

Now I would agree with you it is important that we establish the exact details of the origional complaint. Was Mr Barnes present and did he make any statements. What, if any, offical BNP documents were referd to (and how old, as it would seem that they are now out of date). What was the offcal BNP reaction, and did they offical suppory Mr Redfearn's claims based un mmbership criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I went off on holiday just after this & got cought up in revising for Mastermind. Still it now looks as though this issue will be taken to court by the Equalities Commission. I personally think that this is a waste of time since griffin introduced the idea of an "ethnic liaison committee" some years ago in the expectation of such a case and has told BNP members at a recent "fun day" (if golliwog-burning is your idea of fun)that the party would be structured in such a way as to retain power in the hands of the leadership and not by any putative future ethnic minotrity members. Protecting the rights of ethnic minorities who genuinely wish to join the BNP does seem a bit like providing free combs for the bald.--Streona (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not far-right, merely authoritarian

According to the renowned site Political Compass [1]: "It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear.". Look on the "compass" and you can see that the BNP is in reality more economically left than Labour Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It seems however to be a universal misuse of the word "far-right", so that it might not really matter anyways. -GabaG (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who writes for Political Compass, and why should we care about their opinions, particularly when they appear ignorant of the basics of political theory? VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't ignorant, rather people still sticking merely to the obsolete one-dimensional "right-left" spectrum are. (Read professional feedback here) You must apparently then think that Stalin and Ghandi were on the same side because they were both "left-wing"? -GabaG (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect they both supported Indian independence from Britain, but then so did Hirohito.--Streona (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the Political compass that the left right scale is inadequate to describe the range of politics. However I disagree that left and right are only used in a broader context to describe economic things, they are used to describe the social/authoritarian scale as well. Now weather correct or incorrect when used in that way the BNP are definitively far right. Using the compass it should also be noted they are as fascist (another point rejected) as Hitler (or Stalin) so if we feel Wikipedia should use the political compass rather than the general 'left/right' terminology still common today fine, but that is a bigger issue until then we should report on the scale used in a wider context, i.e. that they are repeatedly (correctly or incorrectly ) described as far right by many political commentators. --Nate 14 81 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

National Socialist might be a good description?93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they would be more towards that direction I believe, though more economically left at least. Not for any political comparison -but since you mentioned it-, on the National Socialist German Workers' Party-article it says in the introduction: "The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis; however in some two dimensional models based on economic parameters, such as the political compass, the Nazi Party is categorized as centre-right or simply centrist, and its actual extremism is highlighted on the social scale as authoritarian.". So if the Political Compass can be implemented in the German Nazi Party article, it should surely be possible to write the BNP version of it on this article too, at least just as a short note. I however do agree (as I made clear in my first comment) with Nate1481 that it "is a bigger issue until then we should report on the scale used in a wider context...". -GabaG (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler ate sugar, you know. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought "National Socialism" summarised the balance between left and right described above quite accurately.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

we also all know what the connotations of that phrase are.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, it is true that, on the economic scale, they're somewhat unknown. As far as I can tell, they're somewhat middling on economic issues, generally taking a position close to, say, pre-schism Labour. However, to an extent, the Nazis were too (national socialism), but in normal context, "far-right" doesn't refer to their economic policies, it refers to their social policies—libertarians tend to be viewed as centrists or right-wing, but not far-right, despite their laissez-faire economic views—, of which the BNP are firmly on the conservative fringe. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Republican (and other parties in the US) use in their infobox on Wikipedia: "Political position: Fiscal: Center-right Social: Center-right" I guess the BNP then would be something like: "Political position: Fiscal: Center-left Social: Far-right" -GabaG (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's right - "far right" encompasses the BNP's social and economic policies. Some form of interventionist economic policy is a characteristic of the far right. The meanings of "left", "right" and related terms are historically complicated, and name configurations of economic and social policies; this means you do get odd situations like the fact that right and center-right parties are usually against economic intervention, while both the far right and the left favor (different forms of) economic intervention. Because of this complexity, "far right" names a position that includes both the BNP's authoritarian social policies and their interventionist economic policies.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The infobox modification sounds like a good one to me, as it woudl be more broadly useful, it dose almost the sem type of thing as the political compass but allows for the current use of terminology. --Nate 14 81 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Would that make the BNP have a socialist point of view towards economics then? (86.169.125.18 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Proposals for cleanup

It's been said multiple times on the talk page before but this article is way too long; it far exceeds Wikipedia's recommended size. I don't think we should delete anything significant, that's why the article needs to be split.

I think the history section should be split with a summarised version on this page and a new page created: History of the British National Party. Also lot of the information in the electoral performance section should be moved into the main BNP election results page, which at the moment is just mainly tables. The legal issues section could also be split into a new article as well. MaesterTonberry (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"British Jobs for British Workers"

The article currently claims that the bnp took this phrase from Gordon Brown, whereas he famously borrowed it from them and the NF. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7097837.stm 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But this page is about the BNP.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic policy

Its surprising that there's no mention of the BNP's economic policy, which is key info on any party

from the New statesman there's this

"A brief skim through BNP manifesto literature brings to light proposals for the following: large increases in state pensions; more money for the NHS; improved worker protection; state ownership of key industries. Under Griffin, the modern-day far right has positioned itself to the left of Labour."

link

www.newstatesman.com/europe/2009/04/bnp-european-party-british

I think something like this should be added

2.4 Economic policy

The BNP advocates a socialist economic policy, to the left of most major British parties. Its manifesto proposes large increases in state pensions; more money for the NHS; improved worker protection and the nationalisation of key industries.

Then cite the newstatesman article

any agreements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 July 2009

No problem with something being added about their economic policies although it should mention they intend to pay for some of those things like a better NHS by cutting international aid. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to a citation/credible website for the stuff about cutting foreign aid?

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your wording their is supported by the article; first of all, the NS article doesn't call the BNP policies socialist at all, so we shouldn't without a citation. Second, the article says that the BNP have "positioned themselves to the left," which isn't quite the same as actually describing these policies as left (indeed, it would be wrong to describe these policies as left wing, as they are typical far-right economic policies). We could describe the policies without characterizing them, and also perhaps try and include some of the naunce of the NS article (as well as other relevant sources).VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

http://bnp.org.uk/tag/bnp-economic-policy/ "Ending the £9 billion foreign aid budget" "the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers." And some criticism - http://www.socialismtoday.org/109/bnp.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the BNP economic policy described as "left" by a lot of sources used to mean "anti-capitalist". The traditional far right (Fascist) is usually corporatist which is different to what this manifesto states .The BNP policy is closer to traditional democratic socialism before it morphed into whats now called social-democracy or the modern left which ironically is closer to corporatism.

How about using anti-capitalist if people don't like left

2.4 Economic policy

The BNP advocates an anti-capitalist economic policy. Its manifesto proposes large increases in state pensions, more money for the NHS, improved worker protection and the nationalisation of key industries [news statesman citation]. It proposes to reduce free trade and to end foreign aid [BNP website citation]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the British political party articles are in a very poor state IMO. If you compare to the Republican Party article for the one in the USA, which is very good as they have an indepth presentation of their policies and political positions. On the Labour Party article for the UK party, it just mentions history, no really clear, layed out presentation of their current explicit policies. Its a bit of a shambles really. Same with this one. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

legal action over BNP membership -bbc

This is a source that should be incorporated in the article. "In a statement it said: "The BNP's membership criteria appear to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regards as particular 'ethnic groups' and those whose skin colour is white. This exclusion is contrary to the Race Relations Act.

"The commission believes the BNP's constitution and membership criteria are discriminatory and, further, that the continued publication of them on the BNP website is unlawful.

"It has therefore issued county court proceedings against party leader Nick Griffin and two other officials" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8218397.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there should be a couple of paragraphs on this in the legal issues section of the article so its easy to find, not sure if its briefly mentioned somewhere else in the article.. Seems notable enough BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good information added, thanks Streona. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideology refrences

On ideology it says facism with sevral refrences however reading og there official website they claim not to be facist and the informaworld.com site has Nationalism and Racism listed as a subject only but no mention of them being racist, facists and does not prove it on the site. The google books links to a book talking about racism but has no mention of the bnp on the site however I admit I have not read the book that is listed. The further two are books that I have not read. The final refrence talks about the london bombings, BNP and facism but does not prove theese are linked together. Theese refrences may not be the best refrences beacuse they do not prove the BNP is facist and on the BNP website it claims to be nationalists but not facists. I suspect the refrences may also be bias because they are against the BNP party however I have no supporting evidence for this claim but it is clear the refrences do not prove the BNP is facist. I would like your view on thee subject I have done some reading on the BNP and don't find any reliable evindence that isn't bias to prove the BNP is facist. ROOSTER (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A box at the top of this page says:

Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please […] look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing.

and has a handy search facility to allow you to do so. This box below that addresses your specific question. Please heed them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I have read the FAQ and although I do disagree I suppose it's fair to say it. 90.195.27.132 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

BNP fun day

FYI; today's News of the World has a video and undercover report of a recent BNP event:

Angel-faced racist aged 12 - Girl burns golly at BNP fun day

which should be mentioned here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but please see WP:RS and WP:NPOV before making any substantial changes. The "source" in question is a UK rag. Beganlocal (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with both policies, and stand by what I wrote above. Whether the NotW is a "rag" or not (perhaps you can post to a policy prohibiting its use as a reference?); there is video evidence at the URL given. I'm not clear what relevance you think the fact that the NotW is published in the UK has. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol interesting read and video, sadly such things dont even have the ability to shock anymore, each year they just seem to get more and more extreme. Perhaps we could have a section on their "Red white and blue festival", mostly just general stuff about what happens, with a couple examples of the darker side when the nazi uniforms come out. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BNP fun day- there's an oxymoron for you --Streona (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The day ANY article from the News of the world is used as a source/reference on Wikipedia will be the day I leave and never come back!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing a news story from a news paper seems sensible and normal. What is your objection based on? It is clear the story is factual and citing the reference allows people such as yourself to judge the evidence according to your own tabloid prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.240.29 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Testicle Times" is probably not often referenced because it doesn't contain much in the way of information. And because we might wish to ignore stories of a double-decker bus found on the moon. Or am I confusing it with the Sunday Sport with headlines such as "Hitler Was A Woman", "Aliens Turned Our Son Into A Fish Finger" and "Donkey Robs Bank"?[2] 86.158.184.158 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

far left party

The article incorrectly labels the BNP as 'far-right'. However, the positions held by the party and expressed in their manifesto are national socialist policies, and 'far-left' in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantubb (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

the opinion that the BNP are either "Far Right " or "Far left" are in error. Wikipedia by its continued posting of this misinformation, giving only the excuse that "authorities" have condoned the use of the term as applicable to the BNP without giving any supporting rational is not scholarship , it is propaganda. the policies of the BNP from it's own web site are nationalization of the utilities. nationalization of the rail transport. nationalization of the financial industry, and increased support of the NHS which are all common socialist policies thus "medium left" if anything. Other policies such as economic trade protectionism Ie tariffs and the abandonment of global "free Trade" are certainly not far right. finally policies such as codification of civil rights under a constitution and sujpport of the right of free speech for all, or the abandonment of an aggressive foreign "Islamic war" policy, are neither right nor left. the sole policy which wiki bases it's actions upon is the unsupported so called Logic that if some of Nick Griffins prior asociates and the bnp itself prior to Griffins takeover ten years ago, were pro facsist, then the BNP despite its constitution which was changed when Griffin took power is still secretly facsist. That sort of logic " I don't care what you say you are still a closet facsist" hsa no place in any fair publication, especiallly since not a single quote in Griffins 50 years on this Earth supports facism in any way.

I have to agree with much of the above unless anyone objects i will amend this to say far left instead of far right. Stupidstudent (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Only a supporter of the bnp could agree with this change. The bnp is a ' volkish ' party that seeks to return britain to a whiteness they approve of. This suspicion and hatred of non whites and thier typically fascist campaigning style clearly makes them worthy of the title ' far right '. I am disspointewd to see that that bnp supporters are subverting this page for politicol purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.240.29 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Defining a party as liberal or conservative, or of the left or right often becomes problematic. In systems that seem to be, more or less, dominated by two parties; Canada, United States, Britain and Australia, the right parties; Conservative, Republican, Conservative and Liberal respectively, generally favor a more free trade (economic liberalism) and social conservatism (on gays, immigrants, marriage, ect.) Their opponents of the left; Liberal, Democratic, Labor, and Labor, respectively, generally support a larger role for the state in the economy and a more progressive view on society (again on gays, immigrants, marriage, ect.) Even though I am already stretching generalizations to the max, the definitions would become more muddled if one were to include non-anglophonic nations, or multi-party systems, or different time periods. If the BNP is volkish in nature, along the lines of the Nazi party, it possesses the social conservatives (and much more) of the conservative parties. But Anton Drexler lacked the economic liberalism. The economic policies of the Nazi party was not a free market policy. It would seem that the idea of ultra-nationalist or volkism would be better terms for the BNP. The question would be what is far right? If far right is a uncompromising member of a conservative party, then the definition does not fit. If it is a person of a extrema nationalist persuasion, then the definition is apt. (RorikStrindberg (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Far right has a specific meaning in British politics at least and is in part defined by the BNP. In addition that tis the weight of citations. It may be that those terms should be updated or revised but the place for that is not this specific article --Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How can "far right" be "defined" by the BNP? Surely it is the other way around. Going back to first principles, and the French origins of the term, the BNP as a "revolutionary" party has to be far left.124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for this, for my knowlage on British politics is addmitadly limitated. But, I have always rejected the linear deffinition of parties, from right to left, or left to right. I idenify mostly with the old liberal parites, Whigs. Now many of the arguement, particularly in the relm of economics, are carried by conseritive parites. We must remember that a communist news paper writer rounded up a bunch of WWI vets, gave them black shirts, and created Fascism, based on the idea of the strength of tightly bundled sticks, fasces. their is fluidity between the far left and right. BTW, Snowded, Cardiff is a lovely city. I found it to be my favorite in all of the UK. Aside from the streets change from say, "St. Mary's" to some incomprehendable Welsh name at the slightest turn. (RorikStrindberg (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

I am not a BNP suporter. So much for assuming good faith, at least have the guts to sign your posts if you atack somebody. It just reads to me that the BNP's polices listed on this page is Far left. One does not need to be right wing to be racist. Remember stalin was just as good at persequting minorities as Hitler. Stupidstudent (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to the current definition of the BNP as a 'far right' party. The fact that many established commentators thus describe it has (in my view) more to do the with overwhelming liberal-left bias of our current orthodoxy than it has to do with impartial judgement. At minimum it should be stated clearly in brackets that the label "far right" is disputed on rational grounds based on the political analysis of what they are actually about. I think a better alternative may be to drop chiral label altogether and describe it as a Nationalist Party possessing what many consider to be extremist policies etc. If a chiral label should be used it would be dishonest to use any other label than far left since most of it's policies and are clearly socialist essentially. GenerallyKnowledge (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BNP is known as far right, thats what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe it as and so we should not use something else or shy away from using the term. Here is the latest mention of far right.. [3] talking about the "far right leader" Nick Griffin. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "liberal left bias", they are viewed as far right by conservatives too. Whilst they may have some values that appear to be in line with communism and National Socialism (like the nazis), many of their policies are viewed very right wing in this country. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And National Socialism is itself a far-right ideology.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is confusion hear about what is far left and far right. It is not about race. A left wing party is not distinguished from a far right simply on the basis of whether it is racist or not.

Communist parties have often been racist. Stalin conducted racial purges. The communist Rand Rebellion in South African in 1922 was sparked by miners fearing a non-racial hiring policy.

The BNP may be racist and far left, or racist and far right. Or not racist at all, and either left or right wing. The Nazi Party itself was as such far left as it was far right. It was not Communist or Socialist. But there were major elements in the party, until they were purged by Hitler, who were unambiguously far left. So is the BNP far left or far right, or simply left or right. Personally I would suggest that it is left wing. Most people may call it far right, but then most people could be wrong, and simply confusing race with position on the political spectrum.124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Ideology Addition

After looking at the list of ideologies I think it would be prudent to list Ethno nationalism, since they do fit the description.

-IkonicDeath

No problem with Ethnic nationalism being added, its clear they hold such views, although its already covered by the white nationalism i guess. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think ethno-nationalism is probably a better description as they campaign around british nationalism, not white nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To describe the bnp as ' ethnio nat' is obtuse, clearly they are white nationalists. Thier ideology is racist. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascism label

Facism is defined as 'An authoritarian political system opposed to Democracy and Liberalism.' Obviously the BNP does not fit into this. If we look at the nasty end of Nazi fascism (which seems to have been the only end it had), we are constantly reminded of the death toll caused by that group. What we are not reminded of is the death toll incurred by the Communist groups in Russia and China. The Nazi contribution pales into significance when compared with them. To suggest that the BNP is close in any way to the evil- doings of those people is ludicrous. However, it should be noted that the Communists, despite their record do not attract the vitreol fired at the BNP. Indeed, it has been claimed that the BNP were actively against the Communists who seemed to refine the Nazi 'final solution'. 'Oh what a wondrous web we weave' During recent elections, the self-rightous deputy PM was pelted with an egg. He turned round and punched the thrower. The thrower was prosecuted but the DPM was not. The other Day, the leader of the BNP was treated similary but did not respond as did the DPM. Who's the 'thug' in that story? Was the second thower prosecuted? I think not. Additionally; in the same camera shot - a group of bearded persons were shown carying placards insiting civil disobedience and advocating a law for the minority. Were they prosecuted - no. Is it any wonder that people like the BNP get increasing support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.69.223 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The fascism label is clearly a politicially motivated label as only bnp opponents use the term to describe them. And please don't just give me that whole "sorry this question has been answered before" rubbish because it hasn't actually been addressed in an unbias manner. Everyone knows the media generally call them "far-right" but only left-wing and anti-bnp media (such as 'the sun') actually call them "fascist".] The label fascist is purely politically motivated as the bnp do not actually hold policies of extreme authoritarianism but rather many incorrectly label anyone who is far-right as being fascist. And I'm afraid it seems that wikipedia is also no exception to this misconception of ideology. Please compare the BNP's policies against the definition of fascism and I'm confident you'll find that current BNP policies do not match them. Especially as fascism incorporates a "corporatist economic theory" whereas the BNP are known to be quite socialist in their economic policies i.e. supporting small businesses and rejecting large corporations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 September 2009

The Marxist interpretation of Fascism in the 1920s & 30s was that when the ruling classes were unable to supress the workers' movement by the usual means then they would be suppressed by naked violence offered by the Fascists of Mussolini & Hitler. Obviously this was a clearer label than "National Socialist." There is in this conception no reference to the vicious racism (and an optimism as to the Left's own strength) in Hitler's Nazism nor Griffin's, so it is only a partial explanation. No doubt the BNP would like to see themselves as "smashing Bolshevism" or whatever, provided they could find any left to smash. There are few openly fascist organisations left, although the American Fascist Movement regard the likes of the BNP as extremists.--Streona (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"No doubt the BNP would like to see themselves as "smashing Bolshevism" or whatever" But this is just your opinion - not an indisputable fact. I've followed the BNP for a while and I've never heard them speak out against 'Bolshevism'. In fact the BNP have a strict policy of no violence, they never march on the streets and they never assault police - unlike many of their opponents who fequently use such tactics that could easily be described as fascist i.e. the unite against fascism (UAF) & various fundamentalist Muslim groups behaviour at the recent Harrow mosque riots in London. Furthermore as a supposidly neutral website, wikipedia should realise that 'extremism' is reletive - not set in stone. Many people may view the BNP's views as 'extremist' but the BNP equally view their's as extremist, and given the fact that they are now firmly established as a minority party (with similar support to the UK Green party) one can no longer simply discredit everything they say as false.

I don't find references to political movements a hundred years old as being particularly helpful here. Equally, references to ideologies sixty or seventy years old are equally unhelpful; clearly, the grounds have shifted somewhat. However, when normally responsible journalists make such comparisons, we tend to regard them as reliable sources, despite the fact that they are principally writers and not political scientists. As for neutrality, this and similar articles seem to be perpetual battlegrounds between the pros, the antis, and the neutrals, and sadly, the neutrals are either absent or unwilling to fight their corner in the face of factionalism. Sad. Perhaps taking a step back on all parts would be advisable. Rodhull andemu 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe the BNP as fascists, quite right too because thats exactly what they are. Whilst the BNP refuse to allow Black British citizens to join their little party, you can be sure people will try to simply discredit everything the BNP says as false. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard for anyone to be neutral when dealing with an article on a party like this. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hard for anyone to be neutral when dealing with an article on a party like this." then perhaps you shouldn't comment on this article. "Reliable sources describe the BNP as fascists, quite right too because thats exactly what they are." What reliable sources - the uaf, the sun & other left-leaning papers - I would hardly consider them 'reliable' sources when dealing with a political issue they oppose. And how exactly are the bnp fascist? are you even aware of what that word actually means? As I already stated the bnp does not line up with the definition of fascism, they are socially very conservative and economically quite socialist. In order to be fascist a party or government needs to be socially very conservative AND very economically corporatist AND use force to threaten/intimidate, depribe or ban their political rivals - the latter two of which the bnp actually has done against them i.e. the banning of their members from certain local bodies & being physically attacked with clawhammers etc. I have to agree with Rodhull andemu here - references to 70 year old political ideologies aren't very intelligent or helpful, in fact much of this whole article reads as though it were written by a member of the uaf or searchlight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 September 2009

Maybe if you'd actually bother to look at the references provided in the article you would see what reliable sources consider the BNP to be fascist, and not one of them is the UAF or The Sun. MaesterTonberry (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry 203.100.211.178, i avoid making edits to this article otherwise it would be even less neutral and youd have alot more to complain about. In truth i dont have strong feelings about them being labelled fascist, originally i thought it would be best to remove it from the infobox because i can think of a few terms used to describe Labour which wouldnt be allowed on their page, but reliable sources do describe the BNP that way and there for we shouldnt just ignore that. Whilst they may not consider or call themselves fascist, we all know thats what they are. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick google gives lost of discussion including Why the BNP is Still Fascist, this and from the Guardian none are the biggest fans of the BNP but discussion of the BNP as fascist is legitimate based on this quick sample, a section discussion the disputed labelling of the BNP as Fascist/righ-twing/racist in the media would be a good addition that would address all this to a make the article more neutral. --Nate ^t/_c 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles you listed are extremely bias and mostly draw on the party's neo-fascist past, not the current bnp. The first two of them are from small neo-marxist/far-leftist sites and can hardly be considered 'reliable' can they, as for the last one its arguements that the bnp is fascist is based on the old (1980's-1990's) bnp not the modern one (Griffin era). Its clear that many people think the bnp has 'put on a new image' just for political gain, but again thats just your opinion, it doesn't matter what a party used to stand for - after all the UK Labour party used to be anti-homosexual but you wouldn't call them that now. And besides why does it matter what some jouneralists say? they don't decide everything, if they started saying 2+2=5 would that make it true in wikipedia's eyes. Again being 'far-right' doesn't automatically make you fascist, and therefore wikipedia needs to stop their obvious bias against nationalism by comparing it to fascism of previous decades as peoples views do evolve over time - including Nick Griffin's. As this article itself states Griffin admitted that under the old Tyndall-era bnp he was forced to 'tow the party line' on many issues (such as 'zionism'). So prehaps a fairer way to put it would be "many accuse the bnp of habouring fascist or neo-fascist tendancies (due to their neo-fascist past) although the bnp themselves deny this and often counter-accuse their opponents of fascism, citing several legal attacks against bnp members because of their political beliefs; such as the ongoing legal case against adam walker and the banning of bnp members from the police force and other civil service positions".

All i'm asking for is that you remove the "fascism" label in the info-box, not remove all accusations of fascism. It is an appalling sight to see wikipedia stoop so low that it panders to one side of the arguement over the other, as this article seems to go out of its way to dis-credit the bnp rather than taking a factual & up-to-date approach i.e. not digging up past neo-fascist beliefs and saying they still apply even when the bnp denies and even denouces them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 September 2009

The sources provided in the article that describe the BNP as fascist are from peer-reviewed academic journals, the 'gold standard' on Wikipedia. If you can provide the same standard of sources that dispute the BNP are; fascist, ever were fascist or at which precise point they stopped being fascist, then we will have something new to debate but until then you are just rehashing the same arguments that have gone on this talk page and which have always have ended in keeping the label in place. MaesterTonberry (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So can we agree with Griffin, that an incoming BNP government would change the status of those they consider to be non indigenous "folk" communities who will not or cannot leave the country to what he termed "guests" - presumably having only the status of tourists. These people would have almost no rights to employment, health, housing, welfare or employment? The death penalty would be introduced for "treason" - which historically has proven to be a very elastic concept when applied to people who disagree with their government. Apart from members with tattoos which won't come off, the BNP has replaced overt Nazi/Fascist symbols with the Union Flag, but their policies are implicit and amount to the same aims they ever had. --Streona (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Griffin makes his true feelings very clear in this video. [4] This idea the BNP has truely reformed and become a patriotic party is rubbish. They are a disgrace to this country and that is something liberals and conservatives can agree on which is why theres many reliable sources describing them as fascist. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well let's look at the Wikipedia definition of Fascism: "Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.", none of which could be applied to the BNP. It's funny that when it says: "...claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy [...] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").", which is actually pretty much excactly what our Socialist-Social Democratic government is doing in Norway today. So is the Norwegian Labour Party-led government fascist then? Would it be appropriate to add that in the infobox? As far as I know real fascism involves (para)military marching, uniforms and dictatorships, which the BNP has nothing to do with. Further it may be argued that nobody that actually are "fascist" would secretly hide it in this giant conspiracy against the people as the left-of-center always love to claim in their fear-propaganda. And when regimes considered as "Para-fascist" (in the Wikipedia fascism-article) includes Pinochet regime in Chile, Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party regime in Iraq, Apartheid-era South Africa by the Afrikaans Nationalist Party, I think it really is a complete mockery towards both real Fascism, and against victims of fascism, when "Fascism" is in this desperate attempt attached to the current BNP. This is an encyclopedia, not a far-left fear and conspiracy factory. Very specific ideologies such as "Fascism", "Nazism", "Communism" and so on should not be put on any organization that do not expressely claim to be it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.17.18.172 (talk • contribs)

Then start as section discussing why the labels are inaccurate, they are still in current use see this, whether the label is used correctly is not up ot the editors here, it is used but a sisscusion on why it is not so with sources who say the that is is a bad description is entirely reasonable. --Nate ^t/_c 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a BNP respone to specific scholarly definitions of fascist [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.17.138.43 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 September 2009

That is not a reliable source. Look you really are wasting your time trying to get the fascist label removed because it will be opposed by several people. It would be more productive if you made suggestions on how the article could be improved. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I just see the same rehash of the same arguments that have been rejected previously. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This still hasn't been addressed. I suggest that until it is we remove the "Fascism" label or at least the link because such internal inconsistencies are embarrassing. One has to budge, because their policies and Fascism as defined on Wikipedia don't align, and it's misleading and incorrect. If the label is applied due to a "recalibration" of Fascist ideology then surely it is a matter for discussion in the article (along with the BNP's denials) and not a certainty we can just stick in the infobox. Entries in the infobox are not meant to stir up controversy. Look at how the article on the National Democratic Party of Germany deals with a similar phrase, in the second paragraph of the lead. Some of the references here that call the BNP Fascist are part of mainstream political discourse; using them is as fair (assuming this is non-biased) as defining mainstream political parties by what fringe parties label them, when they deny it. Further, we have David Renton, a socialist[6], and Richard Thurlow and Nigel Compsey, academics who make their careers out of writing about Fascism, and so have vested interests in spotting it. Above, Nate presented articles calling them Fascist, one of which was written by a left-wing Labour Party member and another by somebody writing for Marxist journal. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to return like a dog unto its vomit, but the question has not been tackled of inner-party democracy within the BNP. I understand that whilst the leadership is theoretically elective, anyone actually standing against Griffin - such as Colin Auty - is apt to have themselves accused of treason & expelled and their supporters intimidated by ex- South African Policemen. It also seems as if the Leader has a dominance over policy-making & approval of membership not inconsistent with Der Fuhrerprinzip of yesteryear.--Streona (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lol that sounds like a fair and accurate analysis of the BNP to me :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"It also seems as if the Leader has a dominance over policy-making", you`re quite misinformed if you think that because Nick Griffin wants to admit non-whites into the party and he will have to seek the approval of other members to incorporate this new change on october 15th. Next time you try to assert something inform yourself a little bit more next time by a method called READING, you should try it. Especially when you try to assert something in such an arrogant and immature way.--Spitzer19 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we be more polite?, or we - or rather you- might just get blocked (again). Members of the BNP who disgree with Griffin's position have also a history of getting banned out of the BNP & their house broken into by the "Security Team" so will there be a free vote on the acceptance of non-Whites as Griffin has been advised by his lawyers (if you can call Lee Barnes that)?--Streona (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Members of the BNP who disgree with Griffin's position have also a history of getting banned out of the BNP & their house broken into by the "Security Team". Okay, IF that is true then provide them concrete examples of people who disagreed with Nick Griffin and got their houses broken by his security team.--Spitzer19 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadie Graham. --Streona (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting, it seems that she was banned for her demands that Mark Collett be removed from the BNP for making statements sympathetic to Hitler and when she was removed she had a laptop confiscated from that while seemed to have belonged to the BNP was not confiscated in an entirely legal way. That being said it is nothing compared to what a hardline fascist or Nazi group/gang(aka skinheads) like the Aryan brotherhood would do to you. It is also worth noting that Nick Griffin has disapproved of Mark Collett`s comments and his sympathies and that the BNP are not the only group that would ban someone, virtually every political movement has banned people and many have harassed former members but the context for which she was banned does suggest some fascist sympathies within the BNP. That being said, it does not seem like a sufficient basis to label them as a purely fascist movement because you see people in parties that are centre-left make comments that there are good points in Communism eventhough they are not purely Marxist or Communist. For this reason I have proposed that we label the BNP a deviation of Fascism, because even the references seem to label them as such. As a group who have fascist elements and similiarites or parallels with other fascist movements.--Spitzer19 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on - Mark Collett makes pro-Hitler, pro- Nazi statements and Sadie Graham objects, yet it is she that is thrown out of the BNP? What does that tell you ?--Streona (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It shows they ahve people that might have some sympathy for the fascist ideology, just like Labour and the LibDems have some sympathy for Communism. However, the LibDems and Labour are not explicitly Communist, just like the BNP are not explicitly fascist.--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Implicitly fascist then.--Streona (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I recentlty came across this article regarding the loose use of the term fascist in regards to the BNP. [7] I think this should be considered as it backs my original claims that the term fascist is used as a political insult by anti-BNP types rather than a real discription of the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the references cited. It is pointless to attempt to refute the use of the term fascist to describe the bnp unless you can discredit the refs and supply similarly persuasive citations to support your claims. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is often linked to a single strong/authoritarian leader. Griffin may not be a good example of a proto-dictator, but I'd be surprised if this link hasn't been made in the RS. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The fascism label needs to be modified

I took a look at the references that assert the BNP are fascists and they do not assert that they`re fascists in an orthodox or traditional sense. This is obvious for anyone that follows the BNP because they do not quote any of the slogans from Nazi Germany or fascist Italy and they even use Winston Churchill in their political outreach. The references merely state that the BNP have traits in common with earlier fascist movements so this should be specified. I think it would appropriate to state in the information box that they are a British deviation of fascism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

JUst re-checked the Copsey article, and it definitely aligns the BNP with core fascism - the above sounds like OR and an attempt to read into the sources. Fascism is an ideology, it doesn't need to emulate German or Italian brands to be so...--Red Deathy (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated here ad nauseam (see archives). The references cited DO say that the BNP is fascist. Incidentally, the BNP's use of Winston Churchill has been condemned by his family. (But it's interesting to note that Churchill, when visiting Italy in the 1930s, said to Mussolini, "Duce, if I were Italian, I would be a fascist." Emeraude (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Red Deathy, you`re lying. The source states "He(Copsey) concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration". Hence they are a recalibration of fascism, not core fascism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"But it's interesting to note that Churchill, when visiting Italy in the 1930s, said to Mussolini, "Duce, if I were Italian, I would be a fascist." Stalin also stated "I realize how much the German people love their fuhrer and I drink to his health."By your logic it means that the British neo-communist party is a Nazi party too--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. It was a humorous aside on my part, not a political studies thesis. And Red Deathy is not lying: Copsey's point, and it is made by other commentators, is that no political ideology remains static. They all develop and change with time. Michael Billig observed, regarding Martin Walker's book on the BNP's predecessor, the National Front, that Walker's "avoidance of describing the National Front as 'fascist' may be based on an insufficient understanding of the continuities within the fascist tradition and upon the assumption that all instances of a political movement or ideology will be precisely the same." (M. BILLIG, "Fascists: a social psychological view of the National Front", p5, European Monographs in Social Psychology, 1978) Still applies.

It's also clear that you have NOT read Copsey's article but only the journal editor's abstract, and even then you have quoted selectively. To complete the sentence you have cherry picked from: "He concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity." i.e., the ideology is still fascist. Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Billig is bias in favour of Freudo-Marxism (cut from the Frankfurt School cloth). People who are actively working to subvert the West are not a neutral or reliable source for articles, especially on contested points such as this. In any case the BNP is not the NF. Can we have some non-far left academic sources which claim the BNP is ideologically "fascist"? What do Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton, Zeev Sternhell, Stanley G. Payne have to say on the issue? The fact that the party, even though it is completely legal in the UK to form a fascist party (or in fact any ideology), rejects the label is significant for it to be a violation of WP:BLP. In any case, regardless of what the party may or may not have been in the past, it is difficult to argue after Griffin's Haiderisation of the party that it is even that radical. It simply mixes populism with ethno-nationalism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

None of which invalidates Billig's observation that it is false to assume that "all instances of a political movement or ideology will be precisely the same". Emeraude (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can try that argument on the WP:BLPN if you like, but describing the BNP as fascist is the same as saying eggs are eggy, and not a BLP issue. It might be a WP:RS issue, but we have plenty of those, and there is already an WP:NPON discussion.Verbal chat 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If they were called the "British Fascist Party" you might have a point. However, they identify themselves and their agenda as "nationalists", explicity rejecting the term fascist to describe their own ideology. Its not a violation of WP:BLP to called Mussolini or Mosley fascists, because that was what their own party program, written by their hand explicity positioned themselves as. The same cannot be said of Griffin's BNP, where the term is used exclusively by some of their opponents. The BNP doesn't claim to be fascist, thus an assertion that its members are, despite no reference to said ideology in their constitution or program, is a WP:BLP issue. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All good points that are true. Even the admittedly biased reference states that although the BNP is not a "fundamental break in ideological continuity" it is nonetheless a "recalibration". In a political sense such a word translates as reform. So as you said they are not explicitly fascist like Mussolini or Mosley and the source makes a case(despite the fact it is admittedly quite biased) that they are a modification that have kept some core tendencies of fascism so they are either a group that holds parallels of fascism(which is not enough to consider them fascist but merely to assert that they have SOME fascist parallels or tendencies) or are a deviation of the orthodox fascism of Mussolini or the British fascism of Mosley--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not WP:BLP because this isn't a biography of a living person. Copsey's article is from a reputable peer reviewed journal. Recalibration, if you recaliber a rifle it remains a rifle, just firing different bullets, recalibrated fascism remains fascism, and your reading of the article is OR, the whole thrust of the article is that they remain a fascistic party. All that is required to remove the fascism tag is a reliable, verifiable third party reference to that effect.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But Spitzer19, you still haven't read the journal article have you? Stop quoting selectively and pointelessly from the journal's abstract and comment on the article itself, after you have read it. What you are doing is equivalent to describing a novel based purely on the blurb on the back cover. But, to stay just with the abstract, note that it says there has not been "a fundamental break in ideological continuity" i.e., the BNP's still fascist!!! Emeraude (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Recalibration, if you recaliber a rifle it remains a rifle", yes that is why it would be appropriate to term the BNP a deviation of fascism, still fascist but a deviation from fascism in the orthodox sense. Doing such would be in line with what the sources claim. As for the article, I am not a subscriber. If you want me to read it take a screen shot, put it on photobucket and send me the link. I have no intention on wasting money by subscribing to that site.--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You could get a copy of the article, if you are in the UK by giving the reference to your local public library, it would only cost you 50p or so. I'm afraid your OR reading still doesn't stand up, recalibrated means it is essentially fascism, with all the hallmarks of essential fascism, but that the story remains the same.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As you said, if you recalibrate a rifle it is still a rifle but if you`re a vendor of firearms it is your responsibility to inform the buyer that a certain model has been recalibrated as it is wikipedia`s responsibility to inform people that the BNP are a recalibration or (as I think would be a more appropriate term for an a political group or movement) a deviation of fascism--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So far, we have yet to see any specific claims to why the BNP is "fascist", to this point only numerous claims to why the BNP are not "fascist". But I am prepared for more of these leftist claims more or less just saying that "they just are fascist" and so on. Not allowing non-white members for instance do not at all equal a party of being "fascist", if that's the case there are numerous organizations in Britain that do not allow non-black, non-asian members. Is it a claim of intemidation or something like that? In that case the UAF are far more "fascist" than the BNP. Further, several of the users discussing here, like BritishWatcher, has shown in the topic below to have a clearly personal prejudgemental and biased view (maybe a UAF-activist even?), which means that the views presented by that person can not be taken seriously. -GabaG (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? The claims are based on reliable sources, that's the start and end of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"The claims are based on reliable sources" and the sources state they are a deviation of fascist or as copsey asserts a "recalibration". Hence, it needs to be specified in the article that they`re a deviation or a recalibration of fascist.Now one could debate whether these articles or reliable(and a fair case can be made that they`re not) but that is another discussion. Clearly they`re either a Deviation/recalibration of fascism or are not fascist--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am no fan of the UAF either, from the video footage i have seen of that groups actions, they are disgraceful aswell although i share their concerns about the "English defence League" and the BNP, it is no excuse for the UAF to try and spark riots in British cities.

However as i said before i did not write the article and i only give comments here on the talk page, but when it comes to adding stuff to the article i think i take a fair stance, i did actually try arguing for the removal of the fascist label a few months ago, but its not because i think its an incorrect label for this party, was just for fairness as theres reliable sources calling Labour communist (i suspect) lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Holding personal views does not mean that one is incapable of presenting an unbiased argument. I do it all the time. I support a certain football team, so I'm biased, but it does not mean my comments are unreliable if I say that their opponents played better (or worse). What is important, whether football or politics, is not personal views but substantiated and verifiable comment. It's interesting that it's only those who want to say the BNP is not fascist who make personal attacks on the supposed personal views of others! Emeraude (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"but it does not mean my comments are unreliable if I say that their opponents played better (or worse)" okay so by your logic Arthur Butz who is a professor at Northwestern and is an author of the book -Hoax of the 20th century-(he is of course alleging that the hoax is the Holocaust) would be an appropiate source for the Holocaust article on wikipedia?Somehow I get the impression that if I were to use him as a source for an edit on the Holocaust article that it would be removed within seconds and if I were to persist I would be banned instantly. LOL.--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We have plenty of WP:RS that the BNP is fascist. That's the end of it as far as WP is concerned. Any removal of the term from he article will be contrary to the goals of this project, and will be viewed as disruptive editing. Verbal chat 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of this thread is not whether they are fascist or not, the sources assert they are fascist but are a deviation(or as Copsey says a "recalibration") of fascism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a misquote of the Copsey paper which says the underlying ideology is unchanged. have you actually read the paper? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a misquote of Copsey`s claims. The issue here is not whether the BNP is still fascist but the source asserts that they are a recalibration of fascism. Saying they are a recalibration of fascism does not claim that they`re not fascist but merely that they`re a deviation of fascism and that needs to be specified in the article.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

on what page does he use the phrase "deviation of fascism"?--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The review of this book conveys that he asserts that they`re a "recalibration" of fascism.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a770185679

I know you might try to dismiss it by saying it is just a review but the review was written by someone who obviously read the book and has been confided by the site that is being used as a reference to convey and summarize Copsey`s assertions so the reviewer`s interpretation of this book carries abundantly more weight than the interpretations of anybody here--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the ice is getting a bit thin. However perhaps a quote from the source saying the BNPis facist might be usefull to help clear this up.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The abstract clearly calls the BNP a "recalibration" of fascism in order to assert that the party is still fascist, not that it is no longer fascist. The full sentence is: "He concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity" (my emphasis). In the article itself Copsey is even more explicit: "This does not represent some fundamental breach of ideological continuity. It is not the transformation from fascism to national-populism but the recalibration and modernization of fascism itself. It once more testifies to the almost Darwinian ability of fascism to survive and adapt as an ideology. Adversaries are therefore quite justified in their vilification of the BNP as fascist although, for the sake of accuracy, the 'neo-fascist' label is more exact" (my emphasis). Copsey clearly says that it is "quite justified" to refer to the BNP as fascist. The case is, it seems to me, closed.VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so long ago, Microsoft Encarta (1999 version) had managed to define the Norwegian Progress Party as "Neo-Nazi", and far-left ("social democratic nice organization") "SOS Racism" (leaders have links to Stalinist and Maoist groups) has publicly called it "Nazi". Just saying that even popularly renowned sources can be terribly wrong, or extremly biased. As such, I think it should at least be presented the specific reasons to why the BNP are fascist, so that eventually the discussion could be closed, in either "direction". (Just to say, I do think the BNP have some very stupid policies, like having ethnic requirements for membership. Nevertheless, I would like to see a truthful and neutral article about the party, thus removing possible political biased smears.) -GabaG (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the previous discussion, lots of sources say they are fascist so the label is fair. HOWEVER the BNP & some commentators disspute the lable and this is all sourceable, so would not the sensible solution be, to stop debating an academic point of original research and to include a section stating that the BNP dispute some labels used for them in the press and who supports their position. --Nate ^t/_c 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't think it needs a whole section - the article is long as it is - but there did used to be a sentence or two in the article to the effect that "the BNP is described as fascist, a description the party denies". Now, I thought this was still in there somewhere, but I can't find it so perhaps it got watered down or reworded or removed without me noticing. I'd suggest a similar sentence in the intro, possibly along with the details of opposition from other parties and using the refs given in the infobox or for the politicians (Nick Clegg, for example, described the BNP as "a party of fascists, thugs." Unfortunately, I am unable to provide any references for the contrary view, not even from the BNP. Emeraude (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is any good, but it at least acknowledges they deny it http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/tw090721.pdf. We also have this, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/113462/Griffin-denies-fascism-smears-#, now if Mr Griffin speaks for the party and is the party then this must be the view of the party. We also have this http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/countering-the-smears/ it also has a number of other dewniles too. This too http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2003/12/07/party-denies-racist-links-79310-13701424/.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet again someone(this time voluntaryslave) has completely detracted by the point of this thread.

"The full sentence is: "He concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity" (my emphasis). In the article itself Copsey is even more explicit: "This does not represent some fundamental breach of ideological continuity. It is not the transformation from fascism to national-populism but the recalibration and modernization of fascism itself. It once more testifies to the almost Darwinian ability of fascism to survive and adapt as an ideology. Adversaries are therefore quite justified in their vilification of the BNP as fascist although, for the sake of accuracy, the 'neo-fascist' label is more exact"

Firstly, the point here is not denying whether the BNP is fascist or not but the need to specify in the article that the BNP are a deviation or a recalibration of fascism rather than a fascist party in an orthodox or traditional sense. Calling them neo-fascist would not be the appropriate thing to do because Neo-fascist is essentially the same, the prefix "neo" is merely added by some people to distinguish between Mussolini and Hitler and fascists/nazis today.

"national-populism but the recalibration and modernization of fascism itself"

THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT. They are a recalibration or modern deviation of fascism and it appears that you agree with me so obviously there is a consensus here to present the BNP as a modern deviation of traditional fascism.As Red Deathy said, if you recalibrate a rifle it is still a rifle but if your a vendor of firearms it is your responsibility to inform the buyer that a certain model has been recalibrated as it is wikipedia`s responsibility to inform people that the BNP are a recalibration or (as I think would be a more appropriate term for an a political group or movement) a deviation of fascism--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour in continually editing the "fascism" in the infobox is disruptive. You have ignored the reasoned contributions of other editors and, quite clearly, you STILL HAVE NOT READ THE SOURCE YOU CLAIM TO BE RELYING ON (Copsey). I suspect you have not read the otthers either. The fact that your chosen phrase appears in the abstract of the article written by the journal's editor is totally useless to your argument. Copsey did not write that. Further, even if he had, it is but one source out of five (as you yourself indicated in your last edit); and those are just the five that are listed as examples of many, many others. All of these sources are quite plain that the BNP was and is fascist. Some make the point that fascism has changed over the years (as has EVERY other political philosophy, ideology or party). It is the same as I have changed over the years - it's called time passing. If you want to be consistent, go to the articles on the Conservative Party (or any other party of your choice) and see if you can get away with describing them as "recalibrated" or "deviation from...". All parties have changed as time passes (for example, what was the Labour Party's policy on the Internet in 1970? What was Hitler's view on HIV/AIDS?). Copsey's point was a very simple one: the BNP claimed it had changed. It hadn't. It was still fascist. End of story. Emeraude (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"You have ignored the reasoned contributions of other editors", what I wrote before your most recent rebuttal was a direct retort to what 2 people had said(therefore I am not ignoring anything) and I showed quite clearly that the BNP are a deviation of fascism(as shown by someone who read Renton(the most recent source) and who was confided by the site being used as a source and who`s interpretation of Renton`s analysis carries abundantly more weight than yours) and that the arguments presented by others here in the discussion show quite clearly that they share this opinion that the BNP are a modern deviation or recalibration of fascism. My point is thus that it is wikipedia`s responsibility to specify that the BNP are a recalibration or a deviation of fascism and your arguments against doing this fall flat. I will refute some of what you just wrote to demonstrate this.

-"it is but one source out of five"

Renton appears to be most recent so his interpretation that the BNP are a recalibration or a deviatiobn(as I word it) is the most relevant of the sources.

-"If you want to be consistent, go to the articles on the Conservative Party (or any other party of your choice) and see if you can get away with describing them as "recalibrated""

This is the reason why the term NEO-CONS or Neo-Conservatives is employed to describe men like Bush who deviate from what Conservatives once were. The term Neo-fascist cannot be used because unfortunately it is often used in an erroneous context to describe fascists or Nazis who share the exact same ideology as Hitler or Mussolini but who were born afterwards.

-"All parties have changed as time passes"

Yes, Orthodox Nazi or fascist parties like the American Nazi Party have changed but ther ideology still remains explicitly Nazi. The BNP`s ideology has deviated from that position in recent years so even if they still retain characteristics of a Fascist group they are nontheless an altered version of it,as the reference clearly indicates, and this needs to be specified if wikipedia desires to be an accurate source of information.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You continue to show your ignorance. (1) You have not shown anything "quite clearly" but simply stuck stubbornly to your unsubstantiated opinion. (2)Apparently, you can decide that someone carries more weight than I? (3)No one seems to be sharing your opinion but you. (4)"BNP`s ideology has deviated from that position in recent years..." Says who? You? (5)Bush (either of them) was not and is not a member of the Conservative Party. (6)Apart from the same word, there is no connection between the Conservative Party (a UK political party) and Neo-cons (a US political position). (7)However a word may be misused by others, is not a reason for us not to use it correctly - this is an encyclopaedia. Neo-fascist is not used by political scientists to describe fascists born after Hitler/Mussolini. (8) Recency is not directly related to relevance. Besides, Renton is not the newest - Copsey (2007) is. (9) But anyway, Renton's article is here before me and the word "recalibration" appears nowhere in it. (10)YOU HAVEN'T READ IT HAVE YOU? Emeraude (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

JUst a small point - deviation and recalibration are not synonyms. Here's how the OED defines recalibrate: "To calibrate (an instrument or device) again or differently. Also in extended use: to reset, to adjust." note, reset implies recalibration can restore orthodoxy. So, again, no, there is no source for deviation.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascist Deviants? Bit POV but it has a ring to it.--Streona (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Added tehy deny it, but have not added sourcefor the label as I cannot view them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If "fascism" absolutely have to be stated in the infobox, I think it should be replaced with the more suiting explanation of "Fascist (epithet)". -GabaG (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As they deny and most of the sources for the idea that they are Fascist comes from groups or organisations that have proffessed hostility and opersition to hte BNP that would seem fair.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The references provided which describe the BNP as fascist do it not as an insult or an epithet but as a description of their ideology. This change would misrepresent what's in the sources. WP policy also calls on us to avoid terms like "alleged". MaesterTonberry (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is exactly what it is, because the modern BNP openly deny being ideological "fascist", they are, and identify as, nationalist, two rather different things (as is communism and socialism, and socialism and social democrasism different ideologies). As a matter of fact, they actually use the term "fascist" as a degoratory term (as the leftists do) against several of its political opponents, based on about equally as good arguments. So who is to judge who is this and that? As an encyclopedia I think it is very unfortunate for Wikipedia to take this road of presenting biased "facts", in whatever direction. I believe it would be most appropriate to rather look on discussing the "fascism"-issue in the article, rather presenting it as a "hard fact" in the infobox as it is now. I think we should stick to neutrality here and also try to avoid using very specific ideologies to political parties who do not identify as such. It is not Wikipedia's job to in a rather conspiratorical way "reveal bad things", it's job is to present truthful and neutral facts. -GabaG (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps it would be usefull if the passages that call then fascist were quoted here. As at least one of the sources [[8]] seems to be talking about the BNP characterising Muslims as Fascist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As the fascism label is n the info box this deserves the same level of importance as racism or Anti-Semitism, its fundamental to those who oppose them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascism Section

I was just listening to the radio and wondered what would be in wikipedia under BNP. To be honest I was pleasantly surprised by the intro - I've had experience of articles which are just blatant propoganda, and largely the intro seemed relatively unbiased. However, reading the talk, I found the controversy about "fascism" (Every article has their controversy ... it's the best bit to read!). Anyway, in the past I did some research on the faesces of Rome so I thought I'd have a look. Whilst the section on fascism seems to hold up as "truthful", to be honest I couldn't see it doing anything except offering a lot of (to be honest) spurious quotes that allowed one side to call the party fascist, without really going into the technical definition of fascism. That is to say, it is clearly mud slinging, but it really doesn't add anything to the sum of human knowledge. Then I went to the wikipedia article on fascism, and to be blunt, I've seldom read such twaddle ... and quite clearly there is no real modern definition and to devote a whole section to "opinion about whether this party is fascist or not", seems to me a complete waste of a bandwidth. So I would propose throwing out the whole section and leaving something like: "the BNP are often described as fascist although the exact definition on fascism within the post WWII context is unclear" in the intro. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Had another look at the article, and the big question of any party is: "what is it's policies", so when I read that section, I was surprised to find "fascist". Strangely I don't think that is a policy of the party anymore than "socialism" is a policy of the labour party (or ever was). I don't think there is any question in my mind, the section on fascism needs to be removed from "policy". Perhaps it needs a section on "political pursuasion" ... I'd have to check what the UK Labour party policy says about socialism and I would devote a similar amount of space and a similar position in the article to fascism in regard to the BNP and socialism in regard to Labour. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To some extent I agree with you - "Fascism" should be a standalone section and not under policies, but the recent history of this page will explain why it is where it is. As you areno doubt aware, the BNP is (in)famous for being a fascist party (or, to satisfy some editors, for being described as a fascist party). To some extent, I guess that's why you came to this article. Now, ths makes it a contentious issue and it must be covered in the article. You are, of course,absolutely right about Wikipedia's article of fascism - it is a mess. However, that is an argument for improving that article and really has no bearing on this. Fascism here has been as used by mainstream politicians (Cameron, Hain, Johnson, Clegg) who you may say have a bias. Fair enough, but they may be right as well. More importantly though, the fascism description in the article is tied to academic articles in peer-reviewed journals with sources clearly given, so regardless of what Wikipedia says about fascism we have the expert statements of respected academics. They have very clear and well-defined ideas about post WW2 fascism. That should be good enough for anyone. Emeraude (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the anon is correct, this is simply about political opponents irrelevent name calling, not a presentation of this parties policy, which the section is for (thus it is off topic). There is also a problem with WP:SYTH and the general fact that nationalist parties like these are not called simply "fascist" by the most well established academics of fascism (who do not use the word to describe post-WWII movements). The section isn't WP:NPOV, but thats the whole point of it being there in the first place I imagine. The policy section is as it says for a description of its policies, not "names used by its political opponents, as a flailing attempt to hold onto its electorate)". - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The BNP has been accused of fascism, and is RS. As such it has a place in tghe arti8cel. But it would be usefull to also have some overview of the BNP's own statments as to its policies, not the issue of fascism but actual manifesto promises (I.E. what it says it stands for).Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the section, like in all other party articles, is purely for a description of its policies. Not whether the word "fascism" can successfully be used in Freudo-Marxian critical theory to blacklist opponents. I'm sure references can be found where Labour has been accused of Marxism and war-mongering by opponents, yet its not pertinent to have a section under such a heading, in that article. Wikipedia neither has a bias for or against fascism, communism, islamism or anything else, since we are bound by the NPOV policy. Lets say for the sake of argument that the BNP was an open and overt "fascist party"? It still doesn't warrant a whole section which just dances around on opposition politicians use of a phrase. It isn't encyclopedic and doesn't tell the reader anything that needs a whole section devoted to it. All that is needs is one simply sentence which says "Various political opponents have claimed that the BNP advocates fascism, the party itself firmly denies these accusation." Simple. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support this, what the hell are so overtly biased statemenets as "They (BNP) believe in the purity of the Aryan race" and "...they are still Nazi thugs" doing in an encyclopedic article? I just wonder, why hasn't Nazism and Aryanism then been added as the ideology of BNP since "some well-known politician (or their supporter) said so"?? And what does this have to do with fascism?? This is just some of the facts that make the whole "fascism"-claim fall completely apart because it is utterly biased statements made by competing politicians, and their allies, which of course do not want to let an opposing party get their voters. -GabaG (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a policy but a criticism. The article also doesn't make it clear like the FAQ does up above. I was expecting to see information on single-party politics and the wish for an authoritative state but instead saw what is essentially a list of critics calling them fascists for being racist and nationalists. It should be moved out of the policies section. The amount of weight "fascism" is given in the overall article might be a concern, too. I assume this was unintentional and in an effort to meet the verifiability requirements.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Where would you sugest its moved to. One option is the oposition section. I agree its not thier policy, but it is an accusation that it is a hidden policy. Moreover the policy section contains a number of statemtns that are not offical BNP policy, but the actions or views of individaul membersSlatersteven (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

POV?

I know the BNP are a bunch of crazy racists, but this article seems very biased against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.237.132 (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly nothing more than they deserve. Do you have any suggestions as to how it could be improved to make it more neutral? Trouble with this sick party is theres nothing good to say. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think thnat reveals an POV agenda, and perhaps more nuetral editing might improve the artcile.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have strong POV on this sick group and i wont for one second hide my hate for them. However i am not responsible for this article, i did not write the article or contribute to its contents although ive given my opinion on a couple of parts of it. Its all very well people saying the article isnt neutral and it needs people with out a POV agenda, but weve all asked for examples of exactly how this article can be improved to make it more neutral. Ive yet to hear anything with the exception of removing the fascism label which is what seems to cause the most trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If people have specific POV concerns, then raise them here or a the NPOV noticeboard. Please keep accusations of agendas, etc, off this page. Verbal chat 13:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Historically the BNP (including Nick Griffin)" why is Mr Griffin mentioned this page is not about him? that seems to me a bit biased. Do any otehr politcal part pages also note that the leader of the party supports its views? Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#BNP Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to prevent mainstream views and unfortunately for the BNP mainstream academic and journalistic coverage of them is entirely negative. If there are POV issues therefore the appropriate place to raise them would be with academics and the mainstream media. People who disagree with media coverage may complain to the Press Complaints Commission which will evaluate the fairness of media coverage. However as a tertiary source WP articles cannot question the fairness of media coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is that Wikipedia has basic values to do with how a discourse is conducted and how knowledge evolves (peer review, respect for each other regardless of ethnic or national origin, politeness etc.) and the basic values of the BNP and those who apologise for it in these pages are at variance. Karl Popper described fascism as "mankind's periodic retreat from freedom & reason" and if Wikipedia is not about freedom & reason then it would not exist.--Streona (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And assuming good faith.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the suggestion above, below are potential POV concerns I noticed. Just because "there is nothing good to say" doesn't mean we need to let this become a rap sheet instead of an unbiased summary of the party. Much of the POV comes from giving weight to the negative and disregarding less sensationalist aspects along with the general structure of the article. It could be argued that this is the fault of editors simply not caring enough to add in boring but factual and potentially important text but it does come across like some editors did have some sort of an agenda against the party. It happens both intentionally and not sometimes and there is nothing we can do but fix it.Cptnono (talk)

It looks like there was an effort to use Nick Griffin's past to discredit him and the party. I'm not saying they should have credit or not but that reminding the reader twice that Griffin could be a bad guy in the lead is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Internal problems is given plenty of text. Structure is not. a) Internal problems could be a subsection of Structure and b)This article is supposed to be about the group and not random criticism and emphasizing the negative. Structure is certainly as important if not more important than concerns within it.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Take the time to read the whole article, the more you read the worse it gets. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Yeah. Listing them out is better than speaking in general terms (as Verbal was pointing out) so here it goes!Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Internal problems is given plenty of text. Structure is not. a) Internal problems could be a subsection of Structure and b)This article is supposed to be about the group and not random criticism and emphasizing the negative. Structure is certainly as important if not more important than concerns within it.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I gave my thoughts on facism in one of the three sections on this page. (see Sec 5.1 "Fascism Section" above). Cptnono (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups section

"While Griffin was still a leading figure in the National Front, he was a close associate of Roberto Fiore..." This is about Griffin and not the party and goes into excessive detail.
An example of bloat and painting the dirtiest picture possible is done again with "When Tyndall was still chairman, the BNP's 1995 national rally was addressed by William Luther Pierce, the then-head of the US National Alliance. Pierce wrote the novel The Turner Diaries, an inspiration for Timothy McVeigh to carry out the Oklahoma City bombing[302] which killed 168 people[303][304]." This is important but going into the detail "an inspiration for Timothy McVeigh to carry out the Oklahoma City bombing[302] which killed 168 people[303][304]." Seems excessive. What is the line of when wikilinks are to be followed? It also only mentions 1 bad thing. Wouldn't something like "...Pierce, former leader of the National Alliance and author of the Turner Diaries,..." be better? Sources 302-304 don't even mention the BNP.Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
"Griffin has urged nationalists to join the BNP and use the ballot box instead of violence if only for the sake of their judicial activism.[309]" This strikes me as important. Instead of giving so much space (the two paragraphs before it) shouldn't this be tied in? Griffin has urged nationalists to join the BNP and use the ballot box instead of violence if only for the sake of their judicial activism.[309] + Former members have done bad things including yada yada. It reads as if we are trying to make the reader use SYNTH (hey look at those guys doing bad thing. What... they used to be BNP you say?) regardless but could be viewed as noteworthy.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Online presence section:

Is "far right blah blah" in since it was part of the quote or because we need to remind the reader that they are far-right in an effort to continue the negative tone?
Is pointing out that they are hypocrites that important in the big picture? It received coverage but is given undue weight since it is one of two part of only two parts of the section. Is there anything else important about their online presence that can also be provided?Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Trafalgar Club is the BNP fundraising club, and the name the party uses to book hotels and conference facilities." This isn't really POV but it looks like it might have been added in the spirit (I'm assuming bad faith it looks like). Is a fundrasing club an "Officially linked group" (it is in the section of "Affiliated organizations"). It looks like the wrong section ("Structure" maybe?) and potentially an attempt to "out" the group. It is also not sourced. The merchandising arm needs to be moved out of the section and into structure as well.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Economic policy. This section reads like the editor was trying to show that they are communists but didn't come out and say it. This looks like a potential case of cherry picking information in an attempt to lead the reader to form a conclusion. I cannot be sure since I don't have the book being used as an inline citation. I would be interested to see what the overall context those quotes were pulled from. Conversely, duck test and some people think communism is good.Speaking of cherry picking, there is a whole seciton on tax policy in the '05 manifesto which certainly doesn't appear communist in nature. Cptnono (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Their American friends

"was still having extensive contacts with the National Alliance as recently as 2003" needs checking, not only is there contracdictory sources but also the source given for thisclaim does not make it, and more over the writer stoped his interviews (according to the source) the year before. Moreover this seems to be a review (see my comment about facist label).Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources are not contradictory, but the statement in the article that the American Friends of the BNP had links with Nat Alliance until 2003 is not supported in the sources and I am tempted to conclude that this was an error on the part of the editor who originally wrote it. Indeed, as mentioned this would have been impossible at any official level if the BNP group was forced to disband in 2001, though the people themselves, for all anyone knows, may and probably did maintain these links. It seems more sensible to reduce the coverage of this issue, as I have done, to the bare minimum. I've left the added references in; they do provide useful background to any readers who want detail. Emeraude (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where in the sources does it mention the National AllianceSlatersteven (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this as the sources make no mention of the National Alliance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Redwitch

http://www.redwatch.org.uk/bn1.jpg seesm to be broke.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC) The link still does not work, so why were sources that did work removed. Moreover the passage does not say the BNP denies any links. I also belive that the fact that Mr Sheppard was explelled from the BNP is of great relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC) As the source does not work I nave reverted to my version.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia category?

I feel this violates WP:UNDUE having the party categorised under this label. Homophobia is not a large part of their agenda. Furthermore, this article has undue weight on the anti-homosexual ideas within the BNP. It's not a big deal.--Bulgarian Psychology Professor (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All they say is that homosexuality should not be promoted. When you have prepubescent children indoctrinated into the 'LGBT' agenda, I feel that is wrong and I think many other people would say the same - they're too young to learn about these things. It seems that any attempt towards conservative values is treated as 'fascism' or 'nazism'. If you oppose the promotion of homosexuality and mixed race relationships (both of which I feel are not good towards the building of a healthy society) you are treated as some kind of bigot. I feel a communist madness has overtaken the western world.--Bulgarian Psychology Professor (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The BNP's homophobia extends further than their opposition to the supposed "promotion" of homosexuality in schools. They want to criminalise showing anything vaguely gay-friendly in the media; Griffin said for instance that under their proposed laws a BBC filmaker who portrays being gay in a positive light could be imprisoned. MaesterTonberry (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source for that?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/sep/01/features.magazine37 MaesterTonberry (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn so the BNP if they came to power may lock up the Eastenders writters for that current gay story line running. Thats rather mean, their writing isnt that bad lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actualy the source does not say they would be banged up, it says that if they were to do so it would not be persecuting a homosexual. Certainly it says that Clause 28 would be extended to the media, but it does not amek clear if Mt Grffin bleives they should be fined or banged up.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats true, they could all just be given 100 lashes for their crimes. I understand corporal punishment for petty criminals is one of their core policies, im sure theyd extend it to those promoting things they disagree with, i doubt theyd go as far as to excute them although anythings possible. Thats something that makes me laugh about the BNP, this place would be more like Iran with them in power than it is now. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out were the BNP sande on punishment for 'deviany' I suspect they would go in for coporal punishment, but as I am not thier spokeman it is very OR of me to say that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please define what you consider "promotion"? Alot of things are explained in schools, its hardly "promoting it". BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the germain issue if how the BNP define it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Germain issue? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that should be germane issue.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention the Ware! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it. --Streona (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This would probably fall under their general opposition to Cultural Marxism and political correctness, rather than "homophobia". For instance, currently taxpayers are forced to pay for "Manchester Pride" a major LGBT advocacy parade. Even people who may find this in direct opposition to their own personal views or contrary to their religious values, they have no choice but to pay for it, with the money they have earned, due to Loony Labour's Cultural Marxism. As this party doesn't seem to be "against homosexuals" in general (I can't find anything to say homosexuals can't join their party), but rather against Cultural Marxists using the Sexual Revolution as a weapon in public, this tag would seem to be a strech. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On the nail-bomb attack in Soho: ‘Dozens of “gay” demonstrators flaunting their perversion in front of the world’s journalist showed why so many people find these creatures so repulsive’ (Nick Griffin — Spearhead June 1999)

Perhaps one should look within his own tortured psyche for the explanation of Griffin's evident bitterness--Streona (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe some of the blatant bigotry in this very conversation thread. Firstly, the term homophobia means "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". It can just be one of these things or all three. That is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition. Since the BNP have been quite open about the way in which they view homosexuals and how they aim to lock it up all back in the closet and take it out of mainstream society. This is discrimination, pure and simple. The BNP have stated they would bring back Section 28 (which even the Tories now admit was homophobic), and coupled with Nick Griffin's blatantly homophobic comments in the aftermath of the Admiral Duncan bombing in 1999, the BNP clearly match the category definition along with various other far-right organisations and people who are publicly known for their stance against gay rights. It may not be a term that their supporters like, but that doesn't stop it from being true. MassassiUK 22:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly Massassi you have reinserted the homophobic cat without any discussion here, as far as I can see there is a clear consensus to remove the cat so if you would like to discuss it would you please remove it, also I would disagree with you that they are well known for the homophobic attitudes. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus on this thread. As far as I can see, the category was removed without justification. You are entitled to disagree about the BNP's homophobic attitudes, though I would suggest you read the actual article (and more so their own literature) which details their stance on homosexuality. I suspect it is the definition of homophobia you have more of an issue with. MassassiUK 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the cat, There was definitely no consensus to reinsert it as you have just come along and replaced it without any discussion at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as consensus goes, . yorkshirian removed it with the edit summary of... " agree with Bulgarian Psychology Professor and I support the removal, that is three editors, I would request you to respect that and remove the cat until you can establish by discussion whether there is any support for your position. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your support of it is still not a consensus. I suggest you read the information on the category page itself to see how the category is applied appropriately to articles. MassassiUK 22:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness the catergary is for articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. The article does not refer to homophobia, nor does it accuse the BNP of being Homophobic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Slatersteven, I think with your comment which I support and the previous support for removal that there is no consensus for keeping the cat and i'll remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Exact wording from the category page: The Homophobia category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for expressions of homophobia, opposition to homophobia, or involvement in controversy about homophobia. Since the BNP have made it part of their mandate to reverse all gay rights legislation effectively rendering gay men and women without rights that relate to their sexuality (regardless of the number of closet cases in their organisation), it can safely be said they are discriminating against gay men and women. Discrimination against gay men and women is part of the definition of homophobia. Its a fact, not an opinion. Homophobia may not be a word (or categorisation) that the BNP and its supporters would choose to describe themselves (to be honest, most homophobes wouldn't), but that does not make it wrong or inappropriate to list the article page in the category as an encyclopedic example of homophobic expression. And just so that you are aware Rob, a consensus is not simply a majority vote. In an issue like this, it would come down to whether or not the category can be justified, sourced, and matches the definition. With the BNP, it easily does and the facts speak for themselves. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, and I have pointed this out to other editors, you have reinserted this cat without any discussion or any consensus, you have reinserted it and then come to discuss it, this is not the way to affect change here at wikipedia that way to affect change is through discussion. Reinserting your favoured position without discussion weakens your position. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And trying to claim a consensus for your position when there is none weakens yours. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The homophobia category should remain included. The BNP adamantly oppose equal rights for gays and it's leader and other top brass have expressed homophobic views. They're also routinely referred to as homophobic by politicians, gay rights campaigners as well as the gay press (even if they deny the label) [9] [10] [11]. The party meets the criteria for "expressions of homophobia" and "involvement in controversy about homophobia" therefore there's no good reason for the category to be removed. MaesterTonberry (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, although I disagree. Not really much in your comments but more about the criteria and vagueness of this category, perhaps I will suggest an alteration to the criteria there at that noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The cat must clearly stay. The reasons for this have been explained in detail above. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whites only following EHRC court case?

If the BNP's new constitution which Griffin is due to present in court in January comes into effect, they will no longer be an "whites-only" party. But they've made it clear they still wish to be. Should their Wiki page still carry the label "whites only"? Just to clarify, I'm not arguing this change should be made now, just starting the discussion for when it happens :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.202.45 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should we need to get itsorted but bear in mind that the BNP has decided not to admit any new members until after the January EGM when Griffin will lay it down to the membership about the new constitution which is expected to concentrate more power in the hands of the hierarchy a=in order to prevent the party being taken over by the non-white hordes.--Streona (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice pice of specualtion there. However if the BNP change their consitution (and they said they will) then the artcile has top reclfet that, just as it does now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I believe the EGM will be in November 2009 but the return to court date is 28 Jan 2010 and if they have not changed the Constitution as required then the Court will take steps against them and they are not taking new membership applications until then, although perhaps the BNP application form should be overprinted "Smile; You're on Wikileaks!"--Streona (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascism section of article

I see that Slatersteven reverted my edits on the fascist nature of the BNP. Unfortunately, what he has done has gone back to a section which is inaccurate and not particularly informative. For example, despite what some disruptive editors have argued in this talk page, the BNP has NOT been described as a "recalibration and modernization" of fascism in any of the sources quoted, or anywhere else for that matter! This was a deliberate misreading of one article's abstract by someone who never actually read the article itself! Further, to quote just one politician (Cameron) as calling them fascist is disingenuous - dozens have - and then to give three quotes for BNP denial is just pointless when one would do. This in itself suggests a distinct lack of balance. I can agree that a proper section on Fascism is needed in this article; however the current one is not it. For this reason, I have reverted to my version which I would ask editors to accept as a temporary measure which at least covers the issue until such time as we can come up with a decent section and not this nonsense.

If a section needs work you do not delete it, you work on it. I susgest therefor that the section is re-instarted, the offending material (IE inacurate) is removed, and that comments by other politicians are inserted. We cannot work on a scetion that does not exist. To this end I will re-inserts it (with some alterationns).Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of any innacurate content, I personally dislike peoples constant desire to put people in groups, I would say the BNP have been labeled fascist by their opponents but they actually portray a different reality and in areas where they have been voted into power, no fascist actions or policy has been implemented or reported. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The BNP has not actually been voted into power anywhere, it has only had individual candidates voted onto legislative bodies, so, regardless of what the nature of the party is or isn't, "fascists actions or policy" shouldn't really be expected or looked for. The BNP doesn't ahve the power to take any such actions or policy. If you want to make a judgement about it, there are only its official policies and statements by its members to go on (or, in order to comply with WP policy, the interpretation of these made by RSs). --FormerIP (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we need a propper section not a one word line in the intro. Leave the section in and work on it, as I have tried to do.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I support your position on this Stephen as it will be better in the body of the article where it can be expanded upon and rebutted as needied. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is an entirely POV comment. It is not the job of Wikipedia article's to rebut or be rebutted but to present facts, supported by sources of evidence. The history of this discussion (I do wish people would read the archives and stop wasting time) demonstrates time and again that certain editors, almost always sympathetic to the BNP, want to remove any mention of facsism. Rationales have ranged from "I don't think it is" to "Why should I read it" (a peer-reviewed journal saying the BNP was fascist. So here's the deal. The intro needs to mention that the BNP is racist and fascist and that it has been condemened as such by academics and politicians. After all, that is the sort of issue that will cause most readers to look for the article in the first place. A detailed section is needed that refers to this academic evidence, saying why the BNP is fascist, and the BNP's denial. The current section IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE and needs to be replaced by someone who has read the sources. In the interest of balance, it would good to mention any academic sources that say the BNP is not fascist, but there aren't any that anyone has yet discovered. I am at present nurses a new computer and as everyone who has been in that position will testify, editing Wikipedia is not a priority at the moment. However, I will on Tuesday, if all is going well do wo things:

1 Redo the intro so that fascism is mentioned up top

2 Prepare a "fascism" section that presents a decent background and not a collection of miscellaneous quotes. Emeraude (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Or inprove the current section? Why is this so hard to do? Yes it does need to be worked on by someone whu has read the articles, but it should not say why the BNP are fascist, that is an opinion, it should say they have (but denieed) been accused of being (presenting all the evidacen in a NPOV way to enable the reader to make up his own mind) fascist. It odd that you accuse other editors of wanting to remove any mention, but have removed this section yourself. I want the section in, I put it in, I added additional comments. Yes its a section of quotes, so inprovew it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but you judge my comment harsley.... There are always two sides to a point of view, or citeable comments, the BNP is moving into mainstream politics and shouting.. facsist fascist is not really encyclopedic content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In the policy section it should be simple; present the details of what is contained within their policy. For instance "In their manifesto, the BNP has said such and such" or "while MEPs and part of the London Assembly, the party has such and such". Utilising Herbert Marcuse's critical theory, by using big, distracting words in an attempt to blacklist (in this case manifest political opponents falling over themselves screaming "fascist! fascist!"), without actually presenting to the reader what their policy is at all, in a section which is called "policy", surely is not NPOV. If the "Fascism" WP:BLP section is kept it should be merged into the "opposition" section. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Big push before the question time appearance eh lads? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe nobody add the 2009 Copsey book - people should keep an eye out for this popping up in 2010. it's great that the article has so many high quality sources to add. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Griffin quote. The section concerned does not contain any accusations of fascism from the "far left". The Trots are not cited for their opinion, only mainstream politicans and peer-reviewed journals. Therefore the rebuttal makes no sense, and indeed it is the BNP who are accused of being fascist not a direct accusation against Griffin himself. The BNP rebuttal is sufficient. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the quote has been restored with the bizarre summary of "nick griffins views are in the lead", which has got sweet FA to do with the reason it was removed. I repeat that the "far left" are not calling Griffin or the BNP anything in that section, so Griffin's views on the "far left" have no relevance there. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have re-inserted it for these reasons. 1 Mr Griffins comments are in part an comment on the kiinds of peopel who accuse him of fascism, for example the political colour of the "political scientists", Mr Griffin is saying that the accusation is made by the far left (or those who support them). He is making an accusation (no worse then the accusatio being responded too) that the accusations is politicaly motivated. 2 If mr Griffin's views are in the lead becasue he is in charge of the BNP and therefore his views are thier views, then the same applies here. 3 As I said this is Mr Griffin saying the accusation is motivated by political opposition to his (and his parties, if we accept his views are the partys viwes) views, thus it has a place in the artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown are also "far left"? And where is the evidence that he is referring to the authors of the peer reviewed journals? Please provide some, or that quote will be removed in due course. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Griffin has said the accusation comes from the far left, not me. He is stating that is were the accusation origonates, not who repeats it. He is making the direct accusation that it is a far left smear, that is important. I do not nedd to prove that any of the persons saying it a from the far left, just that Mr Griffin has accused them of being so (as he has said tyhat is were the accusation come from then he means those who make it).Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So now you're saying peer reviewed journals and the leaders of the three major political parties call the BNP fascist because the Trots and the rest of the "far left" said it in the first place? Do you have any sources to prove that utterly ridiculous assertion? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No I am not, Mr Griffin has. The qoute (from an RS) says that Mr Griffin has stated that the accusation comes from the Far Left, not me, I have just repeated his claim (the article is about the party he controls).Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he has not. That is a specious interpretation of his quote that most people who understand English would reject. Accusations of fascism do come from the far left, as his quote suggests. However he does not say that the accusations originated with the far left, and that others who use the term in relation to the BNP do so because of them. I have again removed the quote as it's irrelevant to that section as the far left are not cited, and the denial is already adequately covered by the BNP's blanket denial. I have also moved the section per WP:BLP, as the suggestion that peer-reviewed commentators are opponents of the BNP is a serious accusation casting aspersions on their neutrality, which is totally unacceptable. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

He says (and I quote "I am not a fascist - that is a smear that comes from the far left.") that the smear come from the far left , not some of the accusations, the accusations. He does not add any caveats to indicate he does not mean all the accusations. Now if someone says something comes from somewhere but they do not say it did not origonate there most people would see that as saying it origonates there (I.E. it came from outerspace) if however some one adds a caveat that it comes from (but did not origoante) from someplace they would say that (I.E. I come from outerspace but was born in Penge (which i'm told is very nice though I have never been there)). Mr Griffin does not make such a statement, his statement makes it claer that as far as he is concerend it is far loeft smear. As to the second part you removed, Why? this has nothing to do with te above and is Mr Griffin saying that he hates fascism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

the lede

The lede is a general overview of the important aspect of the BNP, the long list at the end of the leader of the other parties each with a seperate cite doea not belong in the lede, it is basically a list of people saying why they don't like the BNP and that is not what the lede is for. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Such information should be in the opposition section. Unless its what makes the BNP notable, the fact that poeple do not like them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any opposition to this as it is supported by policy, feel free to move the list to there if you would. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats a good edit Stephen,the lede looks a lot better now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The change is not supported by policy, it is contradicted by policy. The lead has to be NPOV, and what was left was basically little more than large extracts from the BNP's constitution, and no mention of any opposition to them. I have trimmed the list down so it matchs its original intent, to show that the leaders of the three major parties oppose the BNP. Sadly when leadership changes took place people left the old leaders in rather than removing them. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that listing opposition was a reuqirement of NPOV, moreover the lead is about what is most notable about the party (such as acusations that they are reacist) not that they are not liked by their oponents. It makes more sence to put this section in the opposition section, with a line about it in the lead perhpas.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that people go and edit the article to their prefered content and then only after that they then come to the talkpage to explain why they did it? It is imo, excessive worthless and nothing to do with npov whatever, its not even really notable, so the three opposition leaders are against the bnp, well well well.. Lists of critism of the subject have no value in the lede. imo Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest having a read of WP:CONSENSUS, specifically how it works. You do not get to make unilateral changes then have other people get consensus on the talk page to change it back. Having a lead bereft of mention of opposition to the BNP and instead having lengthy excerpts from their constitution is not neutral. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuetral means it does not take sides, so unless there is praise (or mention of praise) for thye BNP then there is no reason to mention critisism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you point to any part of WP:NPOV that supports the claim you just made? If the prevailing view from reliable sources is negative and there is little or no positive view from reliable sources, then that's how it is. We don't leave out the negative because there is no positive, it's a common misconception about NPOV that we do. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes,,,have a read and thanks for the link, whatever, if there is a discussion on the talkpage regarding an issue as there was here , to first edit to your preffered version and then come here to talk about it is....a poor way to join in the discussion. It would have been nice if you would have joined the discussion and offered your opinion but you didn't. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not say on the labour party lede that the tories think they are rubbish does it? no it doesn't, it doesn't say on the condervative party lede that the labour leader things they are right wing fools does it? no it doesn't..and a long list of negative comments from leaders of opposition parties that don't like the bnp does not belong in the lede here either. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's not nearly enough criticism of the BNP in the lede at the moment. The most notable thing about the BNP is that they are condemned by almost all mainstream parties and political organizations. Not mentioning this in the lede is a serious POV issue.VoluntarySlave (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not notable and also is not required to be in the lede, what...people don't like them....The article is I would say actually pov ed in a negative way towards the bnp so there is pleanty of critism in the article without stuffing it in the lede, shall we also put inthe lede that john and harry do like them... no it is in the article and actually not having in in the lede allows people to move to the body of the article and read there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the other parties don't like them, what is notable there? Do we also have to add in the lede that more that one million people not only liked them at the euro election but actually voted for them? Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF are john and harry, or is that John and Harry? Do we mention in the lead that in the last general elections 99.3% voted against them? I detect some POV here that seems suspiciously like BNP timewasting tactics as seen here before. I hope I'm wrong. Emeraude (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, it was less than one million - 943,598 to be precise. Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, on the talk I was rounding up. I am of the opinion that this party is moving into mainstream politics and as such is also moving its policies towards the mainstream and we need to reflect that, screaming .. facist fascist is no longer going to make this party go away. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mathematically, even rounding up, it's not over a million as you said. There is no evidence beyond your opinion that the party is moving to the mainstream, merely that it is attempting to present an image of being less extreme. Image is not the same as reality. Emeraude (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to move too far to OR, but the bnp is clearly moving its policies and statements into the mainstream as would be politically expected if you want to become mainstream. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Usersnowed has replaced the non notable critisism to the lede with the edit summary... (restore, take controversial changes to talk page)... and he has not even made one comment here...what bigotry. suggesting to take it to the talk page when there is clearly a big discussion here already and he (USER snowed ) has not even commenyed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I do find it amusing that an obvious BNP support calls other people bigots. WP:BRD makes it clear, you have to gain consensus to make a change opposed by other editors. The opposition to your edits is well stated above. --Snowded ^TALK 04:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

what rubbish...ow gordon brown says he doesnt like them and david cameron says he doesnt like them and nick clegg also says he doesnt like them. Perhaps adding that to the lede will make a more imformative article Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is going in a typical way. The lead is not my preferred lead, the lead is the consensus lead, that section has been there for two and a half years. If you want to remove part of it, you get consensus. You do not get to change it, then demand other people discuss it before adding it back. Your comments above are quite the most ignorant comments I've seen on here, and that's up against some pretty stiff opposition. You say there's plenty of detail about opposition in the article so we don't need to put any in the lead, erm hello!?! The lead is supposed to summarise the article, therefore because there's plenty of detail in the article it also needs to be covered in the lead. The previous lead was little more than an advert for the BNP. NPOV does not dictate that the lead is free from negative material, in fact NPOV dictates that the lead must be a neutral summary of the article. The bottom line is if you want to remove it them you get consensus for removal, before editing against consensus gets you another block for edit warring. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sticks and Stones (Nursery Rhyme) comes to mind, I ensure you your opinionated constructive criticism is valuable to me, and your this user has been banned before comment is also of value to me. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

sunday live interview

The full interview is now oonline here it is perhaps it is useful for additions or to be added as an external link. Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Economic and Foreign policy

I'm trying to sort out the policy section to have it into three sections "Social, Economic and Foreign", but Verbal is playing up. First of all hes wholesale reverting attempts to create these sections on their policy and second of all he is violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by putting a section called "fascism" into the policy section, which is more about opponents name calling, rather than a presentation of this parties stated political policies. Discuss. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing you are claiming WP:SYNTH regarding the Fascism section, while your addition is misleading, outdated and full of synthesis. I don't have time to explain fully what's wrong with it right now so I'll leave that section of the article alone for now, but when I do it will be dealt with. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

more from the lede

what does this mean? ... "The party's racial policies have led to their ostracism by mainstream politicians".. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more it seems wrong, to be ostrasized you would first have to be in with those people, this is not correct, .. the bnp have been ....?.... by mainstream politians? also is it or or opinion or what? that this ostrasization is due to the bnp's racial policies ? Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the citation, I found the comment.. Robert Cockroft, editor of the Barnsley Chronicle, believes mainstream politicians must start engaging, not ostracising, the BNP.

I think that we need to attribute the comment to him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

but when you do that.... Robin Cockcroft an editor of the Barnsley Chronicle was quoted as saying he believed that mainstream politicians must start engaging, not ostracising, the BNP.

looking at the article addition to the article and the actual comment in the citation, I would say the comment has been taken out of context, and when put nto context correctly as I have here, it is not really noteworthy of inclusion in the lede at all. Also it looks like OR to specifically state that the so called ostrasization is as a fact because of their racist policies. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So then what we have is that this ostrasization comment is added to the leaders of the three parties to give us this....

The party is ostracised by mainstream politicians and the leaders of Westminster's major parties,[22] including Conservative Party leader David Cameron,[23] Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Liberal Democrat party leader Nick Clegg.[24]

The vast majority of which is not covered in the citation and seems to me 2 plus 2 is 4. Its a poor addition. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are no comments and no objections I will remove it as it is unsupported in the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, is there anyone in there? You say "Also it looks like OR to specifically state that the so called ostrasization is as a fact because of their racist policies". There is the edit where I added the source, note that I specifically removed the part about "racial policies" due to synthesis concerns. So why are you bleating on about it being OR when I removed it for that exact reason?! That the BNP is ostracised is not a contentious point, I've added another source too. That the BNP is opposed by and ostracised is not a point disputed by sources. Nick Griffin speaks at Oxford Union - opposition. Nick Griffin to appear on Question Time - opposition. BNP win 2 European seats - opposition and refusal to work with them. Mainstream policitans refusal to engage with the BNP is well known, see this and this for example. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the OR comment. Please take a little time and read this section again, as I have said the ostrasized comment is actually unsupported by the cite and is attributed to the editor from the barnsley paper. You comment here is more correct and indisputable..that the mainstream parties have so far refused to engage with the bnp. I will add so far as only yesterday I saw interviews on sky and bbc where high level politicians and representatives of the army four are all now saying that the bnp is now a mainstream party and that they have to start engaging them in discussion to expose the policies of the bnp and as you can see by the increased discussion on news channels, this is alredy happening. I would say ostrasized should be replaced by , as you have said here...the mainstream parties represented by David Cameron [1], gordon brown[2] and nick clegg[3] have refused to engage with the bnp I suggest changing the comment to this. Also could I please request you to stick to commenting about the discussion, I am not harping on as you say I am discussing my points, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no. I removed the OR at the same time as I added the source in the first place. There is the diff, timestamped 11:36, 20 October, which is before your comment at 22:36, 20 October where you said "Also it looks like OR to specifically state that the so called ostrasization is as a fact because of their racist policies". I saw it would be OR to leave in the part about "racial policies" when I added the source in the first place, which is why I removed it at the time. So why were you saying it was OR 11 hours later when it wasn't in the article at that point? }2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also while I am here I find that your adding this cite to support that ostrasization comment very disingenuous indeed, this new cite you have added does not support the comment all all and also requires removal, I invite other editors to offer opinion as to this cite. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed the part where it says "But it remains on the fringe of politics and is largely ostracised by the media and mainstream parties". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's quite amusing that you have the nerve to accuse me of OR, then add OR yourself. Reverted to consensus lead free of OR. Also don't attempt to patronise me with encyclopedic claims, I've written a featured article, six good articles and countless DYK articles, what have you done? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown does not say he strongly opposes the policies of Griffin and the BNP, neither does David Cameron and neither does Nick Clegg (I see you were even incompetent enough to remove a link to where his radio comments were repeated, and use an unverifiable reference instead). You are attributing your own reasons as to why they oppose the BNP, not acceptable. The opposition to the BNP is almost irrelevant to their policies, as they will always struggle to shed their previous image of a bunch of violent, racist thugs, and many people aren’t fooled by the respectable image of men in suits. Do you accept that mainstream politicans may oppose the BNP for those reasons not their current policies, and therefore attributing an unsourced reason as to why they actually oppose the BNP is original research? Do not attribute unsourced beliefs to living people, have you no respect for WP:BLP? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This cite in the lede is not a wp reliable

This cite in the lede is not a wp reliable the mirror? ..Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Myself I dont think such as this is really at all encyclopedic..if you think it is please say..Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We are generally careful with tabloids in BLPs where they make statements about living figures. However, a direct statement from an individual and where there is no evidence or suggestion it has been altered is generally fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What Cameron said. I don't actually think you've thought this through to be honest. Either you're saying an article by Gordon Brown is not a reliable source for Gordon Brown's opinion, or you're saying the Mirror have made up an article and pretended the Prime Minister wrote it, which would get them into just a slight amount of trouble. Neither explanation is particularly credible is it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is attributed to Gordon Brown, no paper would do that untruthfully. No I thihnk we can say that he wrote this (or at least put his name to it).Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That paper is awful and I dislike seeing it cited, surely there is a better cite? There is no issue that these people have said they dislike the bnp, I imagine they were/are queing up to say that, 17:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a Telegraph quote where he describes them as a party of nazis who would have supported Hitler - I'll swop it out if you like? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no need. Personel dislike of a source does not ijn and of itself render it unreilaible. Unless it can be shown that this is not Gordon Browns own words there is no need to replace it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say add it as well if user slaterstephen likes the mirror cite.Or place it here please and i'll have a look and see what is written there Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tabloids are not WP:RS. Please see [12]]. If the statements attributed by the tabloid are not repeated by a WP:RS, they are not notable, nor do they merit inclusion based on policy. That the were not refuted by the person to whom they were attributed is immaterial and of no consideration in the evaluation of sources.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in WP:RS where it says tabloids are not reliable sources. It says "material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." The Mirror is certainly a mainstream news organization, although it may not qualify as the "high end of the market." That means that it is not as good a source as one of the traditional broadsheets, still less a peer-reviews article, but it is a reliable source. Note that the Mirror specifically has been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, with the conclusion that it is in principle appropriate to use the paper as a source. This case, where we are citing an article that was presumably exclusive to the Mirror, is one where citing the paper is particularly appropriate.VoluntarySlave (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghastly opinion at the board. As a dual national, and having spent a considerable amount of time in the UK, I find the proposition that the Mirror be a reliable source to be mind numbing. That the masses in the UK might consume it as they do page three rags does not impress me either. It appears that there was a consensus last year. Looking over the piece, I am convinced that it written by Brown. I wouldn´t consider ''Granma'' to be a reliable source either. I suppose folks will get their news where they might, and I can see how the higher end might be less accessible for many Britons.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified revert?

Revision 320975441 by Boxersoft was undone by FormerIP with the comment 'Please don't remove sourced material without discussion'. As far as I'm aware, that revision added a reference and removed nothing - at least that was my intention when making the edit. Explain please? Boxersoft (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Boxersoft. You removed the following: "It is generally considered a far-right party, although it has been argued that its policies have little in common with right-wing politics." This came with a source. Your removing it may be justified (I'd say the source is weak), but it really ought to be discussed, particularly with such a disputed article. --FormerIP (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's what I added - you removed it by reverting! Boxersoft (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Apolgies. I'll concede that's not a goof start! However, what you did delete was the shorter but far more significant two word phrase "right-wing". The cite you added from Daniel Hannan (who, as a political opponent of the BNP should not, I suggest, be taken as a reliable source as to facts about it) does not support the wording you added. He does not explicitly say that the policies of the BNP "have little in common with right-wing politics", he says "the BNP doesn't call itself Right-wing", which is saying something slightly different. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete the phrase 'right-wing' - it didn't even appear in the text I edited. The phrase 'far-right' did, and I was careful to leave it intact, merely moving it into a separate sentence. I made no judgement on Hannan's position, I merely reported it, which I believe to be very much in keeping with Wikipedia's neutral POV policy. I grant you that his article doesn't include the exact phrase "little in common with right-wing politics" but it is an accurate and reasonable representation of the article whose title ('There's nothing right-wing about the BNP') would be less suitable in the body of an encyclopaedia entry. It wasn't presented as a quotation, and a verbatim quotation was provided in the body of the footnote, along with a link to the full article.

I contend that the addition I made was relevant, NPOV and in all respects perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's policies; its removal was unjustified, and apparently in error. You originally claimed that you reverted my edit because you thought I had removed something unreasonably. You have now realised that in fact it was your action which removed the very text that you were seeking to restore. Surely the only honourable course of action is to accept that you made an honest mistake and replace that which you removed in error.

In the absence of further objections, I have re-applied the change. Boxersoft (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've re-removed it. We have three sources from peer-reviewed journals supporting the idea that the BNP is right wing; a post on a newspaper's blog questioning this is not a serious challenge to this academic consensus, so including this questioning in the lede is, it seems to me, POV by virtue of undue weight. It might be good to include the discussion somewhere else in the article, but I can't think where. Maybe in the economic policies (discussing differences between the BNPs position on free markets, and that of mainstream right-wing parties), or alongside the debate on whether they are fascist or not?VoluntarySlave (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually I removed it, but for similar reasons. The given source is only an editorial, i.e. at best reliable as a source for the opinion of the author. His argument also in not substantive - he tries to pull the old trick to redefining right and left to cover only overt economical questions so he can distance the neo-liberals from the nazi-scum and use the brush on the opposition. This has no serious support in the academic literature and is historical nonsense. The opinion of one politician, published in an opinion piece, is insignificant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if it was just the opinion of a single politician, the mention of that fact in the article might be valid. I hadn't looked at this discussion when I made my original edit; I just happened upon the article (due to recent events), remembered seeing the Hannan piece and just thought it was worth referencing as a point of interest to other readers. Having since read this discussion, however, it is evident that the matter has arisen before, perhaps repeatedly. That suggests that it is not an isolated opinion, regardless of its accuracy. The FAQ for this discussion states that These caveats to such labels [far-right etc.] must be acknowledged in the article, but appropriate weight should be assigned. I think my edit did just that: clearly stated that it is generally considered far-right, but acknowledged that this has been challenged. Having checked the article, I can see no other acknowledgement of such caveats in the article itself, which doesn't seem neutral at all. Boxersoft (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No - you are mistaken, many sources support the fact the the bnp remains a party for white people, inluding thier own constitution. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... Did you mean to post that elsewhere? The discussion in this section is nothing to do with whether or not they're white-only. Boxersoft (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Errr, yes I think so - I was 77.102.240.29 - soz. Vertovian (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

BNP membership leaks

BNP membership has been controversial among politicians. on 20th October 2009, The guardian and many other main stream media companies reported a possible leak of the BNP membership on wikileaks. the membership was also available on wikileaks as late as 13:00hrs. Prince Waters (talk page) 13:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is apparently cvery popular as wikileaks has crashed. Apparently there are 16,000 names by the BNP only has a little under 12,000 members. It seems another disgruntled former BNP member is reponsible.--Streona (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, when the bnp (as it is doing at the moment) comes in line with all legal requirements that the bnp will be able to request the its members are not given any action (the police don't allow membership) as to do that would be unfair to the members of what is about to become a totally legal constitution. I think that we should remove the whites only tag as membership under those conditions are closed, and the party has agreed to change that. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

BNP insists 'member list' is a hoax [13] Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well they would say that, wouldn't they? I notice Colin Auty's name is still there and he was supposed to have been expelled. Especially since one member at least has given their work email in the nhs (Carolyn Allen since you ask). Peter Hain has argued that the BBC Question Time should not invite Griffin as the BNP are NOT a legally constituted party ( although why this would preclude them from appearing I am not certain)until the changes required by the Court are ratified, which they are not. The BNP are have frozen membership until then so until the end of the year they are still whites only and the article will have to change when the matter has been resolved.--Streona (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They are many cites to support that they are no longer a non white party, it should be reflected in the article or shall we wait untill we get as picture of the first non white member, I suspect that as soon as membership is open that there will be a lot of non white people wanting to support the party. Also here is a link for you about hains comments the bbc will allow griffin to appear, actually they have to, it is written in the bbcs charter. As regards they would say that wouldn't they.. As I said somewhere, the bnp is moving into the mainstream and will / is becoming a totally legal party and if anyone says that membership is an issue, they will be taken to court, no one can restrict membership of a legal political party. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What cites support they are not a whites only party? None. Many do support the fact that they remain a whites party with racially based ideology. Note that they were forced to considor changing thier racist rules of admission, also note that they have not made that change. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech denied by wikipedia on BNP page with left wing bias

Why no opportunity to mention (with edit option removed) that non whites have in recent years voted BNP to protest against islamic extremists in Britain, a Sikh even featured in a BNP political broadcast saying why he would vote BNP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.156 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont be ridiculous. This is not a place for thinly disguised propoganda for the hatefull stereotyping of the BNP. Mentioning that thier vile campaign of lies to create hatred against moslems has appeared to suceed in recruiting them bigots would seem more honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.240.29 (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for this? Also the possibility that one man may have voted for them is hardly proof that any other Asians have. The ballot box is allegedly secret--Streona (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lecomber

I'm removing both the quotes about him as unverifiable, and yes I've looked before removing them. One in particular was quite misleading anyway as the Harrods bombing being referred to was in 1993, and the attack on the "comrade" of the bombers was in 1991. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia Section

Nick Griffin's comment on BBCQT regarding gay couples kissing (and how he sees it as "really creepy") could be made more neutral in terms of P.o.V. He followed this by slamming the Jan Moirs article in the Daily Mail. Lexinjusta (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Its his own words, inclusion of that is neutral. There is no need to include the comments he made on a newspaper article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

However, the fact that he criticises the article is significant in that it brings the degree of hostility towards homosexuals in the previous sentence into question. Lexinjusta (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No it does not. Also, in the wider context the homophobic comments of many others senior in the party, and thier ' anti gay ' manifesto it is clear that his admission is worthy of quoting. I am not sure why the entry should support a defence of his postion when it is so clearly stated? 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Griffin didn't actually criticise Jan Moir's article on Question Time, he merely mentioned something vague about not speaking ill of the dead. He made no comment about the homophobic nature of Moir's article, but did reveal his own homphobic stance by saying how he felt the sight of two men kissing was "really creepy" and how perverse it was to "preach homosexuality" to schoolchildren (whatever that means). 80.41.25.153 (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Aslo worth noting was NG ref to ' militant gays '. I guess that means anyone who leaves the house or holds hands in public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertovian (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Update Policies to Match those given on their Website.

Their website contains everyone of there policies in high detail, should we update the article to reflect these, i belive this would improve neutrality for many reasons. One is that some of the current 'Policies' are not actual policies, or not directly stated as such, and so not only wrong, it is bias against them, with listing some of there more unorthadox 'policies'.

Immigration - Crime and Punishment
British Economy - Education
Health Sector - Housing
Northern Ireland - Defence
Foreign Affairs - Democracy
—Preceding unsigned Emperor King (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be all for this. The "policies" section seems more like criticisms, rather than actually referencing what the BNP's current policies are. Coming "straight from the horse's mouth" with regards to policy is the most reliable source (unless it can be shown with significant evidence that contradicts it). 88.109.122.40 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that there are issues with that section. It is too long and rambling and appears to have been bludgeoned by attempts to inject opposing opinions rather than maintain clarity. The defining point of the party IS thier postion on race so this must be clearly reflected in the entry. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"The BNP’s policy is to:

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain."

This is taken straight from the BNP's website, previously cited by User:Emperor King. It is a clear statement of their immigration policy. None of this information appears under the article's subheading "Racial and Immigration Policies". Instead, there is a fairly convoluted set of inflammatory quotes and a perusal into the BNP's alleged racism. Essentially, it is a very disjointed piece of writing. In fact, a Control+F search of the "British National Party" article reveals that it doesn't even include the word 'deport'. Much of the information is important, and the BNP's ambiguous definitions of 'racism' are definitely food for thought, but overall this subheading is unacceptable. It contains little relevant information, and blatantly ignores core issues.

The lede.

The lede is a mess and in need of a good copy edit, it is full of citations and comments that don't belong there, I wanted to suggest a copy edit by an experienced neutral editor. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also it requires dealing with that the according to the constitutioon..this constitution has been revoked by the leaders of the party and this section of the lede requires a rewrite, I will have a look at that tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a very long discussion of this issue above, again initially raised by the same editor, you. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just re read the long discussion you started above about this. Judging from your contributions you are far from neutral in your approach to this entry. The lede should not be edited by anyone without discussion. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The rhetoric that you employ seems questionable in the building of an encyclopaedia as I went through your edits: Your approach has seemed less than neutral too.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this section needed ?

' alledged internal problems ' - this article is flagged as long, this section does not add much to the article, remove? The BNP is awash with similar stories of incompetance and i wonder why those cited are seen as worthy of mention. It seems odd to have a section that ' alledges' anything. BTW I am new at this so forgive any breaches of form. Vertovian (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, just for transparency, I was 77.102.240.29 and have made a few comments on this talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertovian (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Vertovian for saying that, and welcometo wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Urges & how to avoid them

"Griffin has urged nationalists to join the BNP and use the ballot box instead of violence if only for the sake of their judicial activism." I have two issues with this firstly its in the section about 'Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups' but the source is talking about the BNP, not other groups (the tile gives it away 'Nick Griffin, Party Chairman, alerts the membership to the dangers of a media inspired trap.'). Two I can't find in the source any thing the says he is asking non BNP members to not use violence but instead to support the BNP). Nor can I find any mention of him asking BNP members not to be violent, just to avoid such confrotation (though it does say that the BNP have moved away from street brawls. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Excessive citations in the infobox to support fasist position

Lets see... there were 5 citations in the infobox to support accusations of facsism...user cameron has seen the necessesity to add another,,, now there are 6..Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC) and...clegg and brown and cameroon don't like them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes and? High quality academic sources are always welcome at wikipedia, they are top-rated type of source we use. You want the article to be well-sourced don't you? A common criticism of the sources is that "well they have changed", the source I added is a 2nd ed of a book that was released a couple of months ago - you want the most accurate, more recent high quality sources don't you? You aren't advocating removing the most recent high-quality sources are you? When the 2010 book I mentioned above come out, I have a copy on pre-order and we can add that as well. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

NO. WP:synthesis comes to mind it seems the more soucres which say similar things, the easier it is to get them to say what is wanted, by the POV pushers.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis is when an editor takes two references and adds them together to make a novel conclusion, there is no synthesis in saying "book X says Y". Where is the Synthesis? I suggest you reread WP:SYN because you don't seem to understand what it says. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that there is a groundswell of support for this party and there are citations for that, I also think that to report fairly is the way t go with this, people have been throwing accusations of fassism and they are only getting more popular, I support a honest reporting of their position which will result in people being able to honestly judge for thenm selves, mud slinging and name calling seems to be increasing the parties popularity. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)::

Sounds like original research to me - we simply report on what mainstream reliable sources say - with academic references being the top of the tree as far as wikipedia policy is concerned. The support for the party is neither here nor there in regards to the reliable sources describing them as a fascist party. If suddenly mainstream reliable sources stated that they were no longer a fascist party, we'd change the article to reflect that - otherwise, it's just not going to happen. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please try to make an edt and stick to it, your alterations give repeated edit conflicts, ta Your addition to the fasssisst collection is very poor and adds nothing of value to the article, there are already five citations supporting that in the infobox and your desire to add another simply reveals your personal position, as I said it is childish mudslinging like this that is weakening this wikipedia article and strengthening the party. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear to you user cameron scott, there were already 5 cites in the infobox to support claims of fassssisim and you felt ther need to add a 6th.... your addition adds nothing of value tooot he article, actually it just makes it a little bit more ..less neutral.. no one will ever cli8ck on the link you hacve added..excessive pov pushing links like the one you have added do nothing but demean the wiki.Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, one of the common planks of the attempts to remove it is that the party has changed and the academic evidence is out of date. Providing a bang upto reference, hopefully settles that (of course it will not... but one can hope...). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are there so many citations for fascism in the infobox? Because BNP apologists continuously rejected the description and demanded sources. Once provided, they refused to read them but claimed the sources were no good/out of date/insufficient in number etc etc etc. As noted above, academic references are the gold standard for Wikipedia. Incidentally, I have thoroughly searched the academic journals and found no source that says the BNP was not or is not fascist. Repeat, no source. Emeraude (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is every person who opposes any form of POV with regards to this article automaticlly a BNP apologist. I would like to say that the immedate conception of that is plain wrong and is an immedate prejudicial breech of assume good faith. As there is an immedate reason given to reject the argument given, as opposed to actually taking a step back and reading the discussions and points of arguments.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

feel free to add more, if you think it is needed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read the talk archives,(starting here) for why editors felt that so many sources were necessary... --Nate ^t/_c 09:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole fascism label is completely bogus, just because known left-wing journalists/news sources like the Sun, Independant etc call them that it doesn't make it true; particularly as they never explain their reasoning but just resort to digging up irrelevant things from the BNP's past - which Griffin publically denounced as anti-semetic and racist on "question time". The article is also very inconsistant with those of similar Nationalist parties in Europe like Jobbik, FPO etc as these articles are much more fairly written and simply state that the media and their political opponents often acccuse them of Fascism although they themselves deny it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This has all been discussed quite recently. Those that cant grasp the process of academic citing and reliable sources in contrast to opinion and dogma should not really be contributing to this page untill they grasp this basic academic principle. This is a pointless discussion and debate is not possible as those claiming lack of POV are not taking any notice of the proper process here. The citations must stay as they were put there after the moaners asked for reliable sources. Vertovian (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent links

Lee John Barnes

Suggest adding him to ' structure ' section. Legal Director - Lee John Barnes. Vertovian (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added my suggestion above as it appears non contentious. Vertovian (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead part 18

"Historically the BNP (including Nick Griffin) was overtly anti-Semitic; in recent history the BNP has instead focused on Islam". This sentence doesn't really seem to be supported by the refs, and is in fact quite misleading. The BNP haven't suddenly changed from an anti-Semitic party to an anti-Islam party, for the majority of their history the anti-Pakistani bias was quite clear. What seems to have been the catalyst for the slight refocussing from anti-Pakistani to anti-Islam are the BNP's various legal problems for inciting racial hatred, plus the anti-Islam bandwagon is better to jump on since 9/11, 7/7 etc. Any ideas on how this should read instead? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

there are cites elsewhere in the article (i seem to recall a discusion elsewhere which said that the lead does not need cites if it is sumerising material cited elsewhere in the article). But I agree that perhaps it should be re-worded this way "Historically the BNP (including Nick Griffin) was overtly anti-Semitic; in recent history the BNP has instead increase its focus on Islam, and away from overt anti-semitism". Hoever the source provided does not suoort this claim (another instance, this page has some very sever sourcing issues).Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

" The BNP has historically campainged negatively towards minority groups. Historically the party has a dislikeing for the Jewish community. In modern times they use the attacks of al queda inspired terrorists in thier campaign literature and seek to conflate Islam and race with terrorism."

Maybe ? I am new at this so that may fail on basic style grounds. Vertovian (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems Slatersteven either has not read, or failed to understand what I said, judging by jis propsal of "Historically the BNP (including Nick Griffin) was overtly anti-Semitic; in recent history the BNP has instead increase its focus on Islam, and away from overt anti-semitism". So I'll try again...

Unless a source is actually provided that says that, I dispute whether it is even true, and that applies to the current text of the article also. The BNP has not shifted from anti-Semitism to anti-Islamism. Yes it has shifted away from anti-Semitism, and it has moved towards anti-Islamism but the two are essentially unrelated. The focus on anti-Islam is more to do with the BNP making less inflammatory comments about immigrants in general, and Pakistanis in particular who make up a significant proportion of the Muslims in Britain. That is where the actual shift it, they are essentially attacking the same people but in a different way, quite probably to do with various high profile court cases relating to inciting racial hatred. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check you will find I do say that the source does not support the claim. I am all for removing unsourced claims fro the article, and I would hope other editors are too. As such this should be removed from the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To make this a more unbiased article wouldnt it be an idea to also state that the BNP now has jewsih members and even a jewish councillor?

dispute over two different versions of the lede, opinions please.

There is a dispute over which version of these two comments is better in the lede, opinions are very welcome..

One.

The mainstream political parties in the UK represented by Conservative Party leader David Cameron, Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Liberal Democrat party leader Nick Clegg have strongly opposed the policies of Griffin and the BNP and have all refused to engage with them. [21] [22] [23]

Two.

The party is ostracised by mainstream politicians, [24] [25] and opposed by the leaders of Westminster's major parties, including Conservative Party leader David Cameron,^[1] Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown,[26] and Liberal Democrat party leader Nick Clegg. [27]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments by One Night In Hackney

Unfortunately the comments above and below show that Off2riorob has a major problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Despite me saying my objections were based on OR (and BigDunc also pointing it out) he ignores them completely and starts this RFC that is little more than a !vote asking "which is better". My objections are not even presented in the RFC, so it looks as though my objections are based on a mere "I prefer that version" and not the reality, which is that my objections are based on OR. We are dealing with a classic case of WP:SYN, no matter how much he ignores what people say and relies on proof by assertion. The problem is as follows:

A: Some people are opposed to the policies of the BNP.
B: Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg oppose the BNP.

So here comes the synthesis:

C: Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have strongly opposed the policies of Griffin and the BNP.

None of the sources actually say *why* they oppose the BNP. Let's take the Nick Clegg cite for example:

Source: Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats called it a "party of thugs and fascists" Slight paraphrase of Off2riorob's version: Nick Clegg has strongly opposed the policies of Griffin and the BNP

Bit of a difference isn't there? WP:V says "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article", that's being thrown out of the window clearly. WP:OR says "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented", guess that's being thrown out of the window too? The same applies to Brown and Cameron, they don't say *why* they oppose the BNP, or certainly not in a way that supports the claims Off2riorob is making.

Could the lead be improved? Absolutely, but not while editors edit war, ignore policy at will and fail to engage in constructive discussion and refuse to listen to anything other editors say. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I support version one. In my opinion the first version is a simple, clear and lot more encyclopaedic, the second version is not supported by the citations and there are excessive opinionated citations, the second version has five citations to support twenty words, have a read of the citations, in version 2, the ostracised comment is unrelated and comes from a weak source which is not attributed to the comment and accurately reflected in the comment. Also in the second version, the word ostracised actually means to be thrown out of somewhere, as the BNP have never been in so how can they have been ostracised? In the second comment I also find that this citation is very opinionated and negative towards the BNP and is actually totally excessive in the lede and supports little or nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
One there is a lot of redundancy in two, one is more encyclopaedic. However, there's not a lot in it and it wouldn't be a bad idea to discuss this all in one place and stop starting up new threads all the time. RaseaC (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi RaseaC, AFAIK this is not under discussion at any other location, is this being discussed elsewhere? Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, ive not been following the debate but the comment about refusing to engage with them no longer correctly applies considering the mainstream parties have all engaged in battle with the criminal on Question time. Times appear to have changed, the previous plan of ignoring them is no longer productive. In truth im no fan on either of those sentences although clearly something is needed to explain the relationship with the mainstream parties but it needs to be very clear why they take such an a view (because of BNP extremist policies and criminal activity inciting racial hatred and discrimination. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As ONiH explained here the version you changed it to is unsupported by policy. It isn't a case of which version is "better", your version is a violation of WP:OR, and arguably WP:BLP by attributing opinions to living people which they have not specifically expressed. If they haven't said the actual reason they oppose the BNP, it isn't appropriate for you to decide what the reason is. BigDunc 20:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

*Your summary here seems to be treating this as a vote, while ignoring policy concerns. This is not a vote. BigDunc 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy concerns regarding such a simple cited comment are ridiculous. Of course this is not a vote, it is a thermometer of opinion and an opportunity to attract comments from people previously uninvolved, its a simple choice, which version do you prefer? Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the version you are proposing is cited, as does ONiH evidently. As I have requested, please provide an exact quote from the sources cited, each of the three people concerned that source the belief you are attributing to them. If they are cited as you allege it shouldn't be too difficult for you surely? BigDunc 20:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict. reply to BritishWatcher..:Yes, I agree with you a bit there, but presently this one appearance on the same panel as them on a TV show is not really reflective of engaging them, if engagement continues then we can reassess. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to BigDunc..The comment is almost unquestionable and is in no way original research. Such accusations are ridiculous. It is a simple clear comment in the lead that is unquestionable, the comment is totally citable or in fact is already cited. It is actually the ostracised comment in comment two that is uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources, and disagree as does ONiH judging by his claim of OR. Can you provide the exact text from each source where each person says they "strongly oppose the policies of Griffin and the BNP"? BigDunc 20:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I support having a good look at the sources, do you really dispute about the word strongly? and the positions of opposition are clearly strong. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you not provide quotes that actually support the text then? WP:V is quite clear on this, as is WP:NOR. BigDunc 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you really dispute the word strongly then it can be removed, I don't think that there is much dispute about that word, it is clearly and certainly citable, have a look at the Wikipedia lede page, it is not a place for citing every single word, in fact it is a place to have as few citations as possible, it should be a simple reflection of what the subject actually is, with a few major details that are already cited in the main body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from the sources that all three are opposed to the BNP. However none of the sources tell us why they actually oppose the BNP, and as ONiH points out there are other possibilities for the reasons they actually oppose the BNP. Therefore you should not assume why should you? BigDunc 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no original research in version one, version one is a good reflection of the article content and the citation content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, unless the sources say why they are opposed to the BNP it is OR to make it up. BigDunc 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither, the party was on Question Time with representatives of those parties, including the Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw (about to be ousted at next election). That the other parties are opposed to them is an irrelevence in a parliamentary party political system IMO, since it goes without saying. They're hardly going to say "vote for another party instead of us" are they? Its like saying on the Pepsi article "Coca Cola are strongly opposed to people drinking Pepsi". Or expecting Alex Fergusson to say "support Liverpool, instead of us". The Lib Dems and Conservatives are opposed to Labour too, yet that isn't mentioned on that article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I Support Yorkshirian here. -GabaG (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The ostracised comment comes from this cite and reflects wrongly the content from there, this is the actual content ..."Robert Cockroft, editor of the Barnsley Chronicle, believes mainstream politicians must start engaging, not ostracising, the BNP. “We get letters from Labour councillors calling them names, but these days that’s not sufficient. They have to engage in the arguments," So, it is actually according to robin cockcroft that there is any so called ostracised people at all.Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between the major parties opposition to each other, and their united opposition to the BNP as a fascist party. The lede needs to reflect this. --Snowded ^TALK 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, whilst the 3 mainstream parties attack each other they all share certain views on the BNP and strongly oppose it. It certainly is worthy of a mention in the intro, i dont think we need to name all the political leaders though. I think the way the mainstream parties treat UKIP a non racist party compared to the BNP should also be highlighted, just to show its not just the 3 parties ganging up on anyone that opposes them, but they treat the BNP in a different way. I guess UKIP / Greens etc share the 3 mainstream parties views and attitudes towards the BNP, so that may be worth adding. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither It is reasonable to note that the BNP is vehemently opposed by the three major parties and is generally considered something of a pariah. But the detail included in the options is unhelpful. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither but not for the reasons mentioned above. The entire lead needs an overhaul, but since this is a controversial article and the lead is long-standing, constructive discussion on this page as to a new proposed lead is the best way forward. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither \I do not belive this sghould be in the lead. Its very true that they are opposed (and ostrocised) in a way that is very differnat from the other parties. But it is not what they are notable fro (its thier policies).Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One, I find that version more 'readible'. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like their is a consensus to remove the comment from the lede altogether. Off2riorob (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

More like the point should be made, but the current version is wrong, too wordy etc. --Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, from what I can see here, there is no support at all for version two, the version that is sitting in the lede now. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If people are looking for a bit less wordy, I could happily support this trimmed version...simple, clear and concise. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

version three

The mainstream political parties in the UK have strongly opposed the policies of Griffin and the BNP and have all refused to engage with them. [28] [29] [30]

Off2riorob consensus is based on strength of argument, and from what I can see nobody has refuted my arguments or those of ONiH. BigDunc 11:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't remember your argument, Hackney said he supported neither version, and you are supporting Hackney so I thought it was clear, there is no support for the version that is presently in the article, so what is your position again? If you want strongly removed as original research then it could also be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems better, save the detail for the body.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also like version three and feel that there is a leaning towards adding it to the lede, Stevenslater was for neither and has shown that he could accept version three. Is there any objection to inserting version three, thus allowing any detail that editors feel is lost to be added to the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Again "version three" is still full of OR, and your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT style isn't at all helpful. BigDunc 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is any original research, please reapraise, .. there are only about ten words, there is nothing controversial at all included, there is nothing disputable, what exactly do you dispute? If you simply just dispute everything, what edit are you suggesting? You dispute the word strongly, I have removed it...here is what is left...please explain your objection to this edit...

The mainstream political parties in the UK have opposed the policies of Griffin and the BNP and have all refused to engage with them. [31] [32] [33] Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've said several times why the edit wasn't acceptable, as did ONiH here. When an editor says that you are not listening and uses WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it isn't a good idea to carry on the same way with your reply. So I will ask, and not for the first time, to provide exact quotes from the sources that say the politicans oppose the *policies* of Griffin and the BNP. BigDunc 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: I think it might be more helpful to the reader to mention in the intro that the state under Labour has attempted to limit the job opertunities, which people who are members of this party can do (seemingly in contradiction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which they're otherwise are big fans of). Or other state machinations, where attempts to change the laws themselves are made, to specifically target this party (for instance Harriet Harman's proposed Equality Bill, which the Tories should be throwing out, the state initiated censorship where members of the National Union of Journalists were told to only write negatively in the media about this party or Philip's taxpayer funded vanity quango). This gets across the real world opposition of the older parties in practice, without being POV and giving them a "moral high ground". Saying they're "opposed" without context, when all parties oppose each other anyway seems to be not quite right. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the second version. It is shorter and clearer. Politicians from far left and right have been universal not only in thier condemnation for the ideology of the party but also personally for ng and many in the party. 'Ostracise' is an accurate portrayal of this, but ' refused to engage' is woolly. Vertovian (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal too. Some people who are involved in this discussion are behaving appalingly and making the process of creating a worthy page very frustrating. Is it so hard to be objective, even if you are a BNP supporter? Frankly I despair. It is silly too - I find myself unable to take some contributors seriously as they bleat on in the face of sensible cited reasoned respones. I am not a supporter of the party but I also realise that ' truth ' is more valuable than ' spume ' in the entry. I suggest some contributors need to reflect on this. For myself I am aware of my possible bias in this subject and try extra hard to be objective - it is clear to me others are either not aware of thier own bias or are behaving innapropriately. I have only been ' here' for a few days and I am already vexed by some peoples belligerance. I would be very sad if anyone here is a BNP cyber activist, or indeed an antifa activist, and is campaigning on this page. Vertovian (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said, So we have one editor big dunc who simply disagrees with everything proposed and who has proposed nothing. I am unsure what is done in situations like these but if there are eight editors and one simply refuses to either accept any proposal and also proposes nothing, I suggest that there is a consensus without that editor. I see a consensus for version one, clearer and more concise. As I said there is no support at all for the version that is there now and suggest changing to version two. Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a solution to what is a lot of discussion over a small change, I have removed what big dunc claims is original research and what is left is perhaps a compromise between the people that supported neither and the people supporting version one...this...

The mainstream political parties in the UK have all refused to engage with them.[22][23][24] Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No. You're wasting time rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while ignoring the bigger problems with the lead. Covering the opposition to the BNP with a single sentence while waffling on for a whole paragraph with excerpts from their consitution is not neutral in any way. The lead leaves out most of the history of the BNP, their history of street protest, violence, criminal activity and many other things that are in the article and need summarising in the lead. If you're willing to engage in a constructive way I'm sure a lead that actually summarises the article could be written? But if you're going to waste time arguing the toss over a few words and continually disrupt consensus building by ignoring what people say and making false claims of consensus that a request for comment on you will be the next step. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have issues about the rest of the lede feel free to open a discussion about it, there has been no support not one for the edit that you have just replaced, there is a consensus to change the comment here visible on this discussion, your objection is about the other parts of the lede so great start a discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this specific edit that you have reverted, what are your specific objections to that edit? Never mind the whole rest of the article is also a mess, this discussion is about this specific simple change to remove what is considered to be by many people here, excessive detail. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the lead is a mess, the wholsale quoting of the constituion should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

David Cameron also said that UKIP were "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists". So how much weight can we give to such bigots who are clearly nothing more than politically biased before it gets utterly meaningless. If the most rightist of the three mainstream parties manage to use such statements on even a party much less extreme than BNP, how do you think any of the mainstream parties will say anything not biased about the BNP? I suggest the section should be removed alltogehter or strongly shortened and summarized (as suggested by Off2riorob). -GabaG (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither: Is it really needed for a critisism of the party to be placed in its introduction? All political parties bring controversy, as that is their nature. I believe both statements would be a use of POV that would not be appropriate here. Reubzz (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Ther seem to be some issues here with sources thaty need looking into. http://web.archive.org/web/20070629010001/http://www.bnp.org.uk/resources/constitution_8ed.pdf appears (at this time) to be broke. http://web.archive.org/web/20080123101730/http://www.bnp.org.uk/donate/ Appears (at best) to be an old BNP website, also the info appears to be out of date. Also since when has a blog been RS?.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this [[34]] Simon Bennett is the BNp's webmaster.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The basis of the BNP's focus on promoting the welfare of British white caucasians

For further information on immigration into the UK, go to [[35]]

In his appearance during an interview with Adam Boulton, Nick Griffin stated that Windrush was the start of immigration into the UK, and that this and further decisions over immigration were made by a political elite without effective consultation with the British population.^[2] Not knowing what Windrush was, I decided to research it and to include some information here about it.

Windrush

Both male and female Jamaican settlers arrived in Britain in 1948 aboard the former troopship, MV Empire Windrush. At the end of the Second World War, Britain was busy rebuilding its shattered economy and infrastructure and the Labour government started to think about recruiting workers from the Caribbean to cope with the shortage of labour in some British industries.^[3] Some industries and companies sought to recruit staff from the colonies – London Transport, for example, which brought many West Indians over to work on the Underground. In 1948, an advertisement appeared in a Jamaican newspaper and stated that there were 300 places on board Windrush for anyone wishing to travel to Britain. When the ship departed on 24th May, all 300 places were taken and an extra 192 men made the voyage on the deck. Most of those travelling were women or ex-servicemen who did not know what fate awaited them in Britain. Some had jobs promised to them, mainly in the RAF. The majority, however, had no idea what they would do when they arrived. As the ship neared its destination, newspapers fomented public discontent at its arrival, and questions were asked in Parliament.

The ship landed at Tilbury docks on 21st June. The Civil Service sent a black officer, Ivor Cummings, to meet the new arrivals. It was a big problem finding them somewhere to live so, as a short-term measure, the Colonial Office was forced to house 230 Windrush settlers in a deep air raid shelter in Clapham Common. The nearest labour exchange to the shelter was Brixton and, as a result, many of the settlers set up home there, making it one of Britain's first Caribbean communities.^[4] There was plenty of work available in Britain, mostly labouring jobs in the big cities. Black Caribbeans were generally shut out of higher-paid jobs, especially those that were heavily unionised. However, the public sector offered them reasonably well-paid work, for example in hospitals, the General Post Office, London Transport and the railways. Housing was a huge problem and stayed that way for the next two decades. There was plenty of work, but the Caribbeans first clashed with the natives over the issue of accommodation.

The arrival of the Windrush was the start of a period of migration from the Caribbean to Britain that did not slow down until 1962. By 1955, 18,000 Jamaicans had moved to Britain and, since they were excluded from much of the social and economic life around them, they began to adapt the institutions they brought with them - the churches, and a co-operative method of saving called the 'pardner' system. At the same time, Caribbeans began to participate in institutions to which they did have access: trade unions, local councils, and professional and staff associations.

In conclusion, this outward flow of people to settle in Britain was an important event in the history of the West Indies and it was also to change the social landscape of Britain in a dramatic fashion. In 1945, Britain's non-white residents numbered in the low thousands. By 1970 they numbered approximately 1.4 million - a third of these children born in the United Kingdom.^[5]

Can anyone who has done some research in this area confirm exactly what consultation was carried out by the politicians with the electorate? From the information I have gathered, it seems there was a certain amount of opposition to the immigration policy as well as tensions - over accommodation in particular. It does not appear that any referendum was conducted, and the only reason given was a shortage of labour, given that there were not enough European immigrants to do the mainly manual jobs (157,000 Poles were the first groups to be allowed to settle in the UK, partly because of ties made during the war years. These were joined by Italians but it was not enough to meet the need for labour at the time).Ivankinsman (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Comments

There is no reason for this content to be in the article, for reasons explained on your Talk page. Rodhull andemu 13:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This information is not included in the article. It is on the discussion page of the article which is not the same thing - this is where I can be free to exchange information with other wiki users. Ivankinsman (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The talkpage is not an information exchange place, it is for matters regarding editing the article, if this is not about that it can be archived or simply removed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the object is to insert this information into the article, then in my opinion (copyright issues aside), it breaches WP:UNDUE since it does not discuss the BNP in the slightest and the danger is that the reader is being asked to draw a conclusion. In another article, perhaps, but not this one, because the Talk page is not a forum for general discussion Rodhull andemu 13:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As this imformation is not relevent to improving this article, if there are no objections I will archive it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

:::: Let's be very clear here - I do not want this in the main article. If you note, I made the statement that "Nick Griffin stated that Windrush was the start of immigration into the UK, and that this and further decisions over immigration were made by a political elite without effective consultation with the British population." I want to glean from other interested wiki users if he is correct in this statement or not. It is a very important issue and, once there is enough feedback, the section on the BNP's policy on immigration will be expanded. Ivankinsman (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Unsourced

As has been pointed out sources must back up the statemtn being made, I shall now start to remove statmentsd not backed up by sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've restored some of this info with new cites. --FormerIP (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)::

http://www.jackson4leader.com is not RS, the data supproted by this should be removed.What is this Hugglescote - Home". Leicestershire Villages. [[36]] Actualy being used as a source for, I can find not mention of the BNP on the page?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when has youtube been RS [[YouTube - Nick Griffin, Cook Report, 1997". Youtube.com. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8QQwU00Jk. Retrieved 19 September 2008.] this needs removing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no specific issue with YouTube as an RS I think - the issue, if there is one, would be copyvio, meaning it shouldn't be linked to, but it can be used as a cite. --FormerIP (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There might be copyright issues, I seem to recall that not all material on the site is there with the owners permison. We can site the origional TV program.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

and "editor of the BNP’s website".[158] uses [[37]] would it not be better to ust eh norigional Searchlight artcielk ratgher tghen an anonymous blog?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mudde, Cas. "The Populist Zeitgeist" Government and Opposition 39.4 (2004): 542–63, Retrieved 9 February 2007 Seems to be broke.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Edwards. "Auty quits after BNP leadership bid fails - Yorkshire Evening Post". Yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/dewsbury-news/Auty-quits-after-BNP-leadership.4455958.jp. Retrieved 19 September 2008. does not supportg the text it is used as a source for.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL

I've added info about links between the EDL and BNP, which have been alleged in the press, but are denied by the BNP. How this should be worded is up for discussion. --FormerIP (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Constitution

Why when using the BNP's constitution are wwe not usiing the latest edition?Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on where in the article you are referring to. If the article is talking about BNP policy, structure etc in 1994, then the version of the constitution that was in force then would be the correct one to reference. --FormerIP (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But most of the quotes from sources (such as in the lead) talk about current policy. Such as "is a far-right, whites-only" "According to its constitution...". I agree if we are talking about what the BNP used to say, bu8t surley when wew are talkiing about the curretn BNP we should use the latest edition.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[telegraph.co.uk-1] "Cameron calls on voters to back anyone but the BNP". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2006-12-05.

[2] ttp://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/BNP-Leader-Nick-Griffin-Tells-Skys-Adam-Boulton-His-Views-On-Interracial-Marriages-Islam-And-Question-Time/Video/200910315408414?lid=VIDEO_15408414_BNPLeaderNickGriffinTellsSkysAdamBoultonHisViewsOnInterracialMarriages,IslamAndQuestionTime&lpos=searchresults

[3] ttp://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/museum/item.asp?item_id=50

[4] ttp://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/museum/item.asp?item_id=50

[5] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/short_history_of_immigration.stm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]