Talk:British National Party

Possible Combination of Opposition and claims of repression of free speech

After the brilliant clean up of the elections page (sorry i am unaware of who performed that), the rest of the article is still in a mess in certain places, namely the claims of repression of free speech section is placed in the legal section. Claims of repression of free speech is not a legal matter and is more connection to opposition of the BNP, which includes university and anti Bnp Groups as well as the media. I propose the two should be merged and have drawn up a possible solution here: (no material has been added or deleted this is just a combination of already existing material similar to that performed on electoral performance)

Bias

This preposterous nonsense is groundless, and does not meet in any way the proper and standard criteria of a factual and unbiased Wikipedia article. I am not here to express support and favor for the party, however; I am here to suggest an end to the obvious opposition to the party by whoever wrote this article. One can hardly keep from laughing when reading this pathetic drivel disguised as unbiased and factual. It contains a myriad of biased statements the likes of which being seen on a į article is simply appalling- by merely checking the ideology listed on the article one gets the idea that this is a neo-nazi party. "Fascist" is listed as an ideology- the BNP haven't acknowledged that they are fascists, so if this is not downright false, it is at least disputed. "far-right"- such nonsense adds to the insanity of the politically-charged ranting excuse for an article. The "source" (if one can call it that) claiming they are fascists comes from those who are biased against the BNP.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's funny. I count four sources next to the fascism label. Do you have any actual evidence all of them are biased against the BNP? Or will you go for the circular argument of "they call the BNP fascist therefore they are biased against the BNP"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"That's funny"- Honestly, take your sarcasm off of here. This is Wikipedia. If you wish to start a fight or attack someone, you are welcome to take it to an online forum or somewhere other than here. I prefer to engage in professional dialog, as this is a fairly large and major online encyclopedia, and I will not condescend to such a nonsensical, sophomoric standard of contretemps with you. Hostilities aside (if you so decide), the British National Party actually uses the word "fascist" as an insult (directed at the Labour party) on their website. And no; still I've yet to display any exemplification of the "circular logic" of which you accuse me. Anyone who actually understands the use of proper logic and rational discourse would be cognizant of the verity of the disputation- That is, if the British National Party does not straightforwardly acknowledge that they fit the standard label of a "fascist", and one accuses them of being fascists, the label is thus disputed. Therefore, anyone who edits a major encyclopedia that already struggles to effectuate total neutrality and labels them as fascist is being biased against them in doing so. And yes, the sources are biased. They are most definitely from the point of view of an individual or group of individuals arguing their perspective.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not appear to be interpreting Wikipedia's policy on neutrality correctly. It does not require articles to reflect subjects in a neutral manner but to provide proper weight to different opinions. The claims of any political party do not have equal weight to academic consensus. It may be that the universities and the media are biased and this article reflects that bias. That however would be clearly in line with policy. TFD (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that political groups do not have the same weight- there appears to be some kind of miscommunication. The sources have a political agenda. One can clearly tell by the manner and presentation that they are more than simple research papers, and they are written by individuals who probably have a position on the issue themselves. I am not saying that they are outright political activists, yet they do show some support for certain points, although maybe not political groups.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The individuals who write these papers do have a position and it is our responsibility to provide appropriate weight to their opinions in the article. I have yet to see any academic papers that are supportive of the BNP. Can you think of any? TFD (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "if the British National Party does not straightforwardly acknowledge that they fit the standard label of a "fascist", and one accuses them of being fascists, the label is thus disputed." So, by this logic, if I say I'm handsome, but everyone who looks at me says I'm ugly, I'm not ugly!! And if I call the most handsome man in the world ugly, I'm not ugly! To be honest, other people's views are better in this respect than mine. And where the evidence is from respected academically moderated journals, it is unimpeachable. (I'm actually quite attractive. Oops. POV, OR and COI.) Emeraude (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe you're simply not interpreting the logic applied correctly. If everyone says you're ugly, and you say you're not, it connotes that the question as to whether you are ugly or not is disputed, not answered one way or the other.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What is beyond dispute is that most BNP members are ugly.Multiculturalist (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it, any RS for that?Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Membership figure

Is this figure correct? I'm not saying I believe it, but I'm not saying I don't and I'm more inclined to the latter. According to the BNP, membership lasts for 1 year upon application. The source now provided states the figure is 4,200; yet the BNP's website states the membership figure for that year has surpassed the 14,000 mark. I was strongly tempted to replace this figure provided with the one from the BNP's own website, but I'm sure that in response I'd get the usual self-pleasing rhetoric that their website isn't reliable.

I'm sure most people (who are capable of being impartial) will agree that had this claim by the BNP been false and it would have been ridiculed and dismissed by the media.

Can someone find a more reliable source than the one used by the media? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.233.178 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote from first contribution above: "According to the BNP, membership lasts for 1 year upon application." This is odd, because in the BNP's latest submission to the Electoral Commission there are life members! More importantly, for this topic, that document claims that on 31 December 2009 there were 12,632 members. (See: British National Party Statement of Accounts Year ended 31 December 2009, page 10.) However, the veracity of the BNP's return to the Commission is questionable, and it should be noted that no return has yet been submitted for 2010, a clear breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Further, returns for 2009, 2008 and 2006 were submitted late, also in breach. Given the well-documented desertions and defections of members over the last few years, it is likely that the Independent's estimate was not unreasonable. Emeraude (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Having looked through the discussion history of this page, it seems that anything even remotely attempting to show the BNP in a positive light in the eyes of editors on this page will be 'questionable'. This article alone - let alone this one - leads me to believe most 'references' upon this page are themselves 'questionable' to say the least. (I could provide a few more.) Seeing that, literally for years, this page has been biased and will continue to remain so despite efforts by many editors, I see no further reason to try and bring unbiased, neureal info. to this page, although I am tempted. This article needs to be almost completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.233.178 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So essentially any journalist in the UK is automatically biased against the BNP, and if we accept what other people say anyone who writes anything negative about the BNP is automatically biased against them too. For the sake of argument, whas sources do you propose for this "unbiased, neureal" you talk about?

BNP MEP Andrew Brons not a good enough source either when he says "The British National Party claims still to have between 3,000 and 4,000 members, including 1,000 life members—from a total of 14,500 members in 2010" I take it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I do seem to recall that at RSN it was decided that the BNP or its leaders were not RS for facts about the party.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but the IP is arguing everyone else is biased and the only reliable source are the BNP themselves. That's why pointed out what a senior BNP member is currently saying. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Where am I arguing that the BNP are reliable as a source? Who are you trying to fool other than possibily yourself here? This a convenient mindset on your part and I suppose I shouldn't be suprised. I do believe I harked to the extensive and downright blatant bias as to what is 'reliable' and what isn't despite many editors' efforts to bring a little neutrality to this article. Not everyone is biased (the efforts by numerous editors over the YEARS to bring neutrality to this article prove this). However the consensus of what can and cannot be 'reliable' on this particle proves my point and it's all clear to see if you look through the archives.

The article itself is a mish-mash of negativity and I'm sure you will be aware of this. Of course the history of what can and cannot be added to the article attests to this. It seems that more and more negative 'approved by consensus' stories will be added and this is why the article reads like a cut and paste myriad of biased negativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.233.178 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Source Bias

A day to make history (Source #1 for "Fascist")	Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999–2006 (Source #2 for "Fascist")	No link. "Copsey, Nigel (September 2009). Contemporary British Fascism: The British National Party and the Quest for Legitimacy (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan" (Source #3 for "Fascist")	British National Party representations of Muslims in the month after the London bombings: homogeneity, threat, and the conspiracy tradition (Source #4 for "Fascism")
See tag: "anti-fascist". Also name "patterns of prejudice" adds to the opinion of the BNP being racist.	No real bias seen.	Copsey already cited for this claim. Author cited twice on same statement.	No article or work cited whatsoever in this paragraph. No mention of fascism made whatsoever. Even if it is true, it has absolutely nothing to do with fascism as much as Islamophobia.
Author: David Renton. No credentials displayed.	Author- Nigel Copsey. Credentials: Teesside University	Author- Nigel Copsey. Credentials: Teesside University	Wood C, Finlay WM. No credentials found.

Could you quote the relevant sentences from source #4 that have led you to draw your conclusions? I've taken the liberty of correcting your numbering. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Patterns of Prejudice provides a forum for exploring the historical roots and contemporary varieties of social exclusion and the demonization or stigmatisation of the Other. It probes the language and construction of ’race’, nation, colour, and ethnicity, as well as the linkages between these categories. It encourages discussion of issues at the top of the public policy agenda, such as asylum, immigration, hate crimes and citizenship. As none of these issues are confined to any one region, Patterns of Prejudice maintains a global optic, at the same time as scrutinizing intensely the history and development of intolerance and chauvinism in the United States and Europe, both East and West. [1] -- I don't see a problem with the key-word links on the article, we wouldn't worry about an article tagged "Anti-crime" in the Journal of Criminal studies cited for evidence that an individual was a criminal, for example.; Renton's other publications are listed here [2]; Copsey is cited twice, I suspect because the claim was repeatedly made that the citations were out of date, and he published a later article.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Councillors in infobox

Is this correct? 8 seems a bit low, even for the BNP. I seem to recall it was possibly three figures at one stage. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Eight does seem low, but may be correct. I also seem to remember a higher figure, but I think it was only in the fifties. A number defected or threw in the towel a couple of years ago, and with the partial crumbling of the BNP in the last year or two it is, I suppose, quite possible that 8 is correct. Emeraude (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Further, looking at the cited sources, the BBC says 19, down from 46 (but that was in 2010) and the other source says 9 (updated in 2012 and including the 2011 elections), though reliability is not guaranteed. So, 8 or 9 seems reasonable. Emeraude (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

They've often claimed to have over 100 councillors but that figure was made up of parish councillors. The peak was 54 councillors in 2009, since then they've been wiped out in Barking (12 seats) and Stoke (9 seats) as well as losing seats and having councillors quit the party. 2 of their councillors in Bradford for example (the Cromies) quit the party in summer 2011. Valenciano (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"white nationalism"

"White nationalism" is a colonial term. If that sort of thing is going to be mentioned I reckon it should be "ethnic nationalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.52 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Contact the authors of the sources with your argument and ask them to amend their work. Until you do, that won't be changed. Given that "white nationalism" is a type of "ethnic nationalism" anyway, I doubt they'll change it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevant sources given on this page are secondary sources... It's not the BNP who call themselves this, because again it's a colonial term... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.52 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the BNP calls itself; in Wikipedia (and any other encyclopaedia worth the salt) we deal in what is verifiable from reliable sources. The three sources cited are impeccable in this respect, all being from peer-reviewed journals - the absolute gold standard. 10:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)~