Talk:British National Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee British National Party was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

BNP article submitted as a good article nominee[edit]

See discussion at User talk:Jamesx12345#BNP article submitted as a good article nominee

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:British National Party/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I'll field this one if you like! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Generally good, but there are still grammatical problems throughout the entire article. For instance, in the first paragraph following the introduction, there are issues such as "Members of Tyndall's New National Front, wished to modernise and move away from fascist ideology..." This is just one of many examples that I have identified. A thorough copy edit is required.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lede section has multiple problems. I'm not confident that it summarizes the entire article sufficiently, and doesn't offer as clear an introduction to the subject as it should; for instance, it doesn't explicitly state that the BNP are a party based in the U.K., it doesn't mention the party's economic stance, and Nick Griffin is linked to twice. It's certainly not bad, but it's not up to GA quality just yet.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There are issues with some of the references, e.g. the date is missing from "Eatwell, p. 66". Otherwise generally good.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. In a few areas, an anti-BNP bias appears to seep through.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I've failed this article at this juncture, because it still needs quite a bit of work to reach GA status. But don't be disheartened, because the quality has definitely improved over recent months, and there's an awful lot of great work that has gone into the article. If you want any further advice, feel free to message me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Membership number[edit]

It's probably talk page tedium, but for the membership figure, the least good one is definitely the Independent (it doesn't feature as part of the article, so I doubt much thought will have gone into where it came from.) The BDP and HnH seem to source from the 2012 accounts, which has a figure close to 5000, that I would be inclined to trust, as it seems in the right ballpark. Jamesx12345

I've found the statement of accounts for the year ending 31 December 2012, and it give 4872 paid members, with a 2011 figure of 7651. I'll upload it somewhere easier to find (it's in the depths of the EC website.) Jamesx12345 18:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's here. Jamesx12345 18:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:British National Party/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I'll take this one on if you're happy with that ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. There are issues with the prose throughout the text. For instance, in the "National Front" section, you refer to "the split within the NNF"; do you actually mean "the split within the NF" ? A thorough copyedit is required.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section could definitely do with expansion to summarise the entire contents of the page; I am more than happy to help with this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. There are still sections where it is unreferenced.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Many sections go into to much detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I'm afraid to say that I am inclined to fail this once again; not enough has been changed since the article's last GAR, and I really think that this is a situation where the article should be split off into smaller articles (i.e. History of the British National Party) first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't fail it yet - give me something immediate to do, and I'll get to work on it. Jamesx12345 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, there is now a History of the British National Party. I'll get to work with the shears and add a few {{main}}s. Jamesx12345 19:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that the 2010 manifesto dedicates a very solemn page (46) to "Saving Britain’s Pubs" made me very merry. Jamesx12345 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Good work thus far; your edits are certainly appreciated and are improving the article! Nevertheless, I've decided to call for a second opinion on this one, given the controversial nature of the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If any more referencing is needed, just tag bomb it with {{cn}} and I'll get to work. The BBC News archives almost make the license fee worthwhile... Jamesx12345 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow[edit]

I think this is a great article, and very nearly at GA-level. The biggest issues are overuse of embedded lists (particularly the unbulleted list-like frgamented Breakaway parties section. One- and two-sentence paragraphs should be avoided where possible. I haven't read through the article in detail, but sentences like "In 2009, Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC's Question Time, amid significant public controversy." are given without explanation and can be a bit confusing. I know there's a link to a more detailed article, but some sort of context would be really helpful. Entire policy sections have no inline citations. Every statistic and electoral result should be referenced somewhere (including tables). I don't think the article is too detailed; the size is about right. Adabow (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I especially like the Breakaway parties section, but can't think how to improve it. It's possibly out of date, but still pretty relevant, as the BNP does seem to be fragmenting into smaller groups. The policies are sourced from ref 15, which is used a lot, but more instances of it could easily be added. I've added a bit to the Question Time appearance, but might add more again. Many thanks for reviewing this difficult article. Jamesx12345 09:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Diderot's dreams[edit]

I think the reviewer is on the right track. This article is too long and detailed, and a Good Article must have a summary style. As a rule of thumb, 100KB is the maximum article size, and this one is 30% larger. This point is key. The article is going to have to change a lot to become short enough, and that task plus whatever else needs to be done is beyond a 7 day hold. So the article should just be failed right away. Now, the other reviewer comments and nominator improvements that have been made are useful, but might get lost, become unnecessary, or need to be redone in the shuffle of shortening the article. So it's also a matter of doing first things first. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

100kb as a maximum article size isn't something I've heard of before. A great number of GAs and FAs, for example Sea and General relativity are quite a bit longer again. This has been trimmed from 180kb, which was too long, but I can't see 30kb of redundant material that can be chopped out. A full {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} takes several lines, and almost all of the 250+ cites are of that kind, and there is a full bibliography as well. The bibliography could be trimmed to not include books not used for cites, and that might well take it down by a few kb, but why? I believe the software can cope with pages of up to 2048kb or something, although it would get quite slow, but 130kb is not unheard of. If there is anything you feel does not belong in the article, do say, but articles about political parties are always quite long, and the BNP is an unusual and quite bizarre party. (If you're unfamiliar with them, have a look through the articles on their website - the comments at the bottom are the best bit.) In short, I don't think reducing the size of the article would make it any better or more useful to the reader, but am open to persuasion. Jamesx12345 20:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Diderot's dreams is correct in the ~100K max (see WP:SPLITSIZE), however this is based on readable prose size. This article has 49K of readable prose. Adabow (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The 100K is indeed a total size limit, and is an old rule of thumb from a few years ago-- but is the average point at which at article should be split-- sometimes a little sooner, sometimes the article can be a little bigger. The new recommended limit, from WP:SPLITSIZE, is 40K to 100K of readable text. Not 100K-- that is the absolute no matter what limit. This article has 62KB of readable text (not 48KB) by my estimate (as calculated from a cut and paste to Open Office of a selection of the article from the title to the beginning of the reference section). At this size, the guideline recommends "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".
Midnightblueowl, I suggest you read the new guideline yourself and apply it. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
My figure comes from using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Adabow (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I just tried using the javascript tool you used, and I get your number. Apparently, the javascript tool doesn't count several parts of the text that are copied in a simple cut and paste and are therefore counted using the method I used. These parts are: section headings, tables, bulleted text, photo captions, infobox text, and the table of contents. Most of these would be read by someone reading the whole article, and would contribute to "reader fatigue" per word as much as the body text. Certainly, headings and photo captions would be. And in this article's case, the bulleted text also. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Jamesx12345[edit]

Going through the article again, I can't see where it doesn't meet the criteria. It has changed a huge amount since the review began, so the table at the top does not (in my opnion) represent the article in its current state. I have tried to address the concerns expressed, but the comments made may still be valid in places where they haven't been addressed properly by me. I will be able to do a bit of work over the next few days if some direct criticisms are forthcoming. Jamesx12345 16:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Truenature12[edit]

Firstly I would agree with the view noted about 'Breakaway Groups' I think this section needs to be bulleted and kept to parties/groups that are currently live, some groups listed are now defunct. The same could also be said for 'officially linked organisations' section too that includes groups that ceased to exist years ago.

I would say there is still some bias in the article for example the section on 'alleged front organisations' is based on Hope note Hate and Searchlight references. The definition of 'alleged' means unproven or the claims being made are from unreliable sources. The alleged Civil Liberty and BNP link is clearly no longer applicable. The section on 'association with violence' would benefit from focusing on the BNP as a party and it's leader more. Cottage was a card carrying member, but not an official. Many of the people listed haven't been BNP members for several years.

I believe some areas would benefit from being reduced and merged. For example as an idea much of the 'political tendency' section focusses on John Tyndall, this section could be merged with the 'race' section and become a section about 'political ideology'. I also think the British army immigrant issue could be reduced into 'immigration policy'. Finally some areas need a bit more added such as the BNPs stance on the EU, as this is a large part of BNP policy. The 'international politics contacts' section needs a bit more and certainly needs more referencing. Truenature12 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the EDL bit relevant? A section called "Alleged front organisations" is always going to be a bit iffy. I'll take that out. Jamesx12345 18:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Some People are trying to make the article read like a HnH write-up rather than a Wiki page - full of speculation and outdated information. An organisation is either linked or not. Is the EDL a front of the BNP, no doubt some BNP members have been on EDL matches but I don't believe they are tied officially both distance themselves from each other. Civil Liberty promotes the British Democratic Party. Truenature12 10:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truenature12 (talkcontribs)

Well,that is being rather economical with the facts. What is meant by "outdated information"? Is it what the rest of us call recent history? Wikipedia's article on Civil Liberty details the close links between that organisation and the BNP - indeed, its founder and director, Kevin Scott, was a senior BNP official. That it now supports the BDP is because Scott himself has switched allegiance, in 2012, and is indicative of the falling apart of the BNP in the last two years, but for most of its existence Civil Liberty was exclusive in supporting BNP and BNP members. The sources are Searchlight, The Guardian, the BBC and the Daily Mirror, not Hope not Hate, but why that should matter is debatable anyway. If HnH presents reliable evidence, then the evidence is reliable! But there is a further piece of factual economy above: In wanting to remove the clear link between Civil Liberty and the BNP, Trunature12 claims that "Civil Liberty promotes the British Democratic Party". There is no evidence offered for this assertion. It's not on the CL website (which has numerous references to the BNP). Personally, I suspect it's true - why should Scott not shift his organisation's allegiance alng with his own? - but, as far as I know, there is no evidence for this. Certainly, Truenature presents none, he just says it's so and that is not acceptable. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that CL was associated with BNP until the split. Emeraude (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If something is outdated then it makes no sense being listed in officially linked groups or front organisations, this information needs to be updated and current. If there are outdated links they need to be under 'history'. The sources are interesting at the time Searchlight and Hope Not Hate, were part of the same group, the later being set up to oppose the BNP both supported by the Mirror. For many years Hope Not Hate was the campaigning wing of Searchlight. The Link between Civil Liberty and the BNP is not current. There are articles on the site promoting the British Democratic Party, Scott is Chairman of both. However, Civil Liberty was never a 'front' group of the BNP as it represented others on the right too. Much like the EDL is not a 'front' of the BNP. These organisations were not set up by the BNP with the influence of BNP funds, which is likely to be the case with Solidarity and the Christian Council of Britain. If there is a link and it is current and valid then it should be listed under 'officially linked groups'. Therefore, why is there a need for a section called 'alleged front organisations'?

Here is one link Civil Liberty promoting the BDP Truenature12 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Winding down?[edit]

Are there any outstanding concerns that this article doesn't meet the GA criteria? Specific examples would be helpful. If there are no objections in the next few days I'll list the article. Adabow (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer of this page, I will state that I am still not entirely happy with the page. It continues to need a lot of work. But thanks to some fantastic work on behalf of James, I think that it does meet the necessary GA criteria. In this case I am comfortable with it being appointed to GA, although I should still stress that it is a very long way from warranting FA status. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
If it helps, I'll give the article a look over in the next couple of days and give my view. This is a high profile article on a significant and contentious topic, so I do understand Midnightblueowl's hesitation. I'd always rather a reviewer was slow and careful than slipshod and hasty. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Please do tell me what still needs to be done and I will endeavour to fix it. Jamesx12345 20:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by SilkTork[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

  • Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Prose is clear and readable. It's not perfect (" John Tyndall in 1982, since 1999..." is awkward for example), but in general it meets GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Coverage. From my background reading I'm not seeing any significant aspects not covered by the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Cites. It is richly (at times heavily) cited. Sources checked are reliable, and support the statements made in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing Original Research. Statements that I've checked are supported by sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Minor edit warring occurring. Article should be free of reverts of non-vandalistic edits for a reasonable period before listing as a GA. Given the topic of this article, I would say two weeks would be a reasonable period. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Images. There is a problem with File:British National Party.svg. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably OK, but I'm a little unclear on the relevance of a National Front march. I understand that the caption says that the BNP emerged from the NF in 1982, but why is the image showing a march from the 1970s? Was that march somehow relevant to the split? If so, it would be useful to explain that in the text. As it stands, it appears to be an image linking BNP with the controversial NF marches of the 1970s. Is that appropriate? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have tidied up the Nick Griffin talking to voters in Romford Market image. In doing so I noticed that the figure that appears to be the subject of the image is not Nick Griffin. Griffin appears to one one of the people in the background with his back to the camera. I don't see the usefulness of this image - at least not with the current caption. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. There appears to be a tendency to assert the fascist associations of the party. I'm not getting a clear idea of what the party's own ideologies are - more about what other people think they are. Now, it may well be the case that what other people think they are is more notable than what they themselves say they are, however, I do think that in a section on the ideology of the party, their own statements about how they view themselves should be included - at present they only appear in that section to say they not fascist, or to have a soundbite from the founder, which may or may not be related to the party's current ideology. The rest of the section is outside opinions saying they are fascist. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Statements such as "The BNP will abolish political correctness from the police service in favour of real crime fighting" are taken word for word from the BNP manifesto. Please either make this clear by using quote or speech marks, or rephrase. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Mos. Does not match the guidelines: WP:Lead, WP:Layout, and WP:EMBED. The lead needs to be built up so it is an appropriate summary of all the main sections. The sub-sections need to be looked at as many of them are very short creating a choppy, disjointed appearance, and making it difficult to read the article with any degree of flow. There are a number of embedded lists. Do we need so many? It makes it difficult to read with ease. I think much of this could be cleared up with a half-hour edit. Perhaps a bit longer for building up the lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Focus. The article goes into considerable detail over minor issues in the Legal issues section, and Veterans and Second World War section. And there also seems to be a lot of attention paid to the policies in the Policies section. A question needs to be asked if some material can be split into a standalone sub-article, leaving a summary in this article; or if the material can be simply trimmed and disposed of. Either way, the article goes into too much detail for an article in a general encyclopedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Initially I thought the article could be tidied up with a few hours work, but the more I looked into it, the more I saw that there needs to be some serious work down on trimming down the material. That tends to be time-consuming. Given that this GAN has been open for two months my recommendation is that it is now closed now as a fail, and that the work recommended is done before resubmitting for review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I do feel conflicted on this issue, as it does meet most of the criteria, but I think that SilkTork has made a good case for failing this GAR at the current time. But keep up the good work ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. It still doesn't feel quite right in a number of ways, but pinning them down is hard. There are a number of very good and clear points to work on that have been made in this review, so I will try hard to fix them over the coming weeks. Jamesx12345 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help out when I can. I've just picked up a bunch of GA reviews, but when I've done them I'll lend a hand on getting this article ready for another GAN. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've formally closed the GAN. If there's still work to do and I haven't yet helped out, give me a nudge in January. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Right wing?[edit]

Ok, I'm taking it to the talk page as requested. This should be corrected because it's simply not true, they are centrist authoritarians. Wikipedia aims to be accurate, not politically biased.

"The extreme left identifies a strong degree of state economic control, which may also be accompanied by liberal or authoritarian social policies. 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. It's easy to see how the term national socialism came into being. The uncomfortable reality is that much of their support comes from former Labour voters." Atotalstranger (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject. You've removed Right-wing populism with no justification, and added something sourced to a website. And ignored the hidden comment which asks you to discuss first. I've raised this at WP:RSN where I suggest you contribute to it. In the meantime I'm reverting you again and asking that you respect the hidden comment request "There are numerous sources attesting to their various political ideologies, so if you disagree with any, please discuss it first on the talk page if you have a reliable source (see WP:RS) for additional views. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANY IDEOLOGIES AS THEY ARE ALL SOURCED ". Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Those are political opinions not reliable sources, party offiliation is based on algorithms. The reason those people think the BNP for example is right-wing is because they think facsism is the opposite of communism and is on the right of the political spectrum, when in reality that's not true. Look at this graph for reference, neo-liberalism is the far right; the opposite of communism on the far left, and fascism is at the top; the opposite of libertarianism at the bottom. Atotalstranger (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Some of the highest quality books say that the BNP is far-right, including the following publishers: Routledge, Verso, SAGE, Polity, Oxford and Cambridge. Nothing you find online in a circle diagram is going to alter these excellent sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Doug, now please stop edit warring ----Snowded TALK 17:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup. There are multiple reliable sources which describe the BNP as far right - including much directly-relevant academic material. The opinion of a single website with no established credibility cannot possibly be used in such a manner to contradict them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Editors' opinions are irrelevant, we follow reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
And the two sources that are given don't even agree, which is not surprising given that that they each attempted their own versions of the so-called political compass which is not widely accepted as a valid tool. Emeraude (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick Griffin just achnowledged he is a Socialist; That would be LEFT (not right-wing) [1]. The page requires an amendment in my view. (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013[edit]

This article vilifies the BNP, referring to it as "fascist" and cites several politicians with dubious credentials as the source of this claim without offering actual statements or other proof. No mention is made of the fact that the BNP, whatever it's beginnings were, is a patriotic pro-Britain party. What it is very definitely NOT is politically correct. The original leadership probably was fascistic, but the leadership has changed well away from that.

The BNP is not mainstream and certainly not Liberal. The description of Far Right is reasonable, but "fascist" absolutely is not.

Sunarupu (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think any of the cites for "fascist" are politicians. High quality sourcing saying clearly that the BNP is not fascist would be the way to get the article changed, I think. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion as stated cannot influence the article unless you find reliable sources that support you. At the moment they support the use of fascist ----Snowded TALK 23:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Leader quote when in NF[edit]

Given that the BNP comes from the NF, and that is also linked with its leader I can't see any reason to remove a properly sourced quote. ----Snowded TALK 21:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with it is that while the BNP indeed evolved from the NF, they are still two different parties. Any policies that Griffin supported while being a member of the NF don't necessarily exist in the BNP. I think this quote should certainly be included in his article, but I think it's fairly irrelevant to this article. — Richard BB 22:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The background of the leadership is relevant. It is not saying that the BNP is violent, but it developed out of the NF, even if it abandoned some of the NF's aspects that were not conducive to electoral success. TFD (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not as if Griffin was just a member of the NF - he was a leading light in the party. The BNP developed from the NF when that organisation imploded and one has only to look at the people who set up the BNP, Tyndall included, to see the direct relevance of what they said then to what exists now, however much they may have (attempted) to tone down or whitewash their past actions and words. It's impossible to understand the BNP without knowing what went before. Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The BNP did not come directly out of then NF as the article and sources highlight. The founding of the party is more complex than 'developed from the NF'. Griffin was a leading light in the NF in 1986. However, there were two different National Fronts and the British National Party all were in COMPETITION - ie RIVALS at that point in time. As such Griffin made those comments when in competition with the BNP and not representing the BNP. Griffin was never a founding member of the BNP and joined in 1995 and didn't become a senior BNP figure until more than a decade after those comments. There is already history of the BNP under Tyndall's leadership. I agree with what has been stated, what Griffin did in the NF belongs in the NF page and his own personal page and not in the BNP one. If this information is to be included then the article will gradually become an NF one. Truenature (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truenature12 (talkcontribs)
I do not see how your comments are relevant to what we are discussing. TFD (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope you are not referring to my comments? As they directly relevant as they add important context! This is a British National Party Wiki page not a National Front one, which also has a Wiki page. When Griffin made those comments he was in a leadership role of a party that was and still is in direct competition to the BNP. What Griffin did and said in politics before he was a senior member of the BNP belongs on his own page and that of the party he was leading at the time, as it is part of his and the NFs history. If those comments in question were made in 2009 when Griffin was leader of the BNP then in my opinion they would hold valid inclusion. Truenature (talk) 21.54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The BNP is seen as one of a number of organizations of the far right in the UK. Hence how it relates to the far right is important. That includes showing the far right credentials of the leadership, including their earlier membership in other far right groups and what they did there. TFD (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems a bit close to WP:SYNTH to connect what Griffin said in 1986 with the BNP. As it happens, there are two broadly similar quotes already in that paragraph. In the first sentence in that paragraph, "to further the party's aims" is actually slightly misleading because it is of course referring to the NF. I think that quote belongs in the NF or Griffin articles, if it is to be included at all. Jamesx12345 23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the policy is to prevent editors making connections not found in sources. However, sources do make the connection between the background of leaders of the BNP in other far right organizations. and there is substantial literature about the far right in the UK. TFD (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I still don't think it says anything concrete about the BNP and violence. An unscientific googling of that quote doesn't find any mentions that aren't copied from Wikipedia, except for this, which probably isn't an RS by any means. The bullet points are, in my opinion, a better indicator of where some members of the BNP stand, although I've removed one that is less connected to the politics of the party. Jamesx12345 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The history of the people who make up the organisation and its background are relevant. ----Snowded TALK 20:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Books about the English far right connect the BNP and earlier versions, one of the latest being Bloody Nasty People.[1] No doubt the BNP would like to see itself as a new party, but it was founded by the same people and rs find that significant. TFD (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014[edit]

Since fascism is notoriously difficult to define and the BNP denies such a label, I do not believe fascism should be used to describe them and would recommend the label be changed to "British Nationalism". When it comes to the key characteristics of fascism, the BNP does not advocate the centralised corporatism of fascist states (source: pages 68-84) and is more fond of localism. Secondly, when it comes to totalitarianism and the opposition to freedom of speech, they are openly in support both of democracy and of freedom of speech (source: page 43). Regardless of whether you believe that when in power they would stick to this or not, they certainly don't advocate it and proving they wouldn't stick to it is not possible. Finally, on the subject of foreign policy, Mussolini,Rosenberg and the main other fascist thinkers clearly insisted upon the need for greater territory and on acquiring it via imperialism. In terms of defense, the BNP is isolationist and opposed both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as military intervention in Syria and Libya ( page 13). Overall, I would say that the BNP cannot adequately be described as fascist since very few of its principles, other than nationalism, coincide with fascism and I would therefore request a change of this term. Britishpower (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We work from secondary sources not interpretatIon of primary sources by individual editors. ----Snowded TALK 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014[edit]

I hate to break it to the chief editor, but secondary sources are interpretations of primary sources. These ones you list look biased and outdated, I would recommend actually using primary sources to confirm or deny claims that the party is "fascist" rather than the claims of some author. Britishpower (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please could you read the Wikipedia policy on this. Before you dismiss the policy as wrong, try working within in.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to change policy, then you should discuss it on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


I know this is very boring... Face-smile.svg but the reference

"Wood, C; Finlay, W. M. L. (December 2008). "British National Party representations of Muslims in the month after the London bombings: Homogeneity, threat, and the conspiracy tradition". British Journal of Social Psychology 47 (4): 707–26. doi:10.1348/014466607X264103. PMID 18070375.(subscription required)"

would seem to be discussing the attribution of the term "Fascist" by the BNP. Of course it is behind a paywall, so I was only able to see the opening paragraphs.

Can we not find some political scientists who say that the BNP is fascist, and are published in a more accessible form?

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Can I also suggest that "Hope not Hate" is probably not a RS - if they were we could classify BNP as "swivel eyed racists"! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
It's not behind a pay wall as such (any more than a book at Amazon is); that term would be more appropriate for The Times and some other newspapers. The journal is cited because Wikipedia depends on verifiability from reliable sources, such as the British Journal of Social Psychology. The fact that YOU cannot get beyond the abstract without a sub does not invalidate this. Firstly, there is nothing to stop you subscribing. Secondly, if you do not want to subscribe, there is nothing to stop you going to good library and either consulting the journal or asking them to get it for you if they do not stock it normally. Thirdly, as an alternative, if you know a higher education student they could almost certainly do this for you, online. Fourly, rest assured that Wikipedia editors DO check journals when for cited and this will have been done in this case.
In any case, if you want some political scientists who say that the BNP is fascist (and there are a lot), try any of those cited in the infobox via a Google search, or Google Scholar search. I'm fairly sure that some of those exact articles are easily available. You will often find that academics post their journal articles on their own blogs or on the websites of the institutions they work in. Emeraude (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course I know that just because a source (nominally) costs money it does not become unreliable. We prefer open sources, all else being equal. I did see the first paragraph of this particular source, though I can't seem to invoke that particular piece of magic again, and it was as I describe. I looked briefly for the author's own preprint without any luck.
The point of {{Subscription required}} is not to call a citation into question, but to save readers from wasting time following the link, if they are not willing to pay the subscription.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC).
There's a couple of open-access articles that may be useful in general, one in French, though this seems to claim that Nick Griffin has been imprisoned three times for holocaust denial and racial hatred, déjà condamné à trois reprises à des peines de prison pour négationnisme et incitation à la haine raciale which (if my translation is correct) is very inaccurate, and throws doubt on the whole paper.
The second is an interesting document in its own right, and has some relevance as it documents part of Simon Darby's election in Dudley. Pdf here.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Removal of subscription required templates[edit]

It's true that most academic journals require a subscription, but not all do. I think this template is useful to readers when there's an actual link to the paywalled version of the article because it helps readers decide whether they want to click on it or not. For instance, if I'm reading on a phone rather than a desktop I may think twice about committing a bunch of bandwidth just to end up at an article I can't read right then. Is there really a substantive objection to leaving them in?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, but then there's no substantive reason to include them either really. The point I was trying to make is that, "paywalled" or not, you do not expect to see full books or journals on the Internet. Amazon links are frequently given, and there may even be a short extract that can be consulted, but Amazon is a sales point, as are the journal websites, and the extracts are to make you buy. We don't template Amazon book links purchase required - perhaps we should. In fact, journals are better than Amazon in this respect, since that article abstract is always given in full, free, and that's generally sufficient for readers to know if they want to read the full article. But, regardless of what I said about links to Amazon book pages, when we cite books we do not expect to be able to read the book online, despite Google's playing fast-and-loose with copyright laws. It's an indication of where to find the information, not the information itself. This has only really become an issue since newspapers started charging for online content; it was always assumed that a link to a Times article would get you the article.
Another solution is simply to remove the link, leave the journal citation and leave readers to find their way to the library. Having said all that, I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other. Emeraude (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I hadn't thought of the journal websites as sales points, since mostly I use them on my desktop at work or through my work proxy, which sends me transparently through to the content in many cases and provides a click-through to interlibrary loan when it doesn't. I have no strong opinion about including links, and often don't include them when the paywalled content provider doesn't allow for stable links (Newsbank and ProQuest are especially bad about this), but do when the links are very stable, e.g. JSTOR. I'm also extremely opposed to linking through to Amazon, and also don't care that much one way or the other. I suppose it's best to just leave it alone for now. Thanks for answering.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Amazon links are almost never given, and indeed should be extremely rare. We should link in the first instance to somewhere the full text can be read, in the second instance to an abstract, referencing or library service. Any modern book link should be through its ISBN to Special:Booksources where one can go to OCLC (or indeed a number of libraries, databases or booksellers), though Googlebooks can be used it is not without its problems (there's a useful document about these in user-space somewhere). All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC).
Actually, links to Amazon are frequently given in Wikipedia as references. It may depend on the type of articles one looks at. They are usually totally useless and only show that a book exists, not that it provides a decent source for what is claimed to be their content. Emeraude (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A solution might be to cite the journal and then give a link to the abstract, specified as such, e.g.
John Smith, "Apples in fruit salad: a comparative study" in Journal of Fruitology, vol 6, May 1967, p 234 (Abstract online at http://asdfgh)
But I fear that this is a Wikipedia wide problem. Emeraude (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
We removed almost all the ASIN numbers a few years ago, I suppose they have crept back in. All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Breakaway parties[edit]

Truenature12 has changed the Breakaway parties section to Parties founded by former members. The rationale was "Most of these are not breakaway parties as many were formed 2-3 years after members had left the BNP." I reverted this change, on the grounds that it was "Simply untrue. NNP and BF almost immediate; BFP and BDP clearly breakaways." Truneture12 has changed it back, saying "NNP was the rest were not. BFP was led by a former UKIP member now leader of LibertyGB, BDP was set up 3 years after the leadership election, name was registered by a non former BNP member."

Let's examine the claims that these parties were set up years after their members had left BNP, and the rest of Truenature12's claims.

NNP was the rest were not:
New Nationalist Party - founded by former members of the BNP in 2006, notably Sharon Ebanks, expelled from BNP in September 2006. So not years later, as is admitted.
BFP was led by a former UKIP member now leader of LibertyGB:
British Freedom Party - registered on 18 October 2010 by Peter Mullins, Peter Stafford and Simon Bennett. BFP was set up by "by disgruntled BNP members" (The Guardian, 1 October 2012)
BDP was set up 3 years after the leadership election, name was registered by a non former BNP member:
British Democratic Party - founded by Andrew Brons (BNP MEP) after failed campaign to take over from Griffin, with other disillusioned BNP members including Kevin Scott. Brons resigned the BNP whip on 16 October 2012; BDP founded in November 2012. So days, not years later.

And what about the others? Were they formed "years later"?

Britain First - launched in May 2011 under chairman Paul Golding, formerly BNP's Communications Officer and editor of BNP magazine. Created by Jim Dowson, a former fundraiser for the BNP. Dowson's links with the BNP had ended acrimoniously in October 2010. So not years later.
Patria - founded by ex-BNP members Ian Johnson, Andrew Emerson (contested May 2010 general election), Dennis Whiting (also contested May 2010 general election, resigned later in 2010). Patria was launched December 2012 (and almost certainly organised before then), so barely "years later".

Truenature12's claims do not hold water and there is no justifiable reason to change the subhead. Besides, there is no earthly reason why a breakaway party from any party has to be formed immediately. Neither is it relevant who actually registers the party name (in fact, the Electoral Commission requires three nominated persons, not one). On this basis, I have reverted to the original. Emeraude (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree they are breakaway parties. In fact the history of the far right is basically a series of breakaway parties. TFD (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
What matters is that it is verifiable that they can be described as "breakaway parties" - original research in the manner above, and personal opinions of editors, does not count I am afraid. To be described as "breakaway parties" there needs to be reliable third-party citations describing them as that, otherwise they cannot verifiably be described as that. A quick look at the decent sources only describes them as parties founded by former BNP members. Atshal (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
That is not "original research" to prove they are breakwaway parties and you know it, and neither is any of it opinion. It is a direct response to the mistruth given by Truneture12 that "many were formed 2-3 years after members had left the BNP". Are you denying that? Emeraude (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If these groups are classified as breakaway parties on the page then there should be sources for verification. I know literally nothing about these groups so have no comment on them, but Wiki policy states that three needs to be sources to verify the classification of 'breakaway' Atshal (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you have some definition of "breakaway" that would help us? Or, is the normal use of the word by the reasonably intelligent observer sufficient. (Note: The full Oxford English Dictionary does not define "breakaway".) Emeraude (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Over 12,000 vs 11,820[edit]

The lede says over 12,000, but the infobox says 11,820. Can't be both (obviously the infobox note is supposed to be the 'peak') (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Memebership of groups like BNP is notoriously difficult to give accurately so it must be assumed that the figures given are the best avaiable from reliable sources. The lead may be a typo, or it may be intended but unsourced. Either way, it seems right to amend to "over 11,000", which I have done. Emeraude (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


I think the "Policies" section needs to be edited, condensed or at least updated. Modeled say on something like the Jobbik entry, "Platform and ideology". If you look at any other far-right entry it is structured very different and much less.

Loads needs to be cut out of the article which is far too long, irrelevant or outdated. So here is my suggestion (rewrite):


The British National Party has gone through various ideological shifts within the radical or far right.[2][3][4] The party has been described as neo-fascist[5][6] by political scholars, but the BNP denies this label.[7]

Economy and Crime[edit]

The party defends protectionism and economic nationalism and advocates capital punishment for "drug dealers, child murderers, multiple murderers, murderers of policemen on duty and terrorists where guilt is proven beyond all doubt".

Immigration and Race[edit]

The British National Party opposes any further immigration into UK, only excluding exceptional (i.e. on an individual basis) circumstances.

Voluntary repatriation for ethnic minorities is offered as a policy which offers financial "incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home".

Formerly the party through Tyndall identified as white nationalist, but since 1999 under the leadership Nick Griffin, it has been observed that "ideologically, Griffin’s BNP has modified its exoteric appeals, moderating its discourse on race"[8] to attract more votes, despite racial and ethnic themes still featuring in the parties discourse. According to Nigel Copsey, Griffin has modernized the BNP's focus from race to culture in the parties magazine Identity, but he notes of the "occasional article" still espousing scientific racism.[9]

The BNP controversially supported University of Leeds lecturer Dr Frank Ellis, who was suspended after stating that the Bell Curve "has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence".

Griffin wrote in the party's newspaper The Voice of Freedom in 2001 that: "The BNP is no longer a genuine white racial nationalist party"[10] calling the party's new ideology ethno-nationalism based on "concern for the well-being of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnic nations that compose the United Kingdom" and that "unlike racial nationalist purists, we would be opposed to the arrival at Dover of several million German or Swedish immigrants".[11] A hardline faction left the party in 2002 criticizing Griffin's modernization.

In 2010, following legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the party changed its constitution which had restricted membership to "indigenous British" people. The party now claims to have members from ethnic minority backgrounds, but states:

"...we absolutely reject the poisonous, Politically Correct, anti-indigenous fiction that they are English, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Irish. They may well be very decent people, but if any of us went to Nigeria or Afghanistan, no-one would dream of pretending that we were Nigerians or Afghans."[12]


The party is opposed to new mosques being built in UK, as well as halal slaughter. Nick Griffin has worked with extremists from Sikh and Hindu communities in Britain on anti-Muslim campaigns.[13][14]

Europe Union[edit]

The British National Party wish to move towards a greater national self-sufficiency.

According to the BNP 2010 Manifesto: "The BNP demands an immediate withdrawal from the European Union, which is an organisation dedicated to usurping British sovereignty and to destroying our nationhood and national identity".

Family and Sexuality[edit]

The BNP is opposed to civil partnerships and proposes that homosexuality should be returned "to the closet". The British National Party promotes supports the nuclear family of Western tradition, as well as favouring traditional gender roles for women and men.

In 2009 Nick Griffin said that: "a lot of people find the sight of two grown men kissing in public really creepy. I understand that homosexuals don't understand that but that's how a lot of us feel."


  1. ^
  2. ^ Ford, R., & Goodwin, M. J. (2010). Angry white men: individual and contextual predictors of support for the British National Party. Political Studies. 58(1): 1-25.
  3. ^ Rhodes, J. (2009). "The Banal National Party: the routine nature of legitimacy. Patterns of Prejudice. 43(2): 142-160.
  4. ^ Copsey, N. (2007). "Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999–2006. Patterns of Prejudice: 41(1), 61-82.
  5. ^ Copsey, N. (1994). "Fascism: The ideology of the British national party". Politics, 14(3): 101-108.
  6. ^ Goodwin, M. J. (2011). New British Fascism: Rise of the British National Party. Routledge.
  7. ^ [3] Griffin denies fascism 'smears'. Metro. 12 July 2009. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  8. ^ Ford & Goodwin, 2010: 5.
  9. ^ Copsey, 2007: 70-71.
  10. ^ Griffin, Nick. (2001). "The BNP and Races". The Voice of Freedom. January.
  11. ^ Griffin, Nick. (2006). "Modern nationalism - the new force in politics". Identity cited by Copsey, 2007: 78.
  12. ^ English Democrats Vs the British National Party. British National Party. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  13. ^ Paul Harris (23 December 2001). Hindu and Sikh extremists in link with BNP. The Observer. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
  14. ^ Sikh admits to BNP talks. BBC News. 10 September 2001. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Akkadish (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points, but pleae allow time for others to digest this - there is a lot to take in. Also, given the revelatons in The Guardian today (see "Nick Griffin's vision for BNP-led Britain shown in 1990s police interviews")(and possibly other papers) about records concerning Nick Griffin obtained from the Crown Prosecution Service, it might be that considerably more needs to be addressed, since it seems that the policies presented in public are not the policies kept private. Emeraude (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
There's one inaccuracy above, it says that the White Nationalist Party split from the BNP in 2002, however that was largely a split from the Yorkshire branch of the National Front. Valenciano (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the replies. The source for the White Nationalist Party split is Copsey, 2007, however its only a minor detail and could be disputed. The current article is much too long and needs to be cut in ideology section at least. Compare to other pages like Jobbik and so forth, which are much easier to read. Akkadish (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


The history section is also far too long. The links to the more detailed page can be cut from each sub-heading etc. If someone wants to work on this with me, discuss this here. Akkadish (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree it's too long. BNP history is complicated (as is that of the extreme right in Britain generally, with constant breaks, mergers and realignments) and takes time toget across. Better would be to delete the more detailed page and bring its info back here. Go back in time and see why that page was set up - it came about becaue BNP supporters were desparately trying to whitewash the whole article. I would offer to help out, but I'm soon off for a few weeks away from my reference books. Emeraude (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
All the criticisms or accusations (racism, nazism, violence etc) from the detailed history seperate page should be relocated to a "criticism" section on the main page e.g. "allegations of racism", like the Golden Dawn, Jobbik etc pages. There should be none of this in the history section. Instead the history section should just give an overview of the elections results and major activities. Yes, I agree none of the accusations of racism should be removed, however they should be restructured like the other far-right pages. Akkadish (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014[edit]

Request to add to article in regards to a recent banning of the BNP political broadcast by OFCOM, in regards to it being a work of 'vile racism' Factuous (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You can add a new section in the "controversies" section perhaps called "Banned 2014 election broadcast", or add it under the "racism" section. I restructured the page so all controversies can added to that single section for easier reading. Akkadish (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nick Griffin is not the chairman of BNP anymore[edit]

according to their website

"Recently Appointed Deputy Chairman, Adam Walker, has accepted the role of Acting Chairman of the British National Party after Nick Griffin stepped aside at a meeting of the BNP National Executive held on 19th July, 2014."

this needs to be updated on the wiki page.. and maybe nick griffin's page too (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox misrepresents the BNP[edit]

BNP is primarily Anti-immigration, Eurosceptic (I believe Euroscepticism as in the article is not the correct form) so those two should be first and most prominent. British nationalism is true, but why would it not be just plain nationalism? Is there a non British nationalist group in Britain?

I am not clear they are anti globalist. The appear to endorse international trade and other things. But globalist is so poorly defined it is hard to argue one way or another.

Fascist should not be first on the list. I don't think it should be on the list at all. Fascist in this case is being used as an epithet. BNP does not advocate for a military government, mixing religion (Anglicanism?) and politics, or government control of industry. As far as I know no prominent military or religious people are members of BNP. So Fascist is really being in a slang or colloquial rather than literal usage.

Right wing is also a problem. I am an American and by the standards of the US BNP backing all sorts of social programs would put them in the left wing category. So I think Right wing is being used as an epithet more than a description of someone who wants low taxes and government burden, and few government services.

As near as I can tell they were opposed to the various recent wars Britain was involved in, so could they be called anti-interventionist or isolationist? Geo8rge (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think ideology should just say "far right", which is general term used for the ideology or group of ideologies that include such groups as the BNP, EDL, Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party. That way we do not have to determine which of the various strands of ideology are most significant, as they all roll up to far right. Also, there is no need for "position in the political spectrum." While clearly the BNP is far right, the field causes endless arguments about whether liberals are center or center-left, whether socialists are center-left or left, and whether Left parties are left or far-left. TFD (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Americans do have a problem understanding politics in other countries, Geo8rge, but that it not a reason for rewriting articles on UK politics. The fact is, to take just one issue - the National Health Service - that is neither left nor right wing in the UK; not one party is opposed to it. In the US, it is generally regarded as a left wing idea and has been described there as one of the evils of socialism!. Here, it's not an issue. (Though I should say there is considerable left-right politics on how the NHS is run.) We depend on reliable sources for our work in Wikipedia. The sources are agreed that the BNP, like its predecessors, is fascist. The sources are agreed that the BNP is right wing. That's what we go with. No one ever claimed that the left-right spectrum was 100% accurate, universal and immutable for all time. It is a tool, a useful tool, and needs to be used with an acceptance that sometimes lines are blurred. And that applies not just when comparing parties, but within parties. Emeraude (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

wrong link for John Tyndall[edit]

the one under the Racism heading, it should go here (Posted 10:22, 23 August 2014‎, by‎

Well spotted. I've corrected that. Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014[edit]

Membership:4097 (2013)[1] (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a case of original research by the source, whose reliability is very dubious anyway. It claims to be from the BNP's return to the Electoral Commission, which is used in this article's infobox. However, the return says 4,872. What the source has done is take that figure and subtracted all life members (775) to give 4,097. Correct arithmetic, but there's no evidence that those 775 life members are no longer in the BNP. Some may be, some may not, but there is no way to tell from the Electoral Commission return. Emeraude (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
We should not use primary sources, in this case what a party reports, but should use secondary sources. They may decide what number of life members are still members. One needs familiarity with the party and its history to make that judgment, which is original research and should be done in reliable sources.

Ungrammatical sentence[edit]

Please fix this sentence: It offers however voluntary repatriation where "generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently". (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Also, corrected the quotes to what actually appears in the manifesto. Plus, referenced manifesto was a dead link - amended to archive version. Emeraude (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

BNP is not white nationalist[edit]

White nationalism is still in the ideology description when the party abandoned this a long time ago:

"Woodbridge, Steven (2011). "Ambivalent admiration? The response of other extreme-right groups to the rise of the BNP". In: Copsey, Nigel and Macklin, Graham, (eds.) British National Party: Contemporary Perspectives. Abingdon, U.K. : Routledge. p. 116: "Defense of 'race and nation' can still act as a major litmus test of a leader's credibility for many far-right activists, and, since 1999, BNP leader Griffin has been increasingly viewed as having failed this test by the 'white nationalist' and openly neo-Nazi factions on the British extreme right. The BNP's adoption of 'ethno-nationalism' in 2006, with a new emphasis on cultural identity rather than racial hierarchy, was received with particular dismay by racial nationalists, and this consternation was reinforced by the BNP's change to its membership criteria in 2009 to allow members from the ethnic minorities to join the party."

Indeed, its pretty nonsensical to describe the BNP as 'white nationalist' when it is multiracial (the BNP has ethnic minority members) and it has distanced itself from white nationalism and has been criticized by the National Front and other far-right groups for this.

From Woodbridge p. 103 quoting the National Front: "The BNP is no longer a genuine White racial nationalist party and the National Front entirely disassociates itself from it."

The sources stating BNP is white nationalist are before 2006 and do not now apply. GarrettTemplar (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that other white nationalist groups no longer consider the BNP white nationalist does not mean that they are not. TFD (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no modern source stating they are white nationalist, and the more recent academic sources state they aren't e.g. Copsey, 2007. The stuff cited is outdated from 1998 or 2003. And the fact they changed their membership in 2009 demonstrates they are not white nationalist. You cannot be "white nationalist" with non-white members. The only reason white nationalism was left up in the ideology box for so long was its well known the Wikipedia entry here has been dominated by biased editor leftie types for several years. I honestly get why these editors were wanting the white nationalism left up, since the BNP was polling well from around 2006-2010 and they posed a threat to their personal politics. The BNP though has since collapsed. It has according to Hope Not Hate now only 400 members (they reported 500 in their own accounts) and they cannot even find candidates to contest a few as 10 general election seats. So isn't it about time the biased editors backed off and the page is just cleaned up and neutrally presented? GarrettTemplar (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
As I just said, Copsey does not say the BNP is not white nationalist just that other white nationalist groups no longer consider it so. If you think that the changes removed the BNP from the category, then you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You cannot be "white nationalist" with non-white members. The fact the BNP changed its membership criteria in 2009 means it is no longer a white nationalist party. Woodbridge makes this point clear (as above): "this consternation was reinforced by the BNP's change to its membership criteria in 2009 to allow members from the ethnic minorities to join the party". These sources state the shift in ideology occurred. In another study Copsey, 2012 talks about how the BNP put out a leaflet in Barking targeting black voters, and had a black member involved in Nick Griffin's 2010 election campaign.

BNP election leaflet distributed to black voters in Barking

Its simply bonkers a party with non-white members that has put out specific literature to attract black voters is labelled "white nationalist". Like I said, this has to do with the fact the BNP page is controlled by biased anti-BNP left wing editors who think if the white nationalism is removed it will make the BNP more presentable and appealable (which threatened them when the BNP were polling well). However all this is irrelevant now since the BNP is almost non-existent, its virtually finished as a political party. The BNP page should now be updated free from the biases that previously plagued it. That can start with removing white nationalism. GarrettTemplar (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

See synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Nazis recognized honorary Aryans and there are numerous similar examples. TFD (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you name a party other than the BNP that is supposedly "white nationalist" but contains non-whites? Can you also explain how a 1998 source is relevant to 2015? The sources for BNP being white nationalist are all over a decade or more old. They don't take into account the shift in ideology. Even if that was not the case, they're still outdated. You keep quoting Wikipedia rules, but surely there is a policy on this. Let's go over to Labour or Conservatives and see in 1998 sources are there... Why is there a different treatment when it comes to the BNP? I noticed an admin even failed the page repeatedly in their "review" because they see it as biased. GarrettTemplar (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
There are two relevant policies: WP:RS and WP:SYN, which I quoted above. We have a source that says they are white nationalist, you need a source they no longer are. Sure organizations change, and new developments may make past descriptions no longer valid. We changed the information about the leader for example when Nick Griffin left. But we only did that when we had a source that he was no longer leader. The sources for the new leader are from July 2014. For all I know he could no longer be leader. But I would not delete his name because of that, I would expect a source that said that. SYN stops us from examining the evidence and drawing our own conclusions. Instead we report the conclusions found in reliable sources. We could argue for ages about whether the Nazis respect for Japanese meant they were not racists. But policy requires us to report the conclusions of experts, not our own. If you disagree with those policies, then you should take your discussion to the policy pages. In reply to your first question, the Aryan Brotherhood has allowed Native Americans to join. TFD (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear about this. The BNP changed its membership rules because and only because it faced court action if it did not. It did not, at the same time, change any of its policies or programmes. That the BNP has some non-white members (how many? no one ever says) just not justify a change. The Nazis had Jewish members, so I suppose, on that logic, that makes them not anti-semitic?????

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015[edit]

Article says that the BNP has 500 members. Incorrect. Propose correct to say 4220.

The source on the article is unreliable. I will explain later in this request why this is so.

Every year, political parties should be submitting their accounts. The BNP does and the membership figures are in there.

I refer you to page 13 of the pdf document hosted at the electoral commission website:

On page 31:

"Paid up membership as at December 31st 2013 was 4220."

I also refer you to this by the House of Commons library, which also cites a similar figure:

On Page 6:

"British National Party Membership of the British National Party peaked at approximately 12,600 members in 2009, the year of elections to the European Parliament in which the party won two seats. Membership fell by approximately 3,000 members per year in 2010-2012. In 2013 the party claimed 4,200 members, just below its membership of a decade earlier of 5,500"

One could argue that figures from December 2013 is over a year out of date. However, as I set out below, the original "researcher" dismisses the membership claims of the BNP, but does not appear to do that for UKIP, even though UKIP doesn't even submit their accounts and presumably their membership figures to the electoral commission - the author takes UKIPs word, but cannot bring himself to phone up BNP HQ for the membership figures. Had he done so, we would have referred him to the electoral commission website.

The "reliable source" [1] quoted is the New Statesman at this url:

However, closer inspection of the story hosted at the above url shows that the The New Statesman is relying on this page for their story.

I draw your attention to these paragraphs where the author admitted that he's treating political parties differently. He also admits that he got his figures for parties like the BNP from the very people who are politically opposed to them.

" Secondly, not every party is transparent about their membership figures. Ring up Plaid, the Greens, UKIP, and they tell you. Both Left Unity and the NHS Action Party got back to my emails almost immediately, with their most up to date numbers. Likewise, when you get hold of them, the Lib Dems willingly share their numbers and the SNP announce them regularly. Labour include their annual UK-wide figures in their financial report. The Conservatives recently announced a new figure, as it had grown slightly. But, before that, they spent a long time refusing to tell anyone how many members they had.

With the far-right parties, I took a different approach. Call me old fashioned, but I wouldn't trust a BNP or Britain First spin doctor any further than I could kick them in the Goeballs. So I rang the people who monitor the filthy world of British fascism so the rest of us don't have to look at it so closely. It turned out that HOPE not hate's annual “State of Hate” report is out today, and they let me have an advanced copy. The figures on the BNP, Britain First and the English Democrats come from that. "

As you can see above, the original researcher is politically biased and admits he did not treat all political parties the same.

We could dig deeper back forever deeper into to the opposing Hope Not Hate group, they will never cite a reliable source for their statistics.

It would be like saying "We don't trust the Conservative party, but we've asked their nemesis Class War for the stats!"

To summarize, in fairness, let's use the UK electoral commission as a source for UK political parties membership figures, especially if the relevant political parties have been honest to file their membership figures with the commission. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: On the paper you cited, page 13 is irrelevant and page 31 is non-existent, but if you can find anything else just put {{ping|Kharkiv07}} with your message and I'll see it right away. Also FYI Wikipedia's are generally lazy and shorter requests will get done much faster. Kharkiv07Talk 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
One thing to bear in mind: the figures published by the Electoral Commission are simply those given by the parties in thie annual reports. The EC does not investigate their veracity and, as far as I know, has no mandate to do so nor facilities for such a check. As such, the figures are the parties' figures and are as suspect as anything else from them, regardless of which party. Emeraude (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources are just as unreliable. For exmaple / devils advocate. I'm in the BNP and I want to investigate Labour's membership figures because I believe they are too high. Short of stealing Labour's membership I have no credible way of disputing their membership figures.

If I, as a senior BNP officer said that we had 33,000 members, you quite rightly would not believe me.

However, when an opposing political group such as "Hope Note Hate" says that we have 500 members, which is 8 times as less than we claim, it appears to be accepted by a wikipedia editor as correct, despite the fact that Hope Not Hate have never provided any supporting evidence for their figure.

As I have asked another editor on his talk page...when the BNP returns around 4000 members for December 2014 with the electoral commission, are you still going to maintain that it's 500 members, or are you going to say we have 250? Or will you cut it down to 62 as that is 1/8th of 500!!!

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

, I still challenge the reliability of "The Independent". If you visit the url in question, when they mention the BNP has 500 members, they are simply quoting another one of their articles as the their if we follow that back...that article claims it's source for the BNP having 500 - but it's just the landing page of

So..just to be clear to avoid any misunderstandings or doubt. Here is the url trail:

"The far-right party's membership has also plummeted, currently standing around an estimated 500, compared to 4,220 paid-up members at the end of 2013." - 'membership has also plummeted' - is linking to this Independent article:

"The openDemocracy website, which compiled the figures, said the Greens, whose membership has doubled since September, are growing “amazingly fast”." - 'openDemocracy' is linking to the home page of

NOTHING - there is NOTHING which shows how a figure of 500 has been arrived at. It's just the home page of

The Independent admit they are NOT the source. So how can they be trusted over data from the electoral commission?

The figures we give to the electoral commission is part of our submitted accounts to the electoral commission. As such, IF ANY DATA THAT WE PROVIDE TO ELECTORAL COMMISSION AS PART OF OUR ACCOUNTS, HAS BEEN PROVEN AS FRAUDULENT, OUR TREASURER WOULD BE COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Also our figures are all signed off by an independent auditor.

That's why we bother to give membership figures, broken down by membership type long with revenues to the electoral commission. It's a matter of public record beyond dispute.

I still cannot believe that a hostile newspaper, that admits it is NOT the source, is taken seriously.

I'm disgusted by the way we aren't being treated impartially or fairly by wikipedia editors. Just about every other political party's word for their membership figures has been taken as the gospel truth by wikipedia editors. Even with UKIP, a simple tweet by one of their own MEPs has been taken as the truth and used a reliable source even though UKIP does NOT submit their membership figures to the electoral commission.

I have no choice but to start a dispute resolution compliant. This is NOT going away.

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm following up from the RSN request. First, has this been discussed elsewhere? All I'm seeing is the discussion from 2013 above.
At a glance, these arguments seem strong and I'd be inclined to remove the reference and the associated content. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Would you be able to do that please?

Here is a link to where it was first changed from 4200 to 500

After that, the source/reference was changed once or twice.

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BNP Headoffice.[edit]

Hello people.

Health warning.

1) I'm new to wikipedia - well at least new on the editing side, so please be gentle - I can't talk "wiki" yet!

2) I'm an official in the BNP. Thought I would let you all know that, to save any accusations of bias etc. I promise to stick to facts and all that!

Anyway, the head office is currently listed as Welshpool on the wiki. That is now factually incorrect, the BNP operates their H.Q. out of Wigton in Cumbria as listed on our website.

British National Party PO Box 213 Wigton Cumbria CA7 7AL

Welshpool is the old PO Box address that was under control of Nick Griffin, who of course is no longer in the party.

Many Thanks,

Chris Barnett. I.T. Coordinator British National Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdbarnett (talkcontribs) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, an editor has updated it.[2] Since changes should be verifiable, I note the new address is listed on the BNP website under contacts. TFD (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

BNP membership numbers[edit]

As far as I understand it, we should be using their own numbers for the infobox. Sources contesting those numbers should be considered for inclusion in another note or in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^