Talk:Nick Griffin

Archives November 2006 - November 2007 October 2007 - February 2009 March 2009 - October 2009

Aims

The GAR has raised an important issue - the lack of an 'Aims' section for this article. I'm busy at work for a few days, but if anyone has any links or sources to Griffin's speeches, or commentary on his political ambitions that they could list here (or start adding to the article), that would be great. Parrot of Doom 18:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

heres a video of one of his speeches where he mentions some of his aims. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not think that we could use YouTube due to potential copyright issues.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it couldnt be used as a source for the article, although the BBC wouldnt mind. There may be good be information on the BBC website about that program which states his political aims in the video. Ill take a look later. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm was the video i linked to remove? or did i never link it BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to his speech upon his election as an MEP, since its on the BNP Youtube channel (presumably theirs) and is clearly not from a professional cameraman as would be employed by ITN or such. Parrot of Doom 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the one about his on kicking out Muslims and replacing them with Ghurkas.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Forthcoming elections

The article states Griffin has run in the 2001 and 2005 general elections, in a couple of northern constituencies. Do we know if he plans to run as a candidate in the forthcoming (2010, presumably) general election, and if so where? Probably worth mentioning either way, if just as a note... Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We have this [[1]]. But I'm not sure how reliable it is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

category addition

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add...

Category:Critics of the European Union

(definitely a relevant category in this case) --Heybaby9 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done at 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC) by  Btilm 

Page visits

Climbing steadily. I wonder how many we'll see before the week is out? Parrot of Doom 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

175,000 over a two-day period. That's about 10 times what I thought it would be. Parrot of Doom 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Forced repatriation

Can a "senior" editor please amend the stated policy on repatriation. It is no longer forced repatriation but is voluntarily resettlement. Are any "senior" editors actually bothering to EDIT this article? *shakes fist* 82.37.241.251 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you need a ""senior" editor" to do it? As far as I can see it isn't a protected article, so Be bold, and make sure your edits are neutral, and well sourced. Wikipedia doesn't have levels of seniority, it's the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. --Saalstin (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Heh, whatdya know. I couldn't see a padlock or hatnote anywhere. Anyways, just create an account and wait a few days and ten edits, and you can edit it, without need for "senior editors" ...--Saalstin (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? That isn't what the BNP's website says - "we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants" By the way this article is indefinitely protected. Parrot of Doom 08:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Feudalism

I was going to edit the page, to create a link out of the word "Feudalism", since I wasn't sure of the meaning of the word, and this is an encyclopaedia. Since I couldn't, Is there someone here who can? --194.144.19.47 (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Steve Smith (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The British National Front was and is 'far-right', yes? Let's not whitewash in this article.

In putting the term 'far right' before 'National Front', and removing the uncited last line that appears to promote Griffin ("Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy.") I have been reverted and accused of 'vandalism' by a regular editor here, User:Parrot of Doom. I would like to say that nobody WP:OWNS Wikipedia articles, and it is against Wikipedia policy to use the term 'vandalism' for an essentially 'POV' issue (POV means someone expressing a point of view) - especially one that is effectively factual - namely the NF being 'far-right'. Wikipedia describes the NF as "a far right and whites-only party" in its main article - and this fact was as true when Griffin was a member of it as it is now. I also gave the clear reasons for removing the promotionally-phrased last line - so I'm not a vandal.

Having maintained that the National Front is indeed 'far right', can anyone really claim that adding this fact to this article is unhelpful or irrelevant? The current introducton gives very little real flavour of Nick Griffin (and his obvious 'notoriety' is left out completely), which compared to other Wikipedia articles on politicians is pretty scandalous in my eyes. Why be so accommodating to Griffin of all people? It looks like whitewashing is going on to me.

We need to do some work here people, and pull together some references: there are plenty in Nick Griffins case! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And a wealth of quotes from tonights show that should be added. No problem with far right being added as description for the NF. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The last line is pretty awkward, but there's a reason for it being there - the article has a big section on Griffin's appearances (or would-be appearances) at things, and the lede ought to summarise what's in the article. However, I think we could perhaps tie the two issues here together:

Since becoming leader of the BNP, Griffin has become the most publicly visible far-right politician in the United Kingdom, and as such has often been invited to public debates (...something about the debates). These invitations have been highly controversial, with many commentators advocating a no platform policy, and have caused extensive discussion of issues of free speech in the political process. (...and something about the protests?).

This takes a pretty clunky line that feels like it's been tacked on, gives it some connection to the rest of the text, and allows us to mention the protests (which are themselves interesting). It also positions him in the broader political spectrum; as it currently stands, we don't clearly define his political views anywhere in the lead, but let the reader infer them from mention of court cases and the names of parties. This is fine for people who've heard of him even in passing, the context is there, but for someone from outside the UK who's no background on the man or the BNP/NF, it's perhaps not desperately helpful. Shimgray | talk | 00:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says that Griffin is the most publicly visible far-right politician? And why use words like highly and many? Verifiability, not truth, is the order of the day. As for prefixing everything with 'far right', check out the entries on other politicians - few of them make a point of using the political compass. I see no real reason why this article should be any different, if those are setting the standard. Parrot of Doom 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is about a far right extremist, its clearly more important to highlight just how radical the guy is than to highlight the political views of someone from the mainstream parties. Aslong as its sourced, i dont see a problem. Whilst the article must be neutral, obviously anyone reading it must understand just how disgraceful the guy is. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't our job to make people 'understand just how disgraceful the guy is'. That's the job of the reader. Our job is to provide a totally neutral and factually correct encyclopaedic entry. I don't care what people think of the guy, as long as people think the article provided them with a good summary of his life, and political views. Parrot of Doom 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a cite for his relative prominence to hand, but I would be astonished if we couldn't find one easily! I'm just throwing out suggestions here. That sentence is pretty bad, and we really could do with something to replace it; at the moment, the bits about his political opinions are a bit vague, and then suddenly we have these staccato sentences of "He thinks X. Also he has done a lot of Y." Getting a bit more context integrated into the lead would be quite desirable as well; if you don't know who the parties are, it's not clear until the end of the lead we're not referring to a somewhat wayward past of a centrist politician!

Most of our articles on politicians aren't actually very good. However, skimming a few prominent ones, Brown gives a quick summary of his economic policies; Blair discusses the general centrist shift; Thatcher has a big policy section. These don't use the spectrum (except Blair) but they do give solid context on their political stances; I'm just not sure the current lead is clear enough for our putative innocent reader. Shimgray | talk | 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say that overnight I had feared the article would descend into chaos, but looking at the version of the page now, I think its better than before. The important thing is that we don't attempt to make "too much" of anything, and that certainly includes prefixing everything with 'right-wing'. The reader is usually intelligent enough to deduce for themselves exactly what kind of man he is. Parrot of Doom 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that we don't want to bang the drum loudly and fall into the (very easy) trap of emphasising his unattractive political stance too much, but I do think it's possible for us to go too far - to hold ourselves back more than we need to through fear of overemphasis. Banging "far-right" (or worse) in at every opportunity is a bad idea, yes; but is avoiding it entirely always the best approach? Shimgray | talk | 11:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't think its appropriate to mention 'far right' in relation to the BNP, in the lead of this article. Certainly not while Blair, Cameron et al make no mention of their party's political leanings. Its a difficult question to resolve though. Some might say, that were we to add 'far right' to Griffin and his allegiances, we should also then add 'centre left', 'left wing', etc, with regard to his critics. All I'm interested in is a balanced article. I'm not daft enough to believe that the article will ever be acceptable by everyone, people will always complain and see bias where none exists, but if we can find some middle ground that doesn't stray from the facts, I'll be happy with that. The stats are broken right now but I imagine this page got well into 5 figures of views yesterday. Hopefully the majority of those readers will have been content that they weren't being pushed one way or the other. Parrot of Doom 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at reworking the end section to flow a bit better - here. I'm not particularly pleased with the line about the trials; it seems to sit awkwardly wherever I try putting it, but I've tried moving it to the front of the third para to see how that works. The only problem is that "was convicted of distributing"... "been criticised" is a bit of a weird leap; he's been tried for it in the previous sentence, so criticism seems obvious! Perhaps if we switched these two sentences back around... hmm. Thoughts?

The other thing that would be sensible in the lead is a comment on how he's changed the BNP over the past ten years; I can't think of a clear way to phrase it, though. Shimgray | talk | 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In political career -2009

It is stated he is "attacked" for his views on the BBC interview of recent. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but attacked is a rather pejorative word, so maybe "confronted" or "criticized" is better?

145.94.72.243 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, i was thinking perhaps "challenged" would be better? cant think of anything else really BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On the current wording of tonights Question time, could we change "attacked" to something else, people may think he was physically attacked by members of the audience if we just say that. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Both words are applicable IMO. The source says he was attacked, watching the programme he was clearly attacked by some members of the audience (ie South Pole), and challenged by others. I've no preference though. Parrot of Doom 00:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias in the Introduction

The introduction's last line "Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy." is unweighted and does not at all represent the controversy, outcries, and actual uncommonness of the particular 'invites'.

Also, where is the mention of Griffin's unquestionable notoriety? Are we trying to inform people about him in an encyclopedic sense (ie give a broad and unbiased picture of him that would actually be useful to someone), or make a safe unoffensive BNP-friendly article?

Please don't leave this to other people! I have already made a few unsucessful edits today - it only takes one committed person to revert you on Wikipedia, to make change impossible for any single editor to achieve. There is a 3RR revert rule, and admins are always ready to block users and lock articles when perceived 'edit wars' happen. Wikipedia needs people to jump in and have a go.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Make changes that improve the article. Don't delete fully-sourced text, and don't introduce clear bias. Pay attention to the talk page, the GAN, the GAR, and the PR. Maybe then your edits won't get reverted. Parrot of Doom 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase in question is not sourced, I am amending it per policy. If you can find a reliable source then reinstate it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to cite anything in a lead, provided that what it summarises is adequately sourced in the article body. Parrot of Doom 07:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, although on controversial articles, some editors believe it can be helpful to add some citations to the lead to help maintain stability. (Personally, I prefer leads without citations, or with as few as possible.) Note also that "not cited" does not mean the same thing as "not sourced". Geometry guy 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And, I simply amended the phrase to something that could be supported, the original was problematic. --Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

But in what sense can that comment possibly be “correct”? "Provided that what is sourced is already in the article"! I can't let that pass, as it is just so damaging - so I'm going to say a few things. You cannot just ‘summarise’ any old group of citations (sometime creating a new thing altogether in doing so - which is excempt from needing proof) – you are absolutely obliged to consider WP:weight, along with other of the many guidelines like WP:red flag in Verifiability, and Notability too. Weight alone will more often than not dictate the new text, as it has done now.

These retentive methods of ‘Style reviewing’ are a plague across the full scope of Wikipedia, and this article highlights the foolishness (too long maintained) of methodically tick-boxing inherently illogical style-correctness, whilst routinely (ie as a kind of 'policy') ignoring content( which is ironically seen as the job of the editors, who actually get sidelined in the process). In teh past I've seen so many foolish paragraphs pass though ‘style’, even in Featured Articles (another content-shy process believe it or not). There really is nothing clever about being so clinical when it leads to plain misrepresentation, especially with a subject like this. Many non-British would will be mislead by the text on a basic ‘reader’ level here anyway, which just adds more irony to the process of course . As a rule, it is good to consider what you are doing in life in anyway, regardless of your job.

What happened in Nick Griffin is that simple event-verifying citations from within the article (the few cases of Griffin being invited to speak at mainstream establishments) were converted into a kind of super-flexible ‘source’ material’, which (in that new state) were easily moulded into the stand-alone line "Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy." I strongly suspect that no one got a shoe-in to actually add any weight, due to the rigid system involved - where new content is demoted in value, and even at times discouraged. I’ve seen it happen too often, it’s just plain dumb. What’s worse, a general ethos of ‘protecting the result’ comes from the process, which ended here in me being accused of ‘vandalism’ for attempting change, which I really object to. It really is dumb.

Imagine someone collecting a handful of citations of various people expressing an opinion (shall we say of black people being inferior to whites?) and places them in a relevant section in an article (say a "Controversy" section in a new and developing article called "Racism") . According to Wikipedia’s Style Council, this line inserted at the end of the intro would theoretically be fine: "Many people believe that black people are inferior to whites”. As there was nothing in the developing article about the many issues surrounding IQ test and the reading of them both past and present, no balance is made, and the Intro passes with flying colours. The new authorised version is then considered as ‘passing consensus’ – a broadly finished thing that is duly protected from change.

The Intro equation I’ve seen many times is: X (citations of comments existing somewhere i n the article) = Z (a new flexible ‘source’ material when grouped) = Y (a new and uncited statement of fact, based on the new entity of the ‘source’). THE INNER WORKINGS OF ‘SUMMARY’ ARE SIMPLY NOT APPARENT TO THE TYPICAL WIKIPEDIA READER, who is always at the very bottom of the Wikipedia heap, just below the general editor.

(THE HEAP:

The brass

Empowered admin, style controllers etc

General admin

Maintenance editors

Single Purpose accounts

Article-defending editors

New-content editors

General content editors – the lifeblood of Wikipedia.

The ‘general reader’ – central to policy, but so rarely considered.

(placing the Subject and Trolls would be dependent on the perceived importance of the subject))

Articles like Nick Griffin can be difficult and need creative work on the edit level - but that is the point. So much time on Wikipedia is wasted on stylising incomplete articles and weak unbalanced text. It is no way to bypass edit conflict - that ‘’’has’’’ to be done the hard way, such as in finding ways to express weight. Risking edit battles is far superior to squeezing down to make-shift style-approved articles that are subsequently protected from change. Here that process made the introduction bland, weak and misleading, and the added factor of the subject's inherent extremity ensured the article became seriously misleading – to the point that the article became Nick Griffin-friendly, and hence ultimately biased. What a result.

As a consequence of the ‘protect at all costs the passed version’ ethos, one single editor managed to keep the word “far right” out the article on the day Nick Griffin had 8 million adult viewers in a country of only 60 million people. The papers are now talking about the biggest ever surge in their membership. Wikipedia seriously failed the world yesterday. But it so often does fail with Biographies of Living Persons (although WP:BLP does have some good advice), as the execution of the whole style-admin-3RR process just doesn’t fit the bill. The very language of Policy is also at fault by beginning with “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”, and then repeats itself. Sadly it is as far as many people read, and it’s far too ‘Star Trek’ and almost religious in the commanding but ambiguous language used. However, it can only mean that the Wikipedia process 'begins with checking for verifiability, and then we work onwards from there. Style gurus really should take note. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Parrot of Doom 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

David Duke

What exactly happened during this trip? Was he sharing a platform with Duke, and supporting the KKK? Or was he arguing against them? I've been trying to find a reliable source but so far haven't been successful. Parrot of Doom 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont have sources about what happened, only the video [2]. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a fundraising visit, I will seek a reliable source, all I can find is secondary sources after a quick google. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Gurkhas

As pointed out elsewhere in this talk page he was quoted when asked about the Gurkhas as saying that "britain is full, no more immigration", yet the article still has him being in support of Gurkhas having a right to settle in the UK. This is demonstrably incorrect and from Griffins own words. Please correct the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.207.33 (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you watch this Parrot of Doom 08:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you try harder, he appeared on British news saying that Britain was full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.207.33 (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC) In fact, the refence is above in a another section and was covered by the print media too - I reproduce the details here - "Asked whether the Gurkhas should be allowed to stay in Britain, he replied: 'Our policy position is the country is full. No more immigrants.'" Daily Mirror, May 2009. This predates your BNP press conference broadcast on a youtube account - BNPTV on 11 June 2009.... weeks later. Running with BNPTV is allowing the BNP to write content relating to the gurkhas and to retcon their party history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.207.33 (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

BBC Question Time

At the moment the article reports Griffin's complaints after the event but does not cover the universal condemnation of him after the event by all newspapers in the UK, from the right as well as the liberal left, and from the popular to the serious. I'd suggest that we included headings from the Express and similar in a couple of sentences for balance. Thoughts? --Snowded ^TALK 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably just a sentence - "His appearance was generally criticised by the press" or similar. An article exists which discusses this criticism in detail, and which can also relate it to criticism of the programme. This is an ongoing drama, my view is generally to hold back and let things settle slightly, before making edits. Otherwise you're just creating extra work for yourself. Parrot of Doom 08:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The media response is overwhelmingly hostile, but many "bloggers" & letter writers don't see it "fairplay". Diane Abbot on This week just after Question Time made precisely this point when she said something about "not going down well with the British sense of fairplay". Also I think "a sentence" is very underplaying the significance. I think I read 4million more people watched question time than usual. Obviously it remains to see what political significance this event had, but personally, I really hadn't had an opportunity to know what his political views were, and to be honest after the event I think all I know is what David Dimbleby would like me to think what his views are ... so as a result of this failure to let me make up my own mind I'm now rather keen to see him again, which if that is felt by a substantial number of other people as the comment pages suggest, means we are going to see an awful lot more of that toupee! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments below added before reading above I have to admit I came here to see how heated the controversy was on the BBC question time. I was quite pleased to see the article seemed overall to be balanced (although I'm no expert) so WELL DONE!

I'll start by saying I think overall UK population needs to be controlled, so I have some sympathy with the BNP argument about immigration. I was also horrified by the program for the relentless attack against one individual by both panelists and the chair. I've read a few of the papers today and almost every single one is the "slimy slug that got a thrashing", whereas I've seen a lot of comments under these articles saying this program did not live up to the normal sense of fair play of us Brits. The other aspect, is the huge publicity this event has had.

Assumming you do add a section, clearly he made some tremendous gaffs particularly the KKK, and many have picked up on the holocaust denial and the other one I remember is the comment about homosexuals being creepy? was it. Hope this helps! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, leave a few days for this section befor adding the responses from the press. Suggest including the Queen's contribution too. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Article picture.

I think the pic should be changed to something less contraversial. Using a pic with all that VE day stuff is wrong given the huge outcry. Suggest a pic of him alone. I found this pic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Nick_Griffin.jpg and I think this is much more suitable. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So what if the picture is controversial? Its a BNP press conference, organised by the BNP, with BNP backing boards, and the most recent image we have. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am new at this so I dont know what is policy but it seems to me that to use a less provocative picture would be better, one that only shows him. The picture used should be a bland picture of him with a bland context, surely? This picture is open to claims from both sides of POV. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a picture of Griffin in Nazi dress, or at a veteran's day parade. Its a picture of him at a press conference following his election as an MEP. This is the image he chose to present to the world's press. I don't see the problem. Besides which, the other picture is pretty horrid. Parrot of Doom 10:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I go along with you, I was cautious cos I have read all this talk page and i can see things can get heated over silly things, clearly this is below radar. Incidentally my fav pic on wp was one of him with Myra Hindleys hair pasted on that appeared a few months back very briefly - funny but clearly ' not on'. Vertovian (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I used to think that there was some sort of 'conspiracy' to only have unflattering photo's of him, but even bnp ones look bad. 86.135.83.181 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the background may have been derived from Wikipedia [3] Bevo74 (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a more portrait type picture a while ago to Commons, had a proper license and everything. Appears to have been deleted...might of been targeted and wrongfully deleted... Lt.Specht (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It was incorrectly licenced. Parrot of Doom 09:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If no other pictures are available currently, it might be an idea to simply crop the present picture though. User:Gabagool/sig 02:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

2:2

"He graduated with a second-class honours degree in law (2:2)"

This should say "lower second-class honours" as that is what 2:2 is short for.

The page is locked, so can the site staff edit it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by More data added (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we refer to him as a fascist bigot?

I added a simple, well-sourced few words:

"and a facist bigot"

However, User:Parrot of Doom reverted it, calling it "biased garbage" and then went to add a level 3 warning template to my user page. Ignoring the incivility of such an act for a first edit by an experienced editor, how should we be identifying Griffin. We identify BNP as a facist party, so presumably there are no issues identifying Griffin as a facist. And there can be no question the guy is a bigot, given his own words, and the number of sources that identify him as a bigot, isn't that something that should be identified on this page? Aren't we ignoring the elephant in the room if we don't? Nfitz (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Plainly not. If you think it's notable that elements of the media have assessed him as a bigot, you can try inserting that statement (that some elements of the media have so-assessed him, not that he unambiguously is one) in the appropriate section. Frankly, you're stretching my ability to AGF, here. Steve Smith (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I would hardly call those sources unbiased, and therefore not reliable. In any case "fascist bigot" is hardly encyclopedic language. Rodhullandemu 15:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't your first edit though, was it? You've been warned about adding material such as this before, and apparently you've either forgotten you made such edits, or you're hoping that everyone else has forgotten. I haven't. Parrot of Doom 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why not unambiguosly refer to him as a bigot? I can't see that there is any doubt given what's already quoted in the article, and numerous references. It appears to be his defining feature. What has AGF got to do with it? Nfitz (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Even calling him a fascist *could* be considered POV. Whilst a significant number of sources could be found which suggest the BNP are a fascist party, there would also be sources which would say they were a nationalist/ far right party, andthe BNP themselves would dispute the view that they were fascist, and thus Griffin is a fascist. Whilst I may agree with your assessment, I don't think that it is encyclopedic and holds true to NPOV. Steve-Ho (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• How could calling him a fascist be POV? Our own article on the British National Party clearly labels them as facist ... wouldn't that also be POV? I'd have thought fascist would be the easy one here, and that bigot would require a debate. Nfitz (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the article doesn't label them as fascist. Take care to read the article before you make such comments. Parrot of Doom 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • correct - I was just about to say that - the article is balanced - "It has been claimed that the BNP has, since its foundation, been fascist. For example, the Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred" ... and "Peter Hain describes the BNP as "a racist organisation with known fascist roots and values" and wrote about its "racist and fascist agenda"" but it is balanced with "The BNP denies that it is fascist, calling the accusations “utter nonsense” and there is then an analysis "However, some political scientists support the fascist description and say that the BNP has attempted to hide its true nature and to present a more moderate image in order to attract popular support" and then "n contrast, in an interview in the Guardian, historian Richard Overy said that "Fascism with a capital F was a phenomenon of the 20s and 30s. It was a revolutionary movement asserting a violent imperialism and promising a new social order. There is nothing like that now." and historian David Stevenson said that "The BNP is different in style and structure from fascism in the 1930s." Steve-Ho (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the intitial problem here is a WIkiepdia-old ownership issue - the very language Parrot of Doom uses gives this away. Although I agreed with his revert in this case (there are better ways present the fact of Griffin's well known bigotry than just to define him a 'bigot'), when I read his "biased garbage" edit note I was appalled at both the rudeness and politics, and planned to warn him myself tonight. As with myself, Nfitz is an experienced editor (from 2005 in his case, 2006 in mine). Also, I am VERY worried about Parrot's real stance on far right issues, despite what he says about Griffin on his user page. It’s an unfortunate truth that many people who so foolishly support the BNP just want certain policies and issues to made more public, and are not at all Griffin fans. I hope people can digest that comment. The BNP are also very, very clever, and without question far right – so I think we are all entitled to be wary of them from a Human Rights stance, whatever some people might insist about dotting each ‘i’ of the WP:AGF policy. Parrot has reacted to edits in this manner before, and if he (or anyone else) does it again I won't hesitate to make an official complaint, both on the rudeness and bias in the content.

No matter what friends you make on Wikpedia, people like Slim Virgin (and others complementary of the trimming of likely problems from the Griffin article in time for Question Time) won't be stupid enough to defend totally uncalled-for civility indiscretions to time-served editors who are CLEARLY acting in good faith. Especially given the dangerous politics involved from one side only here, and considering what should be expected to happen from the middle ground with this article being so plainly lily-livered - about a terrifying political disease that so nearly destroyed Europe. They won't be so keen to line up, and will answer to people like me if they are too hasty. And Jews perhaps, Muslims, blacks - people like that? I'm still reeling from the 'mainstream' introduction I saw here last Thursday. I insist the BNP could not have come up with a better article themselves, as any showing less of their true values would hardly pass. The article had 100,000 hits (obviously - how can we be surprised about that?) and single-handedly proved right the nationally-made argument on why Griffin should not have been invited to the TV show: the irresponsible media (mainly Wikipedia, alas) will be able to casually present Griffin as a standard mainstream politician. And all in the name of supposed damage-limitation to Wikipedia's own credibility.

Parrot please - take a step back from the 'tired owner' stance, or you yourself will cause the kind of editing problems you claim you've been striving to avoid.

One day on this encyclopeda the reader will come first. Any argument that says prospective far right voters (if I'm actually allowed to use that term 'far right'?) can cleverly ‘read between lines’ - or even bother to read to the end of articles - is simply fully naive. Besides, the introduction is king with the reader, as it summerises what is below it. The majority of BNP supporters are THE most vulnerable people in Britain – and often the least educated. Wikipedia consistently ignores both the reader and the subject in its self-providing calculations, and with this deliberately damage-limited article (to put it most politely), it has manifestly helped to ‘rubber stamp’ fascism in the UK. A lot of people (esp non-Europeans) won’t know what that means, but many of us would agree that Wikipedia can scarcely have had a lower day. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)