Talk:British National Party

Talk Page Archives

Infobox (still)

Look who ever owns the BNP article just put "denied by BNP" next to fascism again and this silly argument might stop (chris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.31.41 (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No one "owns" the article. However, the point of an infobox is to give brief details in a common format clearly and concisely at the head of an article. Qualifying those entries with things like "denied by the BNP" or "alleged" or "some fairies say" or anything else defeats the whole object. This argument has been gone through here before - look at older talk entries - and the consensus was to remove "denied by the BNP" for the reasons I have given and because it was covered within the article in any case. Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware no organisation since 1945 has been self-described as "fascist"- "national socialist", "falangist" even "nazi"-yes. Fascist no. More generally they seem to prefer "nationalist". Does this therefore mean that none have been fascists? George Orwell pointed out that the term had become synonymous with the word "bully". Undoubtedly there are bullies who are not fascists, but equally all fascists are going to be bullies. Interestingly Mussolini's fascists were not anti-semitic and had Jewish members (who came to an unpleasant end when Kesselring's Germans took over). In fact Jewish refugees fled from Vichy France into Italy during his regime. So many of the arguments of the BNP to not be defined as fascist need to be weighed against the definitions of fascism contained on the wikipedia fascism page - obviously sourced from the original, and I think it qualifies under several.--Streona (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Fascism Ethno Nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.170.189 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By that logic the Scottish National Party should be branded as a fascist party which they clearly are not and the use of the phrase should be ejected from the article as it is POV and controversial without up to date verifiable sources.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The question was "Is Fascism Ethno Nationalism?" not is Ethno-Nationalism fascism. The SNP presumably do not preach discrimination against non-Scots, nor do they define Scottishness as having ancestors "who came over in the last ice age" (especially as Scotland was under it at the time) as the BNP do - although allowing people in who may be a touch Celtic or Viking- or even Anglo-Saxon. Also Scotland needs more immigrants as nobody wants to go there, perhaps due to the weather. Griffin seeks to imply he is not "racist" (although he & his comrades will not explicitly say so) by announcing a principle which allows him to hate Poles as well. Of course Hitler hated Slavs as well, but that hardly made him less of a "hitlerowskifascisti" as it says on the thousands of Polish war memorials. --Streona (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That response still does not reason as to why the phrase should be used in the info-box. The sources used are pre Griffin and pre major reforms of the party . Find up to date sources from after Griffin became leader and this will be settled.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All the sources for the "Political ideologies" section are from after Griffin became leader except 1 and 7 (and perhaps 6 - which is a book published in 1999, so may only cover the period before 1999). The sources come from a range of time periods, from 1998 to 2007. If there have been changes in the BNP that render some of these sources out of date, you need to explain why, and provide sources showing that the BNP has changed in relevant respects since those sources were published. If you ask for "up to date source," but don't say what the cut-off point is for being up to date, or justify that date, there's no way people can provide you with the sources you're looking for.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Passmore, lecturer in History at Cardiff University, gives a definition of fascism in his book Fascism: A Very Short Introduction. The definition he gives is directly descended from the view put forth by Ernesto Laclau.

The definition he gives is as follows:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism.

I have pasted this from definitions of fascism. I would suggest that the BNP fits this description before and after Griffin's so called changes and the setting up of ethnic minority ghettos within the party or claiming not to be racist because they also hate Eastern Europeans does not change this--Streona (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The above definition cannot be used in this article to describe the BNP as it is original research and barred from the article and all of Wikipedia. The phrase "I would suggest that the BNP fits this description", demonstrates the POV and OR. Nothing but opinion has been used to base that on. That is as blatant as OR and POV gets. The source cannot be used as it is not reliable as it has OR interpretations, only independent and reliable sources which cannot be claimed to have OR or POV can be used.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Only trying to help--Streona (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Help is welcome, help within policies is however the only help welcome.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

The talk page was getting overful, and nothing more than spatting had occurred for somewhile, so I've archived the lot. Most of the topics were essentially the same, and are covered in the little exchange above.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it was certainly overdue.--NeoNerd 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Thanks--Streona (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arguments not answered

Copied from the last archive:

This article is too long. It should be reduced to a general description of the party and its program, its historical development, and electoral status.

The definition of an appropriate "neutral point of view" is to compare its sections and content to that of mainstream parties (in Britain and elsewhere). Entire sub-sections on each small controversy or leader's statement are out of place. There should be one section on "Controversies", with a sentence or two on each, and copiously references to anti-BNP reporting that will detail these issues elsewhere.

For example, the entire subject of anti-Semitism should be a few sentences -- stating that there were openly anti-Semitic policies/statements initially, these have been reformed, but situation remains "ambiguous" due to statements by party leader. A lengthy transcription of statements by Nick Griffin to "prove the case" doesn't belong here -- that should be found in an off-site link.

Obviously there is a great deal of antipathy towards the BNP, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to present it. The appearance of the article being a lengthy attack -- almost a court dossier being built up to prove a point -- rather than objective presentation, only makes it look like the party is being ganged up on. And of course childish vandalism reflects terribly on anti-BNP forces as well.

In keeping with all these efforts to paint as unappealing a portrait as possible, the article (in my quick scanning) seems to focus entirely on race issues, and make no mention of the rest of BNP ideology. Leftist BNP opponents may not want to mention anything that might be regarded as positive (in their own quarters) -- but the nature of the BNP as a "working class" and "socialist" party is of tremendous significance in explaining the substantial growth of the party among disgruntled working class (former) Labour Party members. Anti-BNP activists certainly won't be able to campaign effectively against the party's rise if they have no idea what is appealing about the party to many people in Britain -- and Wikipedia is certainly the venue for them to get that objective information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.199.146 (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed entirely Sinthesizer (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. The BNP has a number of interesting policies, some of which are mentioned in the first paragraph of #Policies (before it goes into sub-sections). I'd encourage anyone to expand that and make new subsections if needed (giving sources as much as possible). I think it would be useful to have some historical perspective with this - how have the policies changed over the years. 76's other suggestions also seem very sensible. I don't know enough about the BNP to really give this ago, but if you do, please edit it or suggest useful sources on this page. Incidentally, this page has been protected (so you need to have registered for 4 days to edit it) since september. I think it's due to the fascism dispute above, but I could be wrong. If all is quiet now, we could ask for unprotection? --h2g2bob (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I see the Nick Eriksen news event has been added in. Why do barely notable news items like this litter the article, but not for other political parties? I searched The Labour Party article for "Northern Rock" but to no result, and this has received far more headlines than anything the BNP have ever done. Can anyone tell me why the following parts of the article are notable:

1. The entire "2000's" section, apart from a few lines that should mention their success in Dagenham + Barking and the trial.

2. The "Guardian Infiltration"

3. Most of the "2007 Split" section

4. In the "Racial Policies" section, the section on Frank Ellis and Phil Edwards. Also: "We do not and we never will." Griffin's use of the phrase "secure a future for white children" is similar to the white nationalist "Fourteen Words"." is someones own opinion/research, and should be deleted.

5. Why is Lee Barnes' blog notable? He isn't even directly involved with the BNP.

6. Google video source in the Anti-Islam section

7. Richard Barnbrook and Mark Collett in the anti-homosexuality section

8. In the section "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" - the paragraph about Nick Griffin should be in his own article. Knowing a man who hasn't been proven to have done anything? Is this notable at all? The rally attended by William Pierce (why), Redwatch (an ex-BNP member makes a site which the BNP are advised not to go on.... why is this notable).

9. The paragraph on their newspaper troubles in "Repression of Free Speech"

10. The section about the ANL, Searchlight etc is too long for it's notability, and reads like an advert. Blockading a publicity stall in Scotland? So?

In "Violence and Criminal Behaviour" - "critics of the BNP" is sourced by a single Guardian columnist, and offers no rebuttal (why are we just giving the critics point of view?). In fact, why isn't this entire section amalgamated into their history? Why is a list of convictions given? Why doesn't this feature in other political party articles?

Why does the policy section read like a critique of their most controversial opinions?

A lot of the above was lost in the overlong archive, and I'm happy for it to see the light of day, and perhaps be the focus of constructive discussion. I'd start with saying why the BNP may get different treatment from oterh UK parties - precisely because it is a topic of controversy *from both sides* - i.e. because there are intense partisans active for and against, a long detailed article is needed in order to ensure POV complance, truncation may lead to a distorted view. After that, precise weightings on topics remains a matter of editorial judgement (ours, and yours, that is). What i prpose is that an editor take the article to a sandbox, make the changes they think will improve it, and post a link here for discussion, a similar approach worked over at Socialism which is a likewise contentious topic and which is overlong as a consequence (large reductions were achieved).--Red Deathy (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Socialism" in question, not "national socialism"? The Brownshirts in particular saw themselves as a working-class class national socialist movement, when in opposition but were rapidly dumped in 1936. Also if we copy any more from the archive, it won't be an archive.--Streona (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Why do they not start at 1 in the article and why when I press the link for them does nothing happen?--Streona (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations 1-12 are in the infobox, which is why the citations in the text start at 13. It does look a bit wierd; I don't know if there's any way to change it. As to why they're not working for you, I'm not sure (they work fine for me). Are you clicking them before the page has completely loaded? The markers link to notes at the bottom of the article, so it's possible to click on a marker before it's corresponding note has been loaded, which might cause you problems.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The '05 manifesto is no longer available online and the links are dead. This must be rectified or the material is worthless.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The link in footnotes 20 and 21 still works; I don't see that it's linked to anywhere else. If it is, do update the link.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Streona (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously biased editers

Could someone please shut streona up that has an account. She constantly spews out lies and attacks on the bnp like a fanatical zealot. For @#$% sake they just passed legislation BANNING WHITE MEN from work in the uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Streona is a legitimate editor. and they haven't banned white men from anything (in fact, in workplaces where white men are under represented employers would be allowed to pick them, under the proposed legislation).--Red Deathy (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4217376.ece

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/38293/Now-Labour-plans-law-to-bar-white-men-from-jobs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581898/White-men-may-miss-out-under-job-plans.html

Sure I believe you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

from your Discussion page reddeathy

Unfortunately for some of my anonymous detractors -and why do you seek to remain anonymous ?- there are going to be people that disagree with fascism and are going to be biased against them. I am one of that very large majority. The obvious response of a fascist by definition will be to have them shut up. If I resort to personal abuse or vandalism then I will expect that, but I don't. I think the points I have made are pertinent and in the main much better spelt than the "editers" who appear to be POV towards the BNP. Also I would have thought it obvious to anyone obsessed with Anglo Saxon history, that Streona is a male name after Eadric Streona Earl of Mercia. There must be somewhere else that views can be aired on current government legislation than this page. Maybe some right-wing blog forum or whatever--Streona (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. does @#%$sake constitute swearing ? Banning white men from working! Have a lie down, please--Streona (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this might be the place to discuss the changes made to the article which I reverted earlier. Please, I invite you to explain the changes. Also, white men re not banned from work. I'm white. I'm a male. I work.NeoNerd

You work at the moment in the future though you won't be able to. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, political POV must be avoided and I know how hard some of you try to own this article but let go and get rid of the POV and maybe the article will improve. This article give undue weight to anti-BNP and does not reflect them in a neutral light.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that you've fallen into the usual trap regarding neutrality. The policy doesn't state that articles should be completely neutral. Instead, the article should reflect the mainstream views on the subject. Thus, the evolution article portrays evolution as a well supported scientific theory, not challenged conjecture, as creationists would like it. Thus, this article displays the mainstream view on the BNP. they are a far right party, which rejects non-white membership. They conform to the definition of facsism. It would not be neutral to portray them as anything else, per WP:UNDUENeoNerd 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you so positive it is mainstream view labour was beaten by the bnp in henley seems like they are gaining ground everywhere. In my country the indigenous parties reject white membership are they fascist and far right. Streona harps on about "OH OH fascists try to silence you." is that like the discussion on this page constantly being edited if it shows nothing but a completely anti-bnp stance. I don't know much about anglo-saxon history it wasn't and still isn't taught in schools in my country. Also Streona you said that you were married to a pakistani man with a child so are you flipfloping on your own gender.