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)

Just a small point, that isn't OR - OR is when an editor makes up a contribution that isn't supproted by reliable third party sources. In this case, Kevin Passmore's is the source, published no doubt by a reputable publisher, with an editor. the principle is that it has to have been published somewhere else first, not on Wikipedia.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is a talk page, not the substantive article--Streona (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascism- Right wing Government of extreme dictatorship. the BNP is not a right wing government of extreme dictatorship. There for the BNP is not fascist. It is that simple and there for the article should be changed. Fascist is just a term people on here are useing as a moral club on them because they dont like there policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.117.186 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Anon. Fascism is a term that reliable third party sources apply to the BNP. If reliable, third party sources can be found statuing that the BNP is not fascist, that will change. BTW, though, were the Nazis fascists before 1933? Anyway, this has been covered ad nauseum...--Red Deathy (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That was from a dictionary btw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.255.252 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The BNP is not a right-wing government because it is not a government but if it was-it would be. It can also be fascist even if it says it isn't, provided it still retains the attributes of a fascist party. This has been covered ad nauseam as Red Deathy says, but the reason for this, is a constant stream of edits from anonymous users seeking to challenge the appellation of fascist. These users very often have little other history than these specific edits and I suggest that they are seeking to promote a pro BNP POV.--Streona (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats like saying the conservative party will be fascist if they won an election! very silly indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.254.48 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. A right wing government is not necessarily fascist, but a fascist government would be right wing as this term is generally understood. Its like a sheep is an animal, but not all animals are sheep.--Streona (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

yes it is! and even so Its still no justification to calling the BNP fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.216.5 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You have just said the Conservative Party are fascist.--Streona (talk) 02:20, 8 July 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)

Since anon editing is blocked, a figure I'd point out that the second sentence, "It has around 100 councillors in local government in England" from the BBC article cited, is followed in the BBC article by "although that includes parish or community councillors who have no real power." Figure a registered user should add that. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.240.54 (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Streona (talk) 20:10, 8 July 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 anything other then a 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. My mistake thought you were a women.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 

"The policy doesn't state that articles should be completely neutral. Instead, the article should reflect the mainstream views on the subject." - So Wikipedia doesn't want the truth, it wants the opinion of the raving crowd. Great, just like democracy. We should reflect "mainstream views"? Does that mean the Black metal article should begin and end with: "Shitty, angry, shouting music."? Sounds like some people are trying to resist as much as they can to any change to this article. As a completely unrelated aside, how can someone be so interested in Anglo-Saxon history, but not Anglo-Saxon future?*

• The answer is fear. Zxcvbispass (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To address you analogy with Black Metal: if the consensus of public and professional opinion were that it was 'shitty, angry and shouting' then an appropriate Wikipedia article might say that it involved much shouting, and that many people consider it to be shitty. 'It contains shouting' and 'people have said it's shitty' are objective statements of fact, while 'it is shitty' is a personal opinion and thus has no place on Wikipedia. To return to the case of the BNP, 'they are fascist' is an objective statement not an opinion (whether it is true is a separate question: see below). Of course the article shouldn't say 'the BNP is shitty' or anything equivalent, but since fascist doesn't just mean 'bad' but has a defined set of meanings (and is self-applied by many groups), calling them fascists is not comparable.

As to your objection that "Wikipedia doesn't want the truth, it wants the opinion of the raving crowd": that's true, if reliable sources such as newspapers and academic articles constitute a raving crowd (we don't base articles on the opinion of the man in the street). If they do, I'm not sure how we would go about establishing 'truth' independent of such a crowd. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has decided to use verification in neutral third-party sources as its benchmark for inclusion, not 'truth'. If you strongly disagree with that policy then there are other similar projects which have selected different criteria you might want to look at. But while WP:V stands we should write the article accordingly. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because History is not Racism, - in fact Anglo-Saxon, like Celticism is not necessarily a race, but a culture and fear of who? --Streona (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Postive proposals

OK, to help critics out, whose complaints amount to a call for a total, or near total, re-write, I've put a copy of the article in my user space. Please, do feel free to make substantial changes there, and create a version of the article you feel could be put forward as a replacement. I can't guarantee it will be accepted, but at the very least, parts of it may be, and it would give you the advantage of beign seen to be positively tryingt o improve the article yourself, and let the rest of us know precisely which bits are objectionable, so that we could look at other ways of remedying it. A similar approach proved relatively effective over at Socialism--Red Deathy (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It might work and may be worth a try. Some time ago (and this is in the archive here), myself and others, notably Sinthesizer, discussed a rewrite of the introduction - just the introduction. I set up a dummy proposal on my wiki space here and Sinthesizer and I made a lot of progress and were practically agreed before I took a few weeks off and the project dropped. It's a shame that, despite all the griping here, only two editors were prepared to do anything. Oh well. For what it's worth, I have pasted the intro that Sinthesizer and I prepared onto Red Deathy's page. You'll notice that it sticks to the bare minimum to provide a brief introductory overview to the article and no more. Emeraude (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is fine, but you will never appease the sockpuppets.(see Appeasement) (lol)--Streona (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

White people only party?

There is a turkish man and a jew in the BNP so please change your incorrect 'fact' or please prove otherwise.

This would also disprove any theory about the BNP currently being an anti-semetic party.

Please also if your going to talk about Nick Griffin and the holocaust, please mention that he has since taken back what he said.

Please would you also include it's latest policies.

I thought this was supposed to be unbiased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micmania1 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The BNP has an ethnic liaison committee which places "ethnic" self-haters in a "separate-but-equal (?)" category. This underlines the racist (or "etnno-nationalist" as Griffin now likes to frame it)nature of the party --Streona (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Streona you really do hate the BNP dont you? your hardly useful for this article if you are so biass towards it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.184.80 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Streona 'ethnic 'self haters' do describe whites that way who support mandela or pro ethnic groups that way? Its fairly obvious you have no intention of being fair or objective here. what are you scared of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.117.242 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends of mine have been physically beaten- in some cases near to death by the BNP. I have been attacked but with less success, so one might have a reason to be scared, bearing in mind that possession of a short haircut and some army surplus gear does not make you all that. I am unaware that Nelson Mandela has ever made racist attacks on white people for their race, although criticism of some of their policies he would have agreed with the British Government's position that establishing separate voting lists by the Nationalists was illegal. The BNP website ("Is the BNP Racist?") describes itself as a white-only party, presumably not considering the ethnic liaison committee as being a proper part of itself. What, other than self-hatred of at least one part of your cultural heritage would motivate one joining an organisation that wants you to leave the country (as opposed to booking an airline ticket)is something that only Mr. Rustem and his few if any chums can answer. In the case of mixed race people such as he, the BNP seems to question your very right to exist at all. I have made contributions of fact to the article (such as the numbers of councillors sourced from the BBC) and have restricted expression of my opinions to the talk page as my almost entirely anonymous critics have. The evidence suggests that this is because they cannot spell and have poor grasp of grammar, even though Noam Chomsky holds this to be innate (you don't like Dr. Chomsky, do you?).--Streona (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep your sob stories to yourself. This article needs to be made neutral, which at the moment it is far from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sob stories? Who is it squealing about being called fascist ? Not me - but then I am not one, so maybe not so sensitive then.--Streona (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article can ever be really neutral

I think due to the fact that not one mainstream press source (even the Daily Mail nowadays would not) would be willing to portray the BNP in a positive light, this article cannot really be neutral. The sources we have are largely about criticism of the party, and only by relying on WP:SPS from the party themselves could we hope to achieve any kind of neutrality here. The party makes claims on non-race-related issues (conservative policies on crime, employment, education, health, etc, which would probably appeal to many more 'ordinary' people if there was no racial element to their policies) but this information is not included particularly well.

Another question, of course, is where this party would find the money to do such things, but then, that'd be original research.--Les boys (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, although the lack of positive sources says something.I think that there could possibly be slightly less focus on race-based issues, but the defining concept of the BNP is racism, or ethno-nationalism. --NeoNerd 19:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is essentially a liberal and democratic endeavour based upon reason and freedom. It discourages personal attacks and mystification Karl Popper describes fascism as one of "mankind's periodic retreats from freedom and reason". Thus fascism is diametrically opposed to all these basic values and the BNP are opposed to all these basic British values so any neutral account is going to cause controversy. Griffin is obviously aware of this as he specifically attacks this article in one of the quotes within the article itself. You might just as well try to reach consensus with the Daleks. At least they are more grammatical, even if they share other attributes.--Streona (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I always consider the Flat earth article to be the acme of neutrality, it's worth a read (or it was the last time I read it). We don't require mainstream sources, any verifiable, third party reputable source would do - any academic, researcher, etc. who has been published on the BNP is fit for inclusion, but in Wikipedia terms, if no-one describes the BNP as other than a fascist party, we must by the power invested in us by WP:V call it a fascist party. Steps could be taken to balance the content a bit more, perhaps with a reduction in some of the minutia. I don't think I could do it, because I wouldn't carry confidence, but perhaps an editor who might carry confidence could propose a draft on the sand version?--Red Deathy (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking Advantage of journalist code of conduct to keep BNP classed as fascist

It is obious that Sterona claims that we can only use third party sources that say the BNP isnt fascist because of the Journalist union having a code of conduct that states that nobody can report on the BNP unless it is in a way that puts them in a negertive spotlight. There for the article should have fascist removed. End off.

In the biz they call that a non-sequitur86.138.248.126 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Duh?--Streona (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please cite a source that journalists are obliged to show the BNP in a negative light? Otherwise, your statement doesn't hold much credence. In any case, it isn't just Streona who wants 3rd party sources. It's Wikipedia policy. Third party sources don't have to be journalistic, anyway. If you could find a peer-reviewed academic article that states the BNP are not fascist, that would be fine too. Please read WP:RS.--NeoNerd 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The NUJ code of conduct is available at http://www.presswise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=648 It advises - bearing in mind the NUJ is a trade union and not an employer - that should racist opinions be aired, that a balancing anti-racist viewpoint is given. In this way racist and fascist organisations are singled out for special treatment and "the anti-social nature of their views exposed" as it says in the code. It is not clear that there are any sanctions that can be imposed for breach, but most NUJ members will oppose "hate speech" and no doubt welcome the guidance.--Streona (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Witness the reporting of the anti-fascist riots at the BNP's Red White and Blue festival this week. A great many articles didn't make it clear that no BNP members or supporters were responsible for the disturbances, or implied that they had caused it indirectly. Compare reporting of BNP views to reporting of Islamic fundamentalism or special interest groups such as the National Black Police Association, and I think you'll see an imbalance.--MartinUK (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All the reports I could find stated that anti-fascists were arrested clashing with the police, which seems quite objective. None mentioned anything especially critical of the BNP apart from a local paper which said that local residents were cheesed off with the all-night karaoke (probably out of tune), fireworks and discarded glasses frightening the horses. If you can give an example then do so. --Streona (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Star declared that BNP members clashed with anti-fascists, while the BBC's Ceefax used the title '33 Arrested in BNP Protest', implying that BNP members were involved in the disturbance.--MartinUK (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Star site I found did not say that at all http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/47579/Protest-demo-targets-BNP-festival/

I cannot find Ceefax on the internet but I presume the actual article was not misleading or you would have mentioned it. I would prefer if the more generic term "fascist" or "racists" were used as mentioning the BNP by name gives them publicity. Something like;

"And its one in the eye for Chairman Griffin as his ranks of jackbooted herrenvolk cower from the wrath of the chaps from beleagured Blighty who give him right old earbashing and no mistake! Are we scared of his fascist hordes ? Not likely! - Not if this little chap is anything to go by ! (cut to child in pushchair with luggage label attached to overcoat, waving a Union Jack) That's the spirit ! Remember, loose lips sink ships!"

-now that's the kind of quality journalism so sadly lacking today.

--Streona (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your dhimmi status when it comes.--MartinUK (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's rather a non-sequitur. It doesn't address the question. In any case, the NUJ's guidance only applies to journalists, and not everything published is written by, or edited by, a journalist. Nigel Copsey or Alan Sykes aren't NUJ members so far as I can tell. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Journelist code of conduct and fascism allogations

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/BNP.html http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk/presspack/media1.html

This one is not third party but is still interesting and maybe useful. (Chris) http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/03/the-media-reporting- on-the-bnp/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.99.226 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense! The first link is to "What Next?, a "Marxist discussion journal" and nothing to do with journalist codes of conduct. The second link is dead, but should be to Searchlight's press pack - not to any official journalists' code of conduct. The third is the BNP itself which, like all its fascist predecessors, has always claimed it gets an unfair press, so far from a neutral source in this point. Emeraude (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Chill out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.77.229 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a fascist organization?

Nazi? Racist? Or did the leaflets I read go over the top?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends what leaflets, although I suspect not.--Streona (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Those leaflets are a deliberate act against the democratic process, this wouldn't be tolerated if this smear campaign was against any other political party, Gerry Gable and the rest of the red filth are as bad if not worse than the Nazi's-Tashkent Fox 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The BNP's political ideology is NOT White nationalism

Nick Griffin has said several times, including on the BBC, that the BNP are not a "White nationalism" party. He has pointed out how the immigration promotion also comes from Eastern Europe and those people are white. It a British nationalism party. I do not support the BNP, but I do support an unbias article. Unsigned comment by 90.240.85.159 at 18:31, 17 July 2008

The BNP website states that it has an all-white membership and that it seeks to promote the interests of the "indigenous British folk". It does not deny being racist but suggests that various ethnic organisations - such as the Jewish Telegraph and Black Police Officers would also be racist if it is racist and simultaneously suggests that they are. Check it out if you don't believe me.

They do not say they are fascist, but then which terrorist organisation claims to be terrorist? Most will deny this but they are still terrorist.--Streona (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The BNP isnt a terrorist organisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.180 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not as such, but I was using an analogy.Apologies for offending any of Der Kameradenschaft. (Apolgies to any Germans, who are on the whole a decent bunch, if inclined to be a bit serious). --Streona (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To settle the issue we do need a more up to date reference. The current ones are from 2003 or earlier and WP:NPOV would certainly require a more contemporary reference for such a bold assertion. Valenciano (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British National Party/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm going to fail this article because of the amount of {{cn}}, {{dead link}} and the formatting of some current references. Please see WP:CITE for how to use references. All web addresses should have the URL, title, author, accessdate and date of any publication. The current referencing looks mish-mash at the moment with the variety of methods used.

But other MOS points that stand out include

• References should be placed after the punctuation per WP:CITE.
• Use of single digit numerals. See WP:MOSNUM.
• Incorrect use of dashes per WP:DASH.
• Incorrect date formats and unnecessary linking of years per WP:DATE.
• Introductory clauses, e.g. In December 2006, ... should include the comma.
• Don't overlink. Nick Griffin is linked eight times.
• The article could do with more images.

I would suggest a peer review before a third GA nomination is made. Peanut4 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism

The BNP is seen by many as a fascist party. Something that the party fiercly denies.

Nick Griffin says that the party is not fascist because it doesnt believe in militery dictatorship or racial discrimination, and that the party is fully dedicated to democracy and freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.63.168 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I will refer the questioner to the fascism article, where they can read up on what fascism is.--NeoNerd 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But is the article of fascism correct? I personally think it is to assesive. It says that nationalism is fascism yet many left wing groups and parties are nationalistic. Fidel Castro for example is a communist yet he has very very stop nationalistic pride.

Is Fidel Castro a fascist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.145.137 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also as I have pointed out before, the BNP denies being a fascist party. Why not just put denied by BNP in brakets next to fascism again like it was before? I think it is only fair to do this considering how biass the article already is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.145.137 (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Equally -as I have pointed out before- one could put "denies being terrorist" in brackets in the Al-Qaeda article. Fidel Castro is not a Fascist by the definitions on the fascism article and this article is not about Fidel Castro. --Streona (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the fascism articles part on nationalism is wrong and in my opinon delibratley span so fascism can be enforced on this article. Yes add denied to the both of them if its fact then do it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.84.168 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Fascism does not itself define fascism, but quotes reputable sources. No doubt many people and organisations deny what they are and were. Serial killers for instance... Radavan Karadzic even denies being a totally rubbish poet- but the evidence is there.--Streona (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sterona is too biass to be taken seriously. Seriously though the BNP isnt fascist. They are too demacratic. Although the constitution of the party does say that Nick Griffin has ultimate final decision on all issues regarding the party. Thats the closest thing to fascism the party has written down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.82.53 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The closest statement to the BNP being fascist was John Tyndall's statement "Mein Kampf is my Bible". Can the leopard change his spots or the Ethiop his skin? I think you will find that most people who are not racists have a bias against the BNP. Even so Tyndall had the effrontery to deny being a fascist when he was heading up the National Front in the late 70s and they thought they were in with a shout electorally as the BNP currently imagine.

Look, I realise that Streona is not on most people's spellchecker, but try with the rest of the edit. Put it in the Add to Dictionary -Eadric Streona, "the refuse of mankind and a reproach unto the English" as Walter Mapp put it...--Streona (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tyndall said mein kamp is his bible when he was kicked out of the party. You cant use that quote as evidence of fascism. Well I will be pushing forward to have (denied by BNP) written on the article. Most people on here agree so it is going to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.33.136 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tyndall is dead now, the party has moved on a long way since then under Griffin, the party cannot be considered fascist, as it is a point of view and opinion. We can't even come up wit ha definition of fascism let alone going about a way of proving it, reliably.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do most people agree? The anonymous authors of several comments agree, but it's hard to tell how many people that represents because of dynamic IPs. My impression is that a larger number of people disagree, but many of them have less patience than Streona for arguing the same things repeatedly and have not been as vocal as he. Either way, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a proposal's relationship to policy is more important than the number of people who support it. You'll be more likely to receive support for the addition if you provide an argument for it based on a Wikipedia policy, which so far I haven't seen (apologies if I've missed it - this talk page is not the easiest to read). Olaf Davis | Talk 22:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the GA review will show the major flaws in this article and this debate personifies the problems with the article. It is a few owners of the article preventing the progression of the article I suggest holding a peer review by a completely disinterested party.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did put forward a proposal, which still stands, for critics to put a re-write in my user space so we could see what improvements they felt they could make, and answer came there non, which suggests to me a lot of critics don't have the good of the article actually in mind The offer still stands, though...--Red Deathy (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Tyndal was readmitted to the BNP in 2004 and was a member at the time of his death. May I also point out that edits I have made to the substantive article have been in the intersts of NPOV - such as removing the word "fortunately" from the phrase "the BNP has no memebers of parliament" and that edits on the Talk page are not necessarily connected with the article itself. The role of this page seems to be a back door for BNP sympathisers (and I do not suggest that Lucie-marie is one, as they are nearly all unnamed) to try to take down the fascist tag from the article for their own purposes.--Streona (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To suggest this is a right wing forum is absurd the only comments that I post and should ever be posted by anyone are on the content of the article. THis article needs completely deleting and a wholesale re-write of the article is needed, by a disinterested party in accordance with the policies and Guidelines of wikipedia or this article will forever be completely biased, POV and useless.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, tehre is a copy of the article at my user space if you want to completely re-write it there, so we can access the changes, and move forward by consensus (this will help protect page stability).--Red Deathy (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

BNP Representation and Record

I propose a new paragraph dealing with the record of BNP councillors etc. This features prominently in Searchlightwho have subjected them to minute analysis, albeit from a wholly negative viewpoint. This might also be an opportunity for displaying their objectively verified successes and excuses as to why they have none, which to be fair is often due to the degree of hostility and non-cooperation displayed to them by other councillors and staff as well as the personal shortcomings of the councillors themselves, plus the illegality of any policy intiatives that are racially discriminatory. There is also a high dropout rate ofIn this way we might be able to see how fascistic they are in practice when given the chance of power. It would be best if this could be in general terms as a list of every councillor is going to be far too long, but I foresee difficulties in achieving any consensus. --Streona (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is national socalism under political ideolodgies?

This should be removed because its simpley not true. There are no elements of national socalism within the party. They are a nationalist party and yes some of there economic policies are left wing but thats not enough to make such a bold and potentually offensive claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.71.48 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not offensive enough--Streona (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you don't want this article to be neutral, but do you really think such petty point scoring is of any benefit?--MartinUK (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am suggesting it is not offensive. Many BNP members hving a long record of political activities in the British Movement, International Third Position and alongside (or under) John Tyndall will find it complimentary. By suggesting that I want to be a dhimmi are you not doing the same? Nonetheless I apologise, since counter-allegation is not a logical riposte. Still thanks for an improved level of spelling.--Streona (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Streona. The BNP have a history of National Socialism. John Tyndall wore Nazi uniforms and Mark Collett has made supportive remarks towards Hitler. - VSrugbyfan —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So what thats two people. Just because Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform doesn't make the whole royal family Nazi or national socialist, stop tarring all with the same brush--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be seen in streona's talk page that she/he/it is a proponent of "hybrid vigour" when applied to humans a theory that could only be explained as two people of different races coming together to create a hybrid child which is apparently an improvement. So Streona is very much a racist. Hybrid vigour is like multicultural fascism as it is essentially a eugenics theory. Apparenty Heinrich Himmler gots his experience and qualifications with eugenics from breeding chickens. To apply Hybrid vigour to humans which is something taught to agricultural students reeks of the ideas of the third reich.

Multicult fascist or Multicultist seems appropriate enough tag for Streona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The BNP kicked Tyndall out for being to extreme, yet this is a good enough piece of evidence to call the BNP nazis? I think its discusting, and should be reassesed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.3.152 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He is also dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"The BNP kicked Tyndall out for being to extreme...." Not so. In 1999 he lost a leadership contest to Nick Griffin who briefly expelled Tyndall for a short time in 2002 for being disruptive. He was later reinstated. He was expelled again shortly befor his death, while facing charges of incitement to racial hatred jointly with Nick Griffin! After his death, the BNP described him as "excellent chap with a keen analytical mind". The fascism (not Nazism) of the BNP is evidenced not just from the political histories of the late John Tyndall but also from countless other members, but more importantly from its organisation, philosophy and policies. Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that racism is self-defeating and inbreeding does not lead to a master-race. I use the expression "hybrid vigour" as an example although I neither advocate nor oppose it- unlike Mr.Griffin who says that he against race-mixing. In what way "against" ? How would he and his supporters stop it ? As for being a multi cult fascist, I am not sure that even makes sense. Himmler got his experience of battery farming from chickens, which obviously came in handy in organising the Holocaust.When I go to your talk page 58.168.104.109 (although I do not think you even signed that without sinebot)- I find that you do not appear to exist prior to 0725 this morning. See Godwins Law.--Streona (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Streona you default to godwins law in every post. When ever anyone contributes to this page you are there waiting it seems always, to throw up some piece of ww2 history (which seems to be all from wikipedia) even if it is completely irrelevent to the bnp. Also it is deeply insulting to jews to hear the jewish experience used for peoples own ends stop doing it you racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Note : "I suggest that racism is self-defeating and inbreeding does not lead to a master-race." Pure racism right there. 1. You seem to be referring to the british as imbred or is this the wider "white" race that you seem to only acknowledge to insult. 2. Does this theory apply to other Distinct groups around the world or just "white" people. So your way would lead to a master race is what you are saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a way. There is probably insufficient variation in homo sapiens for any such development, but if there were the way of racial segregation advocated by the BNP -or swimming in the shallow end of the human gene pool- would not produce it and thus there is little point to their basic premise of racial separation and hatred. The British are not inbred but ethnically diverse. Some cultures do favour endogamy which can lead to hereditary defects, such as deafness, or the "Hapsburg lip".

In all this talk page I have once compared members of the BNP with the Brownshirts and the reference ton Himmler was in response to one of the sockpuppets. As for Godwins Law- this may be phrased disparagingly that one should not compare one's opponent to Hitler, but only by implication. In a discussion of fascism, obviously the terms of debate are going to be around this issue. But I'm not the one blubbing about being called a fascist. I am also not sure where there are any references to Jews on this talk page at all, apart from the edit saying that I keep referring to them. If I did I would use a capital letter.--Streona (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I point to this as yet another blow against the already fragile nature of British democracy, the article isn't anywhere near neutral, should the Labour Party have Marxism-Leninism listed in their ideology box? No, of course not because then the article wouldn't be neutral. It wouldn't surprise me if Gerry Gable vandalises this article on a daily basis. This country is pathetic, there is no freedom of speech, there is no freedom of assembly, there is no freedom of thought and there is no freedom of the press, Stalin would be proud of Brown's Britain-Tashkent Fox 13:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So you'd rather live under Hitler's Nazis than Brown? And no i'm not a Labour supporter before you start i am a Green Party supporter. - VSrugbyfan —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Labour Party has never ever been Marxist Leninist and has banned Communists from membership, whereas the BNP, although now seeking for its own purposes to distance itself was founded by John Tyndall specifically as a racist and fascist party. I do however share some of your views about the Labour Government which is becoming more right-wing and authoritarian and religious.--Streona (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree about the Labour Party becoming more right-wing, although the extreme left (such as Stalin) and the extreme right (like Hitler) always end up with a similar outcome, a totalitarian police state. Just because the BNP were once racist and had fascistic elements isn't to say the same is true now (Just for the record I am not a member of the party) Wikipedia must be neutral on all issues, to say that a political party is National Socialist without their admission is not NPOV-Tashkent Fox 15:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "to say that a political party is National Socialist without their admission is not NPOV". Not so. Using just their admission (or denial) is most definitely POV - the party's POV! We do not write that a certain football team is the best because they say so, no more than we say a mass murderer is innocent because he says so. This is an encyclopaedia, so descriptions etc need to be backed up from independent, reliable, academic sources and in this article they are. The BNP is not National Socialist or Nazi (though its antecedents and many of its founding members were). However, contrary to your assertion, it is still racist and not only still has fascistic elements within its membership but is unarguably fascist. (Incidentally, the LP has become more right wing.) Emeraude (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

May I cite Robert Mugabes page as a good NPOV article? Of course there will be racists in the BNP (As there are in any political party) the definition of Fascism you're using is very loose, the word has been taken so far out of it's proper Italian context over the last 60 years that it's not really a valid political label for anyone anymore. I noticed on your User Page that you're an Anti-fascist, Emeraude, well, given the antics of the 'Anti-fascists' at the BNP's Red, White and Bule festival you should be ashamed of yourself-Tashkent Fox 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tashkent - you can't say that all anti-fascists should be ashamed because of the actions of a few. If you accept that as valid, then it is equally valid to state that all BNP members are neo-Nazis. This is of course completely untrue. In any case, I digress. The BNP as a a whole are not National Socialists, simply because this carries inescapable connotations of Nazi-ism. However, they are fascist in nature. Even though the term popularily is misused, the fit the actual definition of fascism. In any case, Wikipedia takes verifiability before truth. Please provide an independent, third-party and verifiable source that states that the BNP is not fascist. --NeoNerd 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)